HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02021988 - T.6 �, ora T. 6
Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Coirty
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon,
Director of Community Development
DATE: 17 December 1987
SUBJECT: Subdivision #6443 (Alhambra Valley Ranch) - Hearing on revised Flood
Control Requirements Appeal. (S.D. II )
SPECIFIC REQUEST S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) 6 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Accept the previous environmental documentation as adequate for
the recommended modification.
2. Amend Condition #24-L as recommended in County Planning Commiss-
ion Resolution No. 35-1987.
I
BACKGROUND
Subdivision #6443 was approved for 17 5-acre lots subject to the
construction of a drop-structure at a proposed bridge crossing over
del Hambre Creek. The purpose of the drop-structure was to slow
down runoff during peak flow periods. However, following project
approval, Public Works Dept. , further evaluated soil conditions in
the creekbed and determined that a drop-structure might lead to
severe creekbank erosion. Such erosion would be potentially
damaging to the interests of abutting property owners.
In 1986 , at the recommendation of Public Works Dept. , the Planning
Commission deleted the drop-structure requirement and instead re-
quired the applicant to excavate an off-site regional detention
basin. The cost of the excavation could not exceed $45,000
At the same time, the Commission required the provision of erosion
control in the vicinity of the proposed bridge.
Subsequently, the Commission' s decision was appealed by the appli-
cant. The appeal challenged the requirement to make improve-
ments to stabilize the creekbanks because of the costs.
In November 1986, the Board of Supervisors referred the appeal
back to the County Planning Commission for additional review.
The Commission considered this matter in public hearings on April
. 7 and May 12, 1987. Attached is the staff report and transcript
of the May 12th hearing. Moreover, a number of meetings have
been conducted at the site involving the applicant, potentially
affected property owners and staff.
On May 12, 1987, the Commission further modified Condition #24-L.
Attached iq Resolution #35-1987, certifying the Commission's
action. The modification would provide that future owners of the
lots in Subdivision #6443 be notified of their responsibility to
share in the maintenance of the creekbank improvements. This
responsibility for creekbank maintenance would only extend to the
area within the road right-of-way to the subdivision.
CONTINUED ON ATTACffiKENT: YES SIGNATU
ACTION OF BOARD ON February . 19RR APPROVED AS RECOrII�DED _ OTHER
This being the time noticed for hearing by the Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors on this matter, the public hearing was opened and the
following people appeared to speak:
Milt Kubicek, Public Works Department, commented on the memo
dated February 2, 1988, presenting two additional clarification
points recommended by staff, maintenance in the condition 24L item and
the construction of improvements in the creek and the supervision of
those improvements, Exhibit A attached.
1.
Doug Flett, 1280 Civic Drive, Walnut Creek, applicant commented
'that agreement had been reached on this condition.
Supervisor Fanden questioned County Counsel on the notification
of property buyers relative to conditions on the property.
Victor Westman, County Counsel, advised that that was not a
condition of this development.
James Farr, resident on the road in question, commented that in
his opinion it was the intention of the Planning Commission to have
this condition run with the title of the 17 lots.
The public hearing was closed.
Supervisor Fanden moved to approve the staff recommendations.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT 5 ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Community Development Dept. ATTESTED
February 2, 1988
Attn: Robert Drake PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Flood Control District THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Douglas Flett & Associates AN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Deadhorse Ranch Investment Group o
Thiessen, Gagen & McCoy BYnA,. DEPUTY
2
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DATE: February 1988
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director
Ave;
SUBJECT: Deadhorse Ranch, Subdivision No. 6443 /
At 2 : 00 p.m. on February 2 , 1988, you will be conducting a hearing on
the referral from the Planning Commission regarding the Deadhorse
Subdivision in Alhambra Valley.
The Planning Commission approved a modification of condition No. 24-L
to provide rock slope protection in the natural creek in lieu of a drop
structure. Subsequent meetings with the developer and adjacent
residents has surfaced confusion, with regard to future maintenance
responsibility for the creek and bridge. We recommend the following be
included as a part of your approval of this item:
"All property owners using the bridge shall bear a prorate share
of the maintenance costs for the bridge, the creek improvements
located within the access road right of way, the retaining wall
system at the northwest corner of the bridge approach which is
located partially outside of the access road right of way, and
repairs to the adjoining slope of said retaining wall system that
might be necessary for wall stability."
The contractor's work on the subdivision improvements has been poor at
best. To insure that the creek work is done correctly and in a timely
fashion we recommend that your approval include the following
additional item:
"The construction of the creek improvements shall be performed
under continual inspection by the developer's engineer. Upon
completion of the work, the engineer shall certify, in writing,
that the work was performed according to the approved plans. "
MFK:md
dhrnh.t2
cc: County Administrator
County Counsel
Community Development Dir.
Resolution No. =35-3987
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE REQUEST TO MODIFY THE CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION #6443 , DEAD HORSE RANCH, IN THE
ALHAMBRA VALLEY AREA OF SAID COUNTY.
WHEREAS, a request by D.B. Flett & Associates
(Applicant) , and DEAD HORSE RANCH INVESTMENT GROUP (Owners),
to divide 121 acres into 17 lots in a General Agricultural
District (A-2) , was approved by the County Planning Commiss-
ion December 4, 1984; and,,
WHEREAS, on July 29, 1986, the County Planning
Commission adopted Resolution #50-1986 modifying condition
#24-L to require the provision of erosion control alon� he
banks of Alhambra Creek consistent with Coun "Apolicy; and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 1986, an appeal was filed by the
developer's representative Thiessen,Gagen & McCoy with the
Clerk of the Board, objecting to the revised condition; and
WHEREAS, on November 18,1986, the Board of Supervisors
referred the appeal back to the County Planning Commission
for review and report to the Board; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully
given to all parties who had previously registered their
interest in this matter, a public hearing .was held by the
County Planning Commission on Tuesday, April 7, 1987, and
continued to the meeting of May 12, 1987; and
WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission having fully
reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and
evidence submitted in this matter; and
NOW, THEREFORE, -BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planniftg
Comm scion recommends to the Board of Supervisors that the
Board.,G,RANT the appeal and amend Condition #24-L of the co*-
ditions of approval for Subdivision #6443, to read as
follows:
t
Resolution No.35-1987
+ -v, The applicant shall excavate a detention basin with
the cost of excavation not to exceed $45,000; or,
if excavation is not possible because Flood Control
District has not acquired rights to the basin, con-
tribute $0. 25 per square foot of added impervious
surface area designated for improvements in Drain-
age Zone 5.
.2.,- The south side of the creek bank shall be rock-
lined 40-ft. , upstream and downstream of the rock
slope protection being placed by the developer for
the outlet of the storm drains, approximately 115
feet of continuous protection. Grouted rock will
be used only where there is no other alternative
available. This work shall be subject to review
and approval of the Flood Control District and in
compliance with the stream-bank restoration policy
of the Flood Control District. (This policy
includes the requirement that the creekbank
improvements are to be maintained by the adjacent
property owners and that the property owners are to
provide the necessary rights-of-way. ) Covenants
shall be recorded,_ with the final map on parcels
adjoining the creekbank notifying prospective
buyers that they would be responsible for maintain-
ing the creekbanks. The notice shall stipulate
that as owner of a lot in the subdivision, they
will share responsibility for maintenance of the
creekbank improvements required as part of the
approval of Subdivision #6443 .
The instruction by the Planning Commission to prepare
this resolution was given by motion of the County Planning
Commission on Tuesday, May 12, 1987 , by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Davis, Feliz, Aiello,
Accornero, Best.
NOES: Commissioners - Whitney, Nimr.
ABSENT: Commissioners - None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
I, Linda P. Best, Chair of the Planning Commission of
the County of Contra Costa, State of California, hereby
certify that the foregoing was duly called and held in
accordance with the law on Tuesday, August 11, 1987, and
that this resolution was duly and regularly passed and
adopted by the following vote of the Commission:
-2-
Resolution No.35-1987
AYES: Commissioners - Davis, Feliz, Aiello, Accornero,
Whitney, Best.
NOES: Commissioners - Kathleen Nimr.
ABSENT: Commissioners - None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
Chair of .the Planning Commission,
Contra Costa County, State of
California.
ATTEST:
Secr y of th lanning Commission,
Contra Costa Co ty, State of California.
-3-
Community Development Contra Costa County
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1987 - 7:30 P.M.
Agenda Item # /
I. INTRODUCTION
REFERRAL FROM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SUBDIVISION 6443 (Dead Horse Ranch): This is a referral from the Board of
Supervisors regarding a proposed modification to flood control requirements
provided for Subdivision 6443. The subject property is located 1,000 feet
north of Alhambra Valley Road approximately 3,200 feet west of the Reliez
Valley Road in the Martinez area. ,
This matter was considered by the Commission on April 7 and continued to
this date in order that more information on soil conditions could be
provided.
II . RECOMMENDATION
Amend the condition as recommended by the Public Works Department.
III. BACKGROUND
This issue was considered by the Planning Commission on July 29, 1986, at
which time the Commission modified the flood control condition to require
that a road bridge substitute for a drop structure as a creek crossing.
On August 8, 1986, an appeal to the Board of Supervisors was filed by the
developer's representative, Thiessen, Gagen, and McCoy, objecting to the
revised condition. The Public Works Department responded to the appeal in
a memo dated September 19, 1986. On November 18, 1986, the Board of
Supervisors referred the appeal back to the County Planning Commission.
Attached are Commission Resolution #50-1986 and Letter of Appeal . Also
attached are relevant documents forwarded by the Public Works Department.
IV. ALHAMBRA VALLEY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
Attached is a letter dated December 18, 1986, from the Alhambra Valley
Improvement Association regarding modification of the condition.
2.
V. PROPOSED CONDITION
The Public Works Department is recommending that condition #24L. be revised
to read as follows:
24. L.
1. The applicant shall excavate a detention basin with the cost of
excavation not to exceed $45,000; or if excavation is not
possible because the Flood Control District has not acquired
rights to the basin, contribute $0.25 per square foot of added
impervious surface area designated for improvements in drainage
Zone 5.
2. The south side of the creek bank shall be rock-lined 40 feet
upstream and downstream of the rock slope protection being placed
by the developer for the outlet of the storm drains,
approximately 115 feet of continuous protection. This work shall
be subject to review and approval of the Flood Control District
and in compliance with the stream bank restoration policy of the
Flood Control District. (This policy includes the requirement
that the creekbank improvements are to be maintained by the
adjacent property owners and that the property owners are to
provide the necessary rights of way. )
BD:jn
sub4:6443.bd
3/26/87
5/5/87
Alhambra Valley Improvement Association
22 Wanda Way
Martinez, CA 94553
Linda Best, Chairman December 18, 198E
Contra Costa County Planning Cmmission
146 Via Copla
Alamo, CA 94507
Reference: County Planning Commission Draft Resolution #50-1985
Drainage Requirements For Dead Horse Ranch Subdivision
Dear Crrrussioner Best:
Recently, the Alhambra Valley Improvement Association held a regular,
general meeting. At this time the above resolution was discussed.
'he Alhambra Valley Improvement Association is against modification
of the drainaae requlraTents for the above subdivision and request
the c aimission enforce the conditions as previously stipulated to
by the applicant.
Sincerely,
)Iea7ntef-Lrensen
Secretary
Alhambra Valley Immrovenent Assoc.
JS/k.
cc:
c_z=ssioner Nimr
Public I%brks - Milt Kubicek
RESOLUTION #i50-?986
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE REQUEST TO MODIFY
THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON AN APPROVED
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (SUBDIVISION 6443)
WHEREAS, a request by D. B. FLETT AND ASSOCIATES (Applicant) and DEAD HORSE
RANCH INVESTMENT GROUP (Owner) , for approval of the tentative map of Subdivision
6443 to divide 121 acres in General Agricultural District (A-2) into 17 lots was
received by the Planning Department on February 22, 1984; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was prepared and
posted on July 20, 1984; AND
WHEREAS, after conducting several public hearings, the County Planning
Commission approved the tentative map for Subdivision 6443 on January 15, 1985
subject to conditions, as presented in Resolution #3-1985; and
WHEREAS, within the filing period provided by the Ordinance Code, the Alhambra
Valley Improvement Association appealed the County Planning Commission's
approval to the Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, the Board of Super-
visors scheduled public hearings on the appeal on March 26 and April 9, 1985,
whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and on April
9, 1985 denied the appeal of the Alhambra Valley Improvement Association and
directed the Director of Planning to prepare an order for the Board' s considera-
tion approving Subdivision 6443 and incorporating the findings and conditions
agreed upon by all parties; and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 1985 the Board of Supervisors adopted findings for
approval of Subdivision 6443 including revised conditions of approval ; Condition
0*24. L. provided for the construction of a road crossing of a creek with a drop
structure; and that the cost of said improvements could be credited against the
fee requirement for drainage improvements in the area; and
WHEREAS, in a memorandum dated May 15, 1986 to Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of
Community Development, J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director, requested that
a proposal to amend Condition #24. L. , so as to delete the requirement for a
drop structure, be scheduled for a hearing before the Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, at the suogestion of the Community Development Department staff, Milton
F. Kubiceck, Deputy Director of Public Works, reauested in a memorandum dated
June 11, 1986 that the proposed amendment to Condition 24. L. be scheduled for
hearing before the County Planning Commission; and
Resolution =50-1986
WHEREAS, in a letter dated June 19, 1986 to the Planning Commission from the
firm of Thiessen, Gagen and McCoy, counsel for the applicant, supported Public
Work's recommendation to delete the drop structure as requested by Condition of
Approval #24. L. ; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been given to the Alhambra Valley Improve-
ment Association and to owners of property within 300. feet of the subject site,
a public hearing was scheduled for the Tuesday, June 24, 1986 County Planning
Commission, whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard;
and at the conclusion of testimony received, the Planning Commission passed a
motion declaring their intent to amend the condition and continued the hearing
to the July 29, 1986 hearing; and
WHEREAS, a letter was received by the Planning Commission from the firm of
Thiessen, Gagen. and McCoy dated July 2, 1986 requesting reconsideration and
clarification of the action of the Planning Commission on June 24, 1986; and
WHEREAS, a memorandum dated July 24, 1986 was received by the Planning
Commission from the Public Works Department recommending that the Planning
Commission amend Condition #24. L. to delete the drop structure requirement;
and instead require either $17,000 in creek erosion control improvements or rock
riprap improvements, at specific points, along the creekbank; and retain the
provision for fee contribution for drainage improvements in the area (as
required by Condition #24. L. ) . and
WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and
evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission amends
Condition #24. L. of the Conditions of Approval for Subdivision 6443 to read as
follows:
24. L.
1. The applicant shall excavate a detention basin with the cost of
excavation not to exceed $45,000; or if excavation is not
possible because the Flood Control District has not acquired
rights to the basin, contribute $0.25 per square foot of added
impervious surface area designated for improvements in drainage
Zone 5.
2. Provide erosion control to the banks of the creek as extensive in
length as plus or minus 165 feet, subject to review and approval
of the Flood Control District and in compliance with the stream
bank restoration policy of the Flood Control District. (This
policy includes the requirement that the creekbank improvements
are to be maintained by the adjacent property owners and that the
property owners are to provide the necessary rights of way. )
-2-
Resolution =50-1986
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this amended condition are as follows:
1 . The soils along the creekbed may be subject to erosion of a drop structure
is used for creek crossing.
2. The measures containined in the amended condition will more effectively con-
trol the threat of creekbank erosion.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission FINDS that the heretofore
amended condition will not have a significant effect on the environment; and
The instruction by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was given by
motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, July 29_, 1986, by the follow-
ing vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Nimr, Feliz, Aiello, Davis.
NOES: Commissioners - Best, Accornero, Whitney.
ABSENT: Commissioners - None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
I , LINDA P. BEST, Chair of the County Planning Commission of the County of Contra
Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called and
held in accordance with the law on Tuesday, October 14, 1986, and that this resolu-
tion Was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the following vote of the Commiss-
ion:
AYES: Commissioners - Accornero, Aiello, Davis, Feliz, Nlimr,
Best.
NOES: Commissioners - None.
ABSENT: Commissioners - Juanita Whitney.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
G�.1/12�� ` •i cy�
Chair of the Planning Commission of
Contra Costa County, State of California.
ATTEST)
r tar t � P annin Commission of the
y g
County of ontr Costa, State of California.
".'AN o T.,E55EN THIE•SSEN, GAGED & McCOY
WILLIAM,E GAGEN JR
GREGORY L MCCOY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
MICHAEL W RUPPRECHT 279 FRONT STREET
PATRICK) MCMA-ON
M. SUE GREICAR P O. BOX 218 COUNSEL
MARK L. ARMSTRONG DANVILLE. CALIFORNIA 94526.0218 WILLIAM W BASSETT
LINN K. COOMBS JOHN B. CLAUSEN
MICHAEL W.CARTER TELEPHONE(4151 837-0585
VICTOR J CONTI TWX 910-385-4011
J.KENNETH GORMAN
JEFFREY G HANSEN ATTNDA NLAW
�
LINDA 0 HURST
BARBARA DUVAL JEWELL
CHARLES C.
g
KOSS August 7, 1986 "
CYNTHIA C. LOVE rT o�
Q
G
MICHAEL J.MARKOWITZ
STEVEN D MELLEMA
ALLAN C. MOORE
STEPHEN W. THOMAS
WILLIAM C. VENCILL !-
_ �7
Board of Supervisors -
Contra Costa County .�-
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553
Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL - Alhambra Malley Ranch, Sub. 6443
Contra Costa County Planning Commission
Decision July 29,. 1986
Dear Members of the Board:
Please accept this as a formal Notice of Appeal (pursuant to
Contra Costa County Code §26-2.2404 and §26-2. 2406) of the
decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on
July 29, 1986 concerning the removal of Condition 24.L. from the
Alhambra Valley Ranch project, Subdivision 6443 . Although the
Commission approved removal of the drop structure required by
Condition 24.L. , it imposed alternative conditions which are
felt to be inequitable and inappropriate.
As you know the issue here is the problem of flood control along
the creek. As part of a thorough study of that issue a year and
a half ago it was decided that a regional detention basin should
be created and each of the property owners developing property
in that area should contribute $ .25 per square foot of
impervious surface towards the cost of the regional detention
basin. That recommendation came from the Contra Costa County
Department of Public Works, Flood Control Division. This
condition was imposed upon the adjacent Stonehurst project and
was the condition originally imposed upon this project.
When the Alhambra Valley Ranch project was first before the
Planning Commission it had imposed the required $ . 25 per square
foot contribution (approximately $45, 000) as well as a small on-
site detention basin. The Planning Commission approved that on
a six to one vote (Commissioner Nimr opposed ) . The neighbors
r
1
~Board of Supervisors
August 7, 1986
Page 2
appealed that decision to the Board of Supervisors and the Board
asked the Flood Control District to investigate. The
recommendation out of Flood Control (to which requirement the
Applicant assented) was that instead of contributing the $45, 000
to the regional detention basin there would be a small drop
structure built in Alhambra creek with the understanding (though
not expressly spelled out in the condition) that the $45, 000
contribution would probably more than cover the cost of the drop
structure ; any monies remaining after payment of the drop
structure costs would apply to the regional detention basin. A
detailed study of the creek in that area had not been
conducted. The Board unanimously approved that modified
condition.
As the project proceeded towards construction Flood Control
staff investigated the situation and determined that:
(a) A drop structure here would not help mitigate erosion
but might in fact accelerate it;
(b) There could be substantial public liability if a large
drop structure were created because of :
(1) The very attractive nuisance that would be created
and the dangers it might impose to residents and
visitors to the area, and
(2 ) The inverse condemnation that would be involved
regarding increased creek erosion upstream because of
the specific geology of the area.
Accordingly the staff recommended last Fall the elimination of
the drop structure and all flood control experts have concurred
that a drop structure should not be created.
As a result, Application was made before the Planning Commission
to have the condition requiring a drop structure be eliminated
(the drop structure would have also served as the road access to
the project) and instead the developer would make the $45 , 000
contribution to the regional detention basin and be required to
construct a bridge across the creek to his project (as was
originally envisioned) . Your staff had strongly recommended
this and also requested that the developer either contribute an
additional $1, 000 per lot towards additional erosion prevention
or place some rip-rap in two erosion holes within the creek bed
near where his bridge will cross the to the creek. Recall that
t;ze project only involves seventeen houses .
3oard cf Supervisors
August 7 , 1986
Paae 3
At the Planning Commission hearing last week, the neighbors
opposed this project again (as they have consistently from the
beginning ) and requested no change in the conditions of
approval . They have consistently tried to stop any development
in this area -- they have instead requested that if the drop
structure is removed that the developer be required to create a
detention basin on the Stonehurst project and, in addition,
provide what could come to in excess of $100, 000 in stream flank
improvements adjacent to their parcels . Misstatements were made
to the Planning Commission, after the hearing was closed, to the
effect that the neighbors had previously supported this project
and also to the effect that the developer should be required to
spend up to $85, 000 for improving the stream banks since he was
not going to have to spend $85, 000 for a bridge. In fact the
applicant will be putting in the bridge since the drop structure
is removed. On a four to three vote the Planning Commission
(after refusing to allow the record to be clarified ) did the
following:
(1) Approved the removal of the condition requiring the
drop structure, but
( 2 ) Required the developer to either do excavation of a
detention basin on the adjacent Stonehurst property at
a cost of up to $45, 000 or , if such excavation is not
possible, then pay the $45, 000 regional detention basin
fee, and
( 3 ) Line the creek bed with rip-rap or any means found
effective by the Public Works Department of Contra
Costa County -- such lining to cover approximately 165
feet of creek bank, extending from 50 feet upstream
from the proposed bridge to a point 115 feet downstream
-- with no limitation on cost . Our cost estimates for
this range between $50, 000 and $200, 000 . All for ' a
seventeen lot subdivision.
It was County staff that originally requested the drop structure
and culvert to be funded out of the $45, 000 contribution towards
a regional detention basin. The Planning Commission has now
modified that to require not only that contribution but in
addition several times that amount as a potential additional
special mitigation for this project even though its flood
control contribution is agreed by all to be less than one
percent of the overall water coming into the watershed at that
point . Any stream bank improvements in this area will be
August 7 , 1986
Page 4
virtually useless 'and will provide an unreasonable special
benefit +to the adjacent property owners -- instead of using
those County monies for a regional flood control solution. Such
rip-ran or stream bank lining will aesthetically mar the creek,
be shocking to the environment and serve no County purpose -- it
simply (as one Planning Commissioner acknowledged) provides balm
to complaining neighbors .
By the Planning Commission ' s decision, it is further reopening
the whole issue of creek mitigation and seeking to impose
entirely new conditions. Such action is only appropriate if
physical conditions have changed so as to require changed
conditions of approval. Flood Control is advocating that the
previously imposed condition would physically be ineffective and
therefore must be changed. However , there was a previously
adequate and approved mitigation measure imposed by the Planning
Commission. The creek bed itself and the erosion problems have
not changed since the imposition of that original condition.
Therefore, the Commission has no legal basis on which to alter
the original fee payment condition in favor of one now
considered more pleasing to the complaining neighbors . The
Commission should feel bound by the Board ' s previous decision
unless physical conditions have changed. There have been no
physical changes, therefore, the mitigation measures cannot be
altered.
On the basis of the foregoing facts, the subdivider is entitled
to this appeal pursuant to Contra Costa County Code Section 26-
2 . 2404(b) ( 1 ) . Said section permits appeals by a subdivider ,
"from any decision concerning the tentative map, or the kinds ,
nature, and extent of improvements required for tine
subdivision. " As previously stated, the Planning Commission
decision concerns a condition approval for a tentative map and
imposes specific conditions and improvements on the subdivision.
Accordingly, the developer is entitled to an appeal before the
Board of Supervisors.
We appreciate your consideration in this matter and request that
said appeal be scheduled at the first meeting of the Board of
Supervisors in September .
Very tru y yours ,
Brian D. Thiessen
BDT:SDM:sba
CC: client
Tom Powers
Nancy C. Faizden
Robert I . Schroder
Sunne Wright McPeak
Torn Torlakson
Planning Department
02-17319
- •.i - .. > tai lsI�•
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DATE: April 27 , 1987
TO: Contra Costa Coun*Pla n Comr�ission
FROM: Milton F. Kubicek, De u y u i orks Director
SUBJECT: Deadhorse Ranch Subdivision - No. 6443
Attached is information we submitted to the Planning Commission on September
19, 1986. It contains a report by the soils engineer, Terra Search, Inc.
We plan to distribute this material to the property owners of Deadhorse
Ranch on April 27, 1987.
MFK:md
dhrinfo.t4
Attachment
J.Michael Walfo
-Contra Public Works Di:
Costa Public Works Department
County 255 Glacier Drive Milton F.Kub cei.
Martinez, CA 94553-4897 Deputy Director
Maurice E.Mitch,
April 27, 1987 Deputy Director
File: Deadhorse Ranch
Subdivision No. 6443
Charles Wood Hal Olson
5324 Alhambra Valley Road 22 Wanda Way
Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553
Jim Farr Terry & Kathleen Schwartz
5320 Alhambra Valley Road 5312 Alhambra Valley Road
Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553
Aldo and Irena Rocca Ruth Newman
4302 Alhambra Valley Road 127 Sheridan Lane
Martinez , CA, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Property Owners :
At the last Planning Commission meeting it was requested that we provide the
soils report on the erosion protection for the creek. Attached is a
complete copy of our submittal to the Planning Commission.
Very truly yours,
Milton F. Kubicek
Deputy Public Works Director
MFK:md
pcdhr.t4
Attachments - Report to the Planning Commission (September 19, 1986)
- Soils Report and Channel Plan (September 8, 1985)
- Report to Planning Commission outlining recommendations for
creek improvements (July 24, 1986)
- A copy of "A Review of Studies on Alhambra Creek and Its
Watershed , Past and Proposed ," including maps showing
proposed basin sites. (January, 1986)
- Letter to Mr. & Mrs. Farr commenting on -concerns of May 90,
1986 (June 4, 1986)
. a1
• s
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DATE: September 19, 1986
TO: Contra Costa County Plann ' g Commission
FROM: J. Michael Watford, Pub is Works Director
SUBJECT: Deadhorse Ranch Subdivision No. 6443
On July 23, 1986, the Commission considered a request by the Public Works
Department to delete the drop structure from the Conditions of Approval for
the Deadhorse Ranch Development. We recommended the drop structure be
eliminated, and that the developer instead be required to install
approximately $17 ,000 in rock slope protection in the creek. After hearing
testimony by the adjacent residents and concerned citizens in Alhambra
Valley, the Commission imposed upon the developer the condition of improving
160 feet of the channel with slope protection of some kind, to be determined
by the Flood Control District staff, and to be installed in accordance with
the Soil Conservation Service, Stream Banks Restoration Program conditions.
We have since met with the developer and his engineer at the site , to
explore what types of rock slope protection could be installed. We found
the creek to be a very narrow, steep channel with significant signs of
bedrock in the invert and sidewalls at many points. The steepness of the
creek side slopes preclude the use of loose rock riprap and grouted concrete
riprap as a single means of slope protection. We also determined that with
the numerous bends in the creek, the amount of trash and debris that comes
down the creek and the anticipated flow velocities, it is not desireable to
use gabions in this water course as slope protection.
As a result of the field meeting, we concluded that there are two possible
methods for completely protecting the 160 feet.
1) The entire channel could be excavated and rock slope protection could
be placed at 2:1 side slopes. This would involve removing all the
trees off of both banks and laying back the existing slopes which would
totally destroy the existing creek, or
b) The lower portion of the creek could be concrete lined. This would
involve installing soil anchors and rock bolts and ouniting the channel
to a depth of eight feet, providing a concrete surface that in many
cases would have side slopes steeper than 1 :1 .
;•Je believe the above solutions are unacceptable, in that they destroy the
existing creek environment. We believe the Alhambra Valley residents want
to preserve the natural creek as much as possible. We cannot give the
developer approval to implement either of these solutions without
concurrence by your Commission that this is what you really want.
During the site visit it was obvious that only portions of the creek art
suffering from erosion from the creek flows. A lot of the bank problems art
from upper bank failure due to surface runoff. The developer commissioned
soils investigation to substantiate our observations. We have enclosed
copy of his report prepared by Terra Search Inc. , dated September 8, 1986.
The report includes a map showing the areas and heights of the bedrock whic)
the soil consultant describes as less erodible, underlying rock.
Based on this information, we would .like to suggest that the revisec
Condition of Approval be modified to require the developer to' rock-line the
creek on the south side of the creek, 40 feet upstream and downstream of the
rock slope protection, being placed by the developer for the outlet of the
storm drains, approximately 115 feet of continuous protection. This woulc
insure that the south side of the creek, which is the major area subject tc
erosion from the channel flows, will be protected in the vicinity of the
bridge and immediately downstream of the bridge to the existing foot bridge.
In summary, we believe the condition of placing slope protection over the
entire 160 feet of creek at the crossing is impossible to perform withou
destroying the creek in the process. From the comments from your
Cormission, we do not believe this is your intent. We request that yoc
reconsider this matter and give staff direction as to what is an acceptable
solution. Due to the approach of winter and the desire of the developer anc
the adjacent residents to have the improvements installed before the winter
runoff begins, we would appreciate you considering this item as quickly a:
, possible.
JMW:I1FK:md
dhavcrk.t9
cc: H. Bragdon, Community Development
D. Jewett, Public Works
J. Murphy, Flood Control District
J. Kerekes, Public Works
D. Flett, Doug Flett & Associates
2
�aFr SOIL, FOUNDATION AND GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERS
DDI"11
D RD A
V r • /
1580 NORTH FOURTH STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95112-4676, (408) 287-9460
Project No . 5335-E
8 September 1986
Boatright Enterprises `
235 Main Street , -#8
Pleasanton, CA 94566-7322
Attention: Mr . Joe Boatright
Subject: Subdivision 6443
Alhambra Ranch
Alhambra Valley Road
Contra Costa County, California
ERODIBILITY STUDY
Gentlemen:
At the request of Doug Flett & Associates , Inc . , we have
undertaken a study Of the susceptibility to erosion of the
channel banks of Arroyo del Hambre Creek in the vicinity of
the proposed road crossing .
The proposed crossing is in a meander that bends northerly
into the hillslopes on the north side of the Alhambra Valley
for a distance of several 'hundred feet . Within this meander ,
the creek bottom has incised into bedrock, but the upper
portion of the south bank of the creek is cut in valley
alluvium. Bedrock in the site vicinity consists of tan to
grey-brown , highly fractured and jointed , interbedded clay-
stone , siltstone , and sandstone of Upper Cretaceous and/or
Lower Tertiary age . This material is less susceptible to
erosion than the overlying alluvium which consists primarily
of clayev silt with lesser amounts of silty clay and gravelly
sand . r
In the vicinity of the proposed crossing , the creek channel
is about 20 to 30 feet deep. The erosion of the lower 8+
feet of the channel banks is controlled primarily by the
rainy season stream flow and is most pronounced on the out-
side curves of the channel . The erosion of the upper por-
tions of the banks is primarily nillslooe mass wasting con-
trolled by hillslope sheet flow, soil saturation , and local-
i--:?d soil slumps .
11822 DUBLIN BOULEVARD, DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 94568, (415) 833-9297
Project No . 5335-E
8 September 1986
The erodibility of the bedrock material is not severe enough
to require protection. The erosion protection needs to be
considered only in those areas where the bedrock contact lies
below the high stream water mark. In order to assist in
'placing the required rip-rap, we have surveyed this bedrock
contact in the vicinity of the proposed crossing . This con-
tact is delineated on the attached plan (Figure 1 ) . The
encircled numbers are the estimated heights of the contact
above the stream bottom. In many locations , this height is
more accurately described as the height above the dry season
surface level of the stream water .
Should you have any questions or require additional informa-
tion, please contact our office at your convenience .
Very truly yours ,
Revie d� by: TERRASEARCF INC.
Tom S. Makdissy, . E. Richard Rowland , C. E. G.
Principal Engineer Senior Geologist
Copies: 1 to Boatright Enterprises
3 to Doug Flett & Associates
f r
I +
of
R I _ 7
1 1 ( �•�a•Q c i 3 »i
i
I REMOv£ £X/STING
1 $R/GIG£8 O/S DQS£ Ll "2
I OFF,$/T£�
wr ff's TAWJF! ° a<04
.rNr—t orrC ch T.q �� '1 1r a
rarszrOrlpCf
I 1 cts. ra —►� �r[tour[e[ errNe
£a[n'L
�'-I
If
�..•_—.1"�_�\ �� r i{ 1 �` _,� l t 'ter .�i � •�.
Jo .coo, T tzr4 V's I,J ' "tL e' /C)VO Ducrrte,nom•.,.
v-fog ��7 W/RfJ7RAn'l:0✓OIMTJ.
OS� ` t ppt�i � ..�;,.� tr'10•:1fA. J�--..�-, ,�f. :l+:G
•4GAt
efAM
uP U fL•rf7LD4upet �r ( —.10 Acp JO W.
)R[.vC•xtf P .,,,. •'CL FF watt ET '�Yr,/ rL\SArr M-
4
p•?4 \\, 09 t!
UPJ'' UK<CMWNYYR!A,t <.0/Y\ LiU;Ct 4-5 •• JA VL\
of e'FC r1 d°'RC W,rit~0
` r0� S.rGL i1' t oo,l. e..�•pe�r.r
CLF aJ' +ntJrrsrro�0..O+ror
ELL as*K✓
T.9PlDGrW,
.-.CAO>AN• , ` t »'`•��• r
� Q 1
rw
1
. \Od
n 1
c
Ln
m
2
i N
i)
u
R N �
l� G
n
:C" R
� ..F✓ S2 r..
$ < �, zr�
£
Ct
(U�
h (S to (I
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DATE: 3u1 v ?.a, 1986
T0: Contra Costa County Planning Co m'ssion
FROM: Milton F. Kubicek, D putt' Di ector, Operations and Flood Control
SUBJECT: Deadhorse Ranch Subdivision No. 5443 -
Proposed Condition of Approval Revision
In response to your Commission's suggestion, we met with the developer's
engineer and area residents on July 16, 1986 and July 23,. 1986 to discuss
mitigation measures that might be implemented if the drop structure is
1 deleted. The group did not reach a consensus on what should be done.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend one of the following options be required in lieu of the drop
structure condition:
a 1) The developer shall install creek erosion control improvements equivalent
to $17,000 in cost ($1,000 per lot) , or
2) The developer shall install rock riprap in the two washout areas
discussed with the residents at the July 23, 1986 meeting (one upstream
of the bridge on the north bank of the creek, and one downstream under
the south end of the existing pedestrian bridge) .
In addition, the developer is still required to pay to the County the $0.25
per square foot for the new impervious surfaces. This contribution , in
excess of $40,000, represents his share of the Stonehurst mitigation basin.
BACKGROUND
Our memo of June 11, 1986 (copy attached) explains how the drop structure
was added to the Conditions of Approval for this development , and why we
now recommend that it not be constructed.
The Deadhorse development creates large lots (5+ acres) which have a small
but accumulative impact on the peak flow in the natural creek. At the new
bridge crossing the peak increase in flow from the site into the creek is
approximately 20 cubic feet per second , which when calculating before and
after peak flows in the creek is less than a It increase. This increase is
insignificant, but it has an accumulative effect when considered with other
developments .
Recognizing this problem, we prepared the attached report , "A Review of
Studies on Alhambra Creek and Its Watershed , Past and Proposed ." The
report, which was presented to the Martinez City Council last year, indicates
our belief that the only meaningful way of mitigating for future urbanization
is to implement regional mitigation detention basins . The construction of
these basins would be funded by the new developments creating additional
impervious surfaces . The increase in drainage from the Deadhorse development
is a long-term accumulative impact and the appropriate mitigation is a
contribution to the long-term solution of regional , government maintained
mitigation basins.
The increase in storm water discharge from the Deadhorse development will
have a non-measurable impact on the existing, highly erosive creek. The
creek banks are very steep, and the longitudinal channel slope_ is in excess
of 3%. There are numerous points of bank failure as one would expect in a
creek environment of this kind. Fortunately, the creek bottom appears to be
relatively stable in the vicinity of the bridge, and the erosion appears to
be mostly the side slopes and the upper bank areas where the slopes are
steeper than 1-1/2:1. The bridge and its abutments will be founded on
rock.
There is some question in my mind as to the extent of erosion mitigation
that the Deadhorse development should have to bear. Other developments in
the Alhambra Creek Watershed are not being required to address off-site
erosion problems in the natural creek. However, due to the fact that there
will be a small increase in flows into the creek, and that the regional
mitigation basin may not be installed for several years , as it is tied in
with the Stonehurst development, we believe imposing one of the erosion
improvement conditions specified above is appropriate.
Everyone must realize that Alhambra Creek and its tributaries are erosive
creeks above the immediate downtown area. These creeks will continue to
erode, and the banks that are already too steep will continue to fail until
they reach a point of equilibrium. This process will exist at the Deadhorse
Subdivision crossing site until someone completely rebuilds this reach of
creek.
MFK:md
pc7.25.t7
Attachments (3)
cc: Harvey Bragdon , Community Development Dir.
Doug Flett, Engineer, D. B. Flett & Associates
Joe Boatright, Developer, Alhambra Valley Ranch, Inc.
L�A
( n rr. r.�c:nrt:xINC
FL.LTT K ASSO CIAT[5. INC. C - 0f1 ,Ciro) Lanc, Suirc '_0''i. L:ifjyctrc, (alifurnia 945-19 (.415) 283-0231
April 14, 1987
Milton Kubicek
Contra Costa County
Public Works Dept .
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez , CA 94553
Dear Milton,
Following the Planning Commission meeting of April 7th , I visited
the site, reviewed the Geology Report , and the instructions given
the contractor for placement of the rip rap in the creek . This
has confirmed our previous conclusion that installation of rip
rap erosion protection on both sides of the creek over the full
165 ft . length currently required by the condition of approval is
impossible without either regrading the creek or installing
concrete gunite lining on the bottom 8 ft . of the existing banks.
The erosion protection outlined in your memorandum of September
19, 1986 has been installed . The installation was performed
prior to the construction of the new bridge and was inspected by
the Public Works Department . As far as I know, the erosion
control has been satisfactorily installed .
The property owners concerned have been kept appraised of the
construction and installation of the erosion protection. The
work has been done with their prior knowledge. Mr . Rocca granted
our contractor a right of entry to enter upon his property and
install the rip rap in areas outside of our existing easement .
We were told by second hand information that Mr . Wood was
agreeable to having the rip rap placed on the bank as far :-:e=_t a
an existing pipe installed on the creek bank . As this location
is at the property line no right of entry was required .
The erosion protection required by the current condition is not
recommended by the geologist and is impossible to perform without
destroying the creek in the process. The erosion protection
recommended in your memo of September 19, 1986 has been installed
with the full knowledge and cooperation of the affected property
owner .
Si e el
DouglA B. Flett
TINNING & D1=LAP
CHARLES A. WOOD, JR. ATTORNEYS AT LAW T. H. DELAP II88S-19741
JAY P. SANDERS' A PARTNCR5HIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION A. B. TINNING 11887-19651
KEITH HOWARD
ANTHONY W. HAWTHORNE 1299 NEWELL HILL PLACE, SUITE 300 OTHER OFFICES
NANCY J. CASALE WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 RICHMOND CALIFORNIA
LISA A. WEGER 14151 935-0700
KENDALL A. LAYNE
MAILING ADDRESS
'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION P. 0. BOX 5246
L
August 10 , 1987' -
Contra Costa County Planning Commission -
Community Development Department (Robert Drake)
651 Pine Street
Martinez , CA 94553
Re : Subdivision 6443
Dear Commissioners :
From time to time I have been invited to attend on-site
meetings with the developer of Alhambra Valley Ranch , neighbors
and Mr . Kubicek regarding condition #24-L , which deals with
erosion control along creek banks at the subdivision property.
Presumably the invitation was made to me because my property lies
adjacent to and westerly of the entrance to the subdivision , the
rear line being somewhere in the Alhambra Creek .
The purpose of my writing you this letter is to tell you
that the repeated diminishing of condition #24-L from the
original "drop structure" to the placement of loose rock to a
height which is not necessarily consistent with the high water
flow in that area is obviously at the developer 's request, albeit
for the protection of the developer 's bridge and creek embankment
thereunder . It is not entirely clear to me just how many lineal
feet of the south side of the creek westerly from the right of
way is involved with my property . Suffice it to say that it is
very minimal and at the request of the developer I offered a
proposed form of license to perform the work , but there has been
no response to this offer .
I have now received a copy of a letter to the Planning
Commission from the deveioper 's attorneys stating , in the next to
last paragraph , that property owners with creek bank property
adjacent to the developer 's right-of-way will be responsible for
the maintenance of all improvements to the creek banks installed
by the developer . Please be advised that this statement is
completely untrue as to my property . I have no intention of
assuming the developer ' s maintenance burden for the benefit of
TINNING S. DELAP
Page Two
August 10 , 1987
its improvements and creek crossing . Furthermore , I have no
intention of creating an easement for the benefit of the
developer .
I don 't think there is any argument that the existing rock
placed in the creek channel by the developer was improperly done
and for this reason, among others , I do not intend to assume the
cost of somebody else 's negligence . Also , to the extent that any
of the existing rock has been placed upon my property, it was
done without my permission .
As I said before, I am willing to provide a limited license
for the purpose of installing the rock needed to protect the
developer 's crossing and I would be willing to provide another
license at the time any maintenance of the rock placement is
required . Otherwise , I do not wish to assume the developer 's
burdens for the use and benefit of the developer 's subdivision .
Very truly yours ,
CHARLES A. WOOD, JR. J
CAW/7lc u
CC . Aldo Rocca , et ux .
James Farr , et ux .
Steven D . Mellema, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF
BRIAN D THIESSEN THIESSEN, GAGEN & -IcCOY
WILLIAM E.GAGEN.JR A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
GREGORY L MCCOr
279 FRONT STREET
PATRICK J.McMAHON
M.SUE GREICAR PO BOX 218 OF COUNSEL
MARK L ARMSTRONG DANVILLE CALIFORNIA 945260218 WILLIAM W.BASSETT
LINN K COOMBS JOHN B CLAUSEN
TELEPHONE 14151 8370585
MICHAEL W CARTER TELEX!353433
VICTOR J CONTI FAX;.1151 8385985
ROBERT M.FANUCCI
RICHARD FRANKEL
JEFFREY G.HANSEN
BARBARA DUVAL JEWELL
CHARLES A.KOSS
CYNTHIA LOVE MAREK
MICHAEL J.MARKOWITZ
STEVEN D.MELLEMA
ALLAN C.MOORE August 31 , 1987
DIANE J.MORIN
EVELYN SPIROU '-
STEPHEN W THOMAS —_
Mr . Karl Wandry, Director
Community Development Department _
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street
Martinez , CA 94553
Re: Dead Horse Ranch/Alhambra Valley
Ranch Subdivision No. 6443
Dear Karl :
For more than a year now County Flood Control , the developers of
Alhambra Valley Ranch, neighboring landowners , and the Community
Development Department have been trying to resolve the issue of
the flood control drop structure, Condition No. 24-L, in the
Dead Horse Ranch/ Alhambra Valley Ranch subdivision conditions
of approval . Time is becoming critical and final action by the
Board of Supervisors needs to be expedited.
Back in June of 1986, Flood Control proposed modifications to
Condition 24-L. The proposed modifications met with opposition
from surrounding landowners for a number of reasons. The
Planning Commission at that June, 1986, meeting, asked the
property owners, the developer, and Flood Control to work out an
acceptable resolution and return that to the Planning
Commission. Meetings were held on July 16 and July 23 of 1986 ,
to determine appropriate mitigation measures. No consensus was
obtained. The issue then came back to the Planning Commission
on July 29 , 1986 . The Planning Commission approved the spirit
of the modification. The approval, however, left the actual
determination of necessary improvements to Flood Control .
This decision of July 29, 1986, was appealed by the developer to
the Board of Supervisors. On November 18, 1986 , the Board
referred the issue back to the Planning Commission.
Mr . Karl Wandry, Director
August 31 , 1987
Page 2
Finally, on May 12 , 1987 , the Planning Commission approved the
conditions proposed by County Flood Control. The language from
the May 12, 1987 Planning Commission meeting was incorporated in
the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission on August 11,
1987 . During the period between the approval and the adoption
of the resolution, the property owners, the developer , and Flood
Control met at the bridge site to make sure there was an
understanding of what needed to be done. Our office also made
clear what language was necessary for the resolution.
Nevertheless, in the resolution as passed, there is ambiguity
that needs to be clarified so that the resolution can quickly
pass to the Board of Supervisors .
The particular concern with the resolution is exactly who are
creek bank owners and what are the responsibilities toward
maintaining the creek improvements. The approved resolution is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A. "
This Condition must now go to the Board of Supervisors for final
approval because the Board of Supervisors had referred it to the
Planning Commission for a determination to. then be approved by
the Board. The uncertainty with regard to the exact meaning of
the maintenance conditions has placed the condition in limbo.
It has not been scheduled for the Board of Supervisors , yet it
is imperative that it be done as quickly as possible. The
developer must do necessary improvements to the creek bank
before the rainy season begins. The only way those improvements
can begin is if the Board of Supervisors finally approves the
condition. We are really in need of Board of Supervisors '
approval in the quickest possible manner .
In order to expedite this approval we propose that Condition 24-
L, as it is now written, go directly. to the Board of Supervisors
.and that the Community Development Department ' s staff report
reflect clarification of certain terms within the condition.
Our concern is with the parenthetical sentence, ( "This policy
includes the requirement that the creek bank improvements are to
be maintained by the adjacent property owners and that the
property owners are to provide the necessary rights-of-way. " )
It is our understanding that "adjacent property owners" means
all of the owners of the creek . This includes the creek
easement owners as well as the homeowners that actually own
creek property. Each owner maintains their own creek
property. We believe this approach was approved by the Planning
Commission but not clearly incorporated into the Resolution.
Mr . Karl Wandry, Director
August 31 , 1987
Page 3
Similarly, the next sentence, "Covenants shall be recorded with
the final map adjoining the creek bank notifying perspective
buyers that they would be responsible for maintaining the cFeek
banks . " , means that the final map for the Alhambra Valley Ranch,
Subdivision No. 6443, must indicate that restrictive covenants
for each of the properties within the Alhambra Valley Ranch will
be recorded notifying the prospective buyer that they are
responsible with all other easement owners for maintaining the
creek bank which they own, that is the sixty (60) foot creek
easement over which the entry bridge and roadway pass. We think
this intent is clear from the following sentence of Condition
24-L which states that, "The notice shall stipulate that as
owner of a lot in the subdivision they will share responsibility
for maintenance of the creek bank improvements required as part
of the approval of Subdivision No. 6443 . " That is, the Alhambra
Valley Ranch property buyers will share responsibility for
maintaining the creek bank improvements on their property.
Their property being the sixty ( 60 ) foot creek easement over
which they have a property interest . The creek bank
improvements on other people ' s property will be maintained by
the owners of that creek bank .
Additionally, the owners of lots within the Alhambra Valley
Ranch will be responsible for maintaining the existing retaining
wall which supports the road in the easement . That maintenance
is not specified in the condition, but is understood, by the
developer and is in truth an existing legal responsibility of
the owners of the easement so long as the maintenance is
necessary to preserve the easement .
Our concern is that some neighboring property owners still want
to fight the development and will contend that Alhambra Valley
Ranch, by modified Condition 24-L, must actually maintain all of
the improvements that Alhambra Valley Ranch installs, whether
that improvement is on Alhambra Valley Ranch property or not .
This just is not the case and was never the intention of the
Planning Commission nor Flood Control .
We had proposed to all the property owners they sign a letter of
interpretation and submit that letter to the Planning Commission
prior to actual adoption of this language. An attempt was made
to obtain such a response from all of the owners , but once again
some owners recognized an opportunity to delay the project and
have failed to respond. What we need now is quick action on the
part of the Community Development Department and the Board of
Mr . Karl Wandry, Director
August 31, 1987
Page 4
Supervisors to approve this condition with the proper under-
standing of its meaning. Alternatively , the Board could adopt
a different Condition 24-L incorporating language to clairfy4the
requirements of Condition 24-L as passed by the Planning
Commission. Such -a proposed revised Condition 24-L is attached
hereto as Exhibit "B" .
Thank you for your consideration of this matter . We look
forward to your response in the very near future.
Ve y t ly yours,
ark L. Armstrong
MLA/SDM/ct
02-17319
cc: Bob Drake
Milton Kubicek
Doug Flett
Sandy Barnett
ALTERNATIVE CONDITION 24-L
1 . The applicant shall excavate a detention basin with the
cost of excavation no to exceed $45,000; or if excavation is not
possible because Flood Control District has not acquired rights
to the basin, contribute 25C per square foot of added impervious
surface area designated for improvements in Drainage Zone 5 .
2 . The south side of the creek bank shall be rock lined 40
feet , upstream and downstream of the rock slope protection being
placed by the developer for the outlet of the storm drains ,
approximately 115 feet of continuous protection. Grouted rock
will be used only where there is no alternative available. This
work shall be subject to review and approval of the Flood
Control District and in compliance with the stream bank
restoration policy of the Flood Control District . (This policy
includes the requirement that the creek bank improvements are to
be maintained by the owner of that improved creek bank . )
Covenants shall be recorded with the final map for Subdivision
6443 notifying prospective buyers of lots within Subdivision
6443 that those lots individually share responsibility for
maintaining the 60-foot creek easement improvements and
retaining wall supporting the roadway with all owners of the 60-
foot creek easement .
s
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 May 1987 - Tuesday
Pursuant to notification, the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission met for a regularly scheduled meeting at 7 : 30 P.M. , in
the Board of Supervisor' s chambers, County Administration Building,
651 Pine Street, Martinez, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present were Planning Commissioners: Emil Accornero, Louise P.
Aiello, Leslie K. Davis, George C. Feliz, Kathleen Nimr, Juanita
Whitney and Linda P. Best.
Present from the Community Development Department Staff were: Karl
L. Wandry, Mary Fleming, Robert Drake, James Kennedy, Arthur
Beresford, Steven Wright, Milton Kubicek of Flood Control District
and the Recording Clerk.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
REFERRAL FROM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SUBDIVISION: CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBDIVISION #6443 (DEADHORSE RANCH)
This is a referral from the Board of Supervisors regarding a
proposed modification to flood control requirements provided for
Subdivision#6443 . The subject property is described as being
located approximately 1, 000-ft. , north of Alhambra Valley Road with
access from a private road located between #5302 and #5324 Alhambra
Valley Road: Martinez area. (Continued from 4/07/87 ) RD/ASA
MR. WANDRY: Milton Kubicek of Flood Control District will present
this item to your Commission.
MR. MILTON KUBICEK: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, you
will remember that at the last hearing you requested additional
information on the totals at the site and the proposal that we had
of just rock lining the south bank of the creek (complaints from
audience of not being able to hear Mr. Kubicek) .
CHAIR BEST: Perhaps you can use that microphone, Mr. Kubicek.
MR. KUBICEK: As you will recall, at the last hearing, you wanted
additional information on the soils report which was a two-page
report indicating where the developer' s soil engineer felt the rock
line was in the creek bed. Since then, we also met with---we
provided that information to your Commission and to the property
owners at the bridge crossing who also met with Supervisor Fanden
and the property owners, the contractor, the developer, the
developer' s engineer at the site and reviewed the matter about a
week and a half ago and last Wednesday, two members from the Flood
Control District staff and our construction division met with the
Developer ' s engineer and the soils engineer for the developer and
Mr. Paul Siedleman who is a semi-representative, I think, of one of
the property owners.
As a result of that meeting in the field, we indicated to the
developer and to Mr. Siedleman, what we felt should be done in the
creek and that' s presented in the paper we submitted to you
tonight. we 've also provided a copy of that memo to several of the-
property owners who are here tonight.
The proposal was the same as far as---we feel it ' s the south bank
of the creek as shown by these sections here. , Let me explain the
sections to you real quickly.
The creek here is shown coming at you. You are looking basically
upstream. The brown line basically shows the banks of the creek.
This section here is upstream basically in the vicinity of the
existing bridge of the storm drain pipe and the lower section here
is downstream by the foot bridge that goes across Mr. Rocka' s
property.
The orange line shows approximately where the rock line is under-
neath and our contention is that this is the main failure in this
area in here is because the bank gets heavy and slides down the
rock incline. Protecting the toe here isn' t going to solve-'this
upper problem. It' s going to keep some of this from weathering and
wearing and it ' s going to wear and weather over time; but, it' s a
slow process. If you notice on the south side of the creek which
is this side over here, there is some rock protruding but down in
here where in fact the bank has failed quite a bit underneath the
pedestrian bridge, there is no rock and the high velocity and steep
grading of the creek is causing the erosion on that side where in
fact there is no hard material or semi-hard material which is
represented by the orange to keep it from eroding.
Short of reconstructing the entire creek, we feel this is the least
disruptive to the creek that will ensure that the bridge will be
safe and that some of the problems in the vicinity of the bridge
crossing are fixed.
We can fix the entire creek once and for all and that would be to
put in a concrete lining or something very permanent; but, we' re
talking about starting at one end and working our way down. We
don' t believe that is what the community wants as a whole. The
only other alternative other than putting in this rock that' s here
is if we want to build a conventional rock-lined channel with
stable rock slopes, we would have to shave these banks here so in
fact we could get the rock to stand.
That, then, would take the vegetation off the top of the bank. The
other alternative would be to put gunite or something in the lower
portion of the creek and that also would protect it from any
erosion.
Another alternative that is very extensive and probably the only
way you could save the trees that are there is to gut out the whole
bottom part of the creek and line it with gabian cages. That,
along with the shaping of the entire creek is a significant
project and that ' s why we' re back here. We want to know exactly
what you want. We don' t want to do something that somebody' s- going
to come back later and say, well, you tore up the creek; you
destroyed the creek. We 're criticized for not being environ-
mentally sensitive and we don' t want to get into that predicament
here.
With that, I ' d like to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIR BEST: I have one question. The points in the memo that you
gave to us this evening, do those necessitate any change in the
condition you' re recommending?
MR. KUBICEK: No. Well, let me retract that. There are two small
rock pockets on the north bank that are right in this area where
this soil mass has come down and it' s overhanging this a little bit
and we' re saying to streamline that, we're suggesting those rock
pockets be put in---I think those rock pockets are something more
related to the drainage pipe that the contractor put in and it has
since causes a little bit of the over-mantle material to erode.
We' re saying, let ' s try and preserve this as long as possible by
packing it in. Everything you do in the creek in terms of a
temporary improvement is just that---it is just a temporary
improvement and it has to always be maintained even where we build
conventional channels, we have to maintain them; we have to desilt
them; we have to repair the banks. We spend approximately half a
million dollars a year maintaining the channels that we in fact
construct. Natural channels, it' s even worse because they' re so
unpredictable. So, we' re suggesting that to give this bank a
little more life, we would go ahead and pack back that rock pocket
right there.
CHAIR BEST: Are there other questions?
COMMISSIONER NIMR: Wasn' t the original condition, and that was
what we had discussed the last time, the preferable condition was
obtaining the detention ponds on the property or on the Stonehurst
property. Is that option just closed?
MR. KUBICEK: No. That option is still very much alive. It is our
intent to implement the Stonehurst detention basin as soon as we
can get the developer to donate the right of way. If we can get
the developer to donate the right of way and once it settles down
as to who owns the property---because I understand they' re in
bankruptcy or something of that sort or they' re in the process of
refinancing the property in some fashion, if we can get the right
of way, we would suggest that the money that comes in from
Deadhorse, the $45, 000 be used to go up to Stonehurst and start
that process. So, with Stonehurst, with Deadhorse, we see that
basin as being installed and we' re very optimistic about it. We' re
also looking at working out an arrangement with East Bay Regional
Park District, across the street if we can, to enlarge the basin
and actually create what we feel would be an open space of wild
life area where it could serve a duel purpose---open space and
provide additional detention.
COMMISSIONER NIMR: What you' re proposing then is that they
contribute the $45 , 000 and that' s about it because what they've
done they' re already done;, that the $45,000 would be used specifi-
cally for that purpose rather than going in with the City of
Martinez and their projects?
MR. KUBICEK: The $45 , 000 is in the condition of approval and that
would---that ' s the 25 cents per square foot of impervious surface,
that money would be combined with Stonehurst; would be combined
with money the City has already collected and the County would have
collected on any of the developments in the area that were required
to put up that money and we would then implement a regional
detention facility that would serve both the County and the City
areas. That ' s the plan we' re developing.
COMMISSIONER NIMR: So, you plan to do it that way. One of the
complaints I think I 've heard is that all the developments in the
creek area are not having to pay that fee. Are we doing that
pretty consistently now?
MR. KUBICEK: In the Alhambra Valley area, I think the Deadhorse
Ranch and possibly one other development are the only developments
that have been approved out there in the last 18 months that we are
aware of .
COMMISSIONER NIMR: Don' t we impose it on other smaller develop-
ments or only on major subdivisions?
MR. KUBICEK: It should be on all developments and I 'm not aware of
another other developments or minor subdivisions that have been
heard recently that have been approved.
COMMISSIONER NIMR: Ah, yes, but theoretically, they should have
the fee as well.
MR. KUBICEK: At the time of passing of Stonehurst and Deadhorse,
it was pretty much established that all developments in the
Alhambra Valley would pay the minimum contribution to infra-
structure of $17 , 000 per lot and I believe that ' s still the policy.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Mr. Kubicek, at the last meeting on April 7th,
I have a note---and I don' t remember if it was brought up in the
public hearing or not, relative to adding a deed notification to
the purchasers of Subdivision #6443 that they're purchasing a lot
that shares responsibility for the maintainable of the creekbank
improvements required as part of the approval for this subdivision.
Did we discuss this at the last hearing or is that just something
that---
MR. KUBICEK: I believe there was some discussion at the meeting
and I believe the developer' s representative said something about
it and I believe Mr. Farr suggested that the creek improvements be
maintained by the owners of the bridge---it' s a group. I believe
the developers are receptive, including the creek work within the
road right of way as a part of the bridge. I believe they' re
agreeable to that. Whether they would be agreeable to or you
wanted to impose on them whether they were agreeable or not, the
entire maintenance of the improvements, I think that ' s something
you would have to consider.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS: But, it ' s not part of your recommendation?
MR. KUBICEK: I would think that the improvements within the road
right of way underneath the bridge should probably be included with
the bridge as a part of the bridge just like the storm-drain pipes
that come down the right of way there and discharge into the creek
and the concrete headwalls are in the creek are considered part of
those private improvements. So, the maintenance agreement for the
bridge should probably address all those improvements when it ' s
written up and the work within the creek within the confines of the
right of way would be very appropriate to include that as part of
the facilities being maintained.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FELIZ: Mr. Kubicek, according to the letter from Mr.
Flett dated April 14th, the second part of the revised condition
has in effect been done at least in reference to the rock lining of
the 40-ft. , up and down stream. Is that your understanding?
MR. KUBICEK: No. There are significant corrections that need to
be done to the rock. Most of the rock is undersized and needs to
be replaced or redone in some fashion to assure us that in fact the
size of the rock is not going to go down stream. If you look at
our memo, one of the things in the first item alludes to the rock
being too small and the suggestion is there that we felt that the
use of concrete grout was not in our purview to say yes or no and I
have directed staff that I believe it is in our purview to say no
to grouting the undersized rock. We feel that would not be in
keeping with what you want done in the creek; it would be contrary
to what we've been talking about for the last 9 months. We' re not
receptive to grouting of the rock on the south . bank because the
contractor used rock too small.
The rock pockets on the north bank and where they've had to put
rock in and around the outlet structure and the only way you can
hold that rock in there would be with grout then we feel that ' s the
only alternative and, therefore, it should be allowed in those
instances but it should be minimized. That' s the approach we' ll
take.
COMMISSIONER FELIZ: I assume you' re referring to the memo that was
on the desk this evening?
MR. KUBICEK: Yes , I am.
COMMISSIONER FELIZ: I haven' t had the opportunity to read that.
Thank you. The other sentence may cover this in effect---may cover
the conditions you already mentioned:
"This work shall be subject to review and approval of the Flood
Control District and in with stream-bank restoration
policy of the district. " So, in effect, your memo is carrying out
this particular provision in the revised condition?
MR. KUBICEK: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER FELIZ: Thank you.
CHAIR BEST: Any further questions? If not, then we ' ll hear from
the applicant
MARK ARMSTRONG, Attorney, Thiessen, Gagen & McCoy, 279 Front
Street, Danville, California, representing the applicant. -I ' ll be
brief because since I think Milt accurately stated the circum-
stances.
With respect to the deed notification that Commissioner Davis
brought up, I ' ll confirm what we said last time. We ' re in agree-
ment with that.
As to the obligation to maintain, we agree with Mr. Kubicek that it
would be appropriate to require the homeowners to maintain the
system with the maintenance agreement the area within the right of
way. Beyond that, there really isn' t any relationship between this
project and that additional improvement that ' s being done that
would justify those homeowners continuing to maintain a common area
of the creek---well, an area of the creek that' s owned by another
party essentially and they have no access to.
With respect to the review and redoing of the rock that has already
been placed by the contractor, we' re aware of that condition as a
result of going out to the site with Mr. Kubicek and others after
that letter was written by Mr. Flett and we will work to comply
with that condition and note that the condition requires approval
of whatever placement of rock and erosion measures that are
required to be approved by the Flood Control District. That ' s
really a question of compliance and we will have to comply with
their requirements in order to obtain a final map approval.
I would note that Condition #1 that staff is recommending that you
provide for in Condition---as part of Condition#24-L ( 1) , that is
the general condition that is being applied in the Alhambra Valley
area and you recall about a year or so ago, that was the result of
a lot of meetings and a general consensus in terms of a master
detention flood control plan for the area and a general condition
of approval that would apply to any developments that come through.
Number 2 is really an extra specific improvement or requirement
that goes to this property in particular and in that regard are not
related and we are doing something extra as Condition #2 we are
going to be complying with Condition #1 , of course, is one of the
other developers in the area. At this point, as I understand it,
in terms of that general condition being applied to all development
in Alhambra Valley, I don' t believe that it has been provided for
as an ordinance of any sort that would be applicable to building
permits being issued, so I suspect that there were any single
family lots that yet to be built on at this point and don' t require
entitlements such as a subdivision and it would not be applicable
perhaps that ' s the reference of Commissioner Nimr has. That can be
remedied by ordinance but you simply can't propose a condition on a
lot that has already been approved and simply a building permit has
yet to be issued so that could be the problem some people have
expressed an opinion about. If any one has any questions, I would
be happy to try to answer them.
CHAIR BEST: Are there any questions?
MARK ARMSTRONG: Good. Thank you.
CHAIR BEST: Thank you Mr. Armstrong. We ' ll hear from anyone to
speak in support of this application. Any in opposition?
JAMES FARR, one of the property owners in the Deadhorse Ranch
Subdivision. Good Evening.
CHAIR BEST: Mr. Farr could you speak directly into the microphone
so everyone could hear.
JAMES FARR: Yes, my name is James Farr and I am one of the
property owners. I 'm a little in the dark tonight. We had a
meeting out there with Nancy Fanden and most of the representatives
and I was just handed this information this evening by Mr. Milton
Kubieck. I had very little time to read it and really don' t
understand what he is talking about. I appreciate it if we would
continue this and have an opportunity to digest this information,
find out where it ' s coming from, what the developer has to redo,
what' s in there that is not right, and just find out what this all
means. In regards to the ----agreement to protect the bridge creek
crossing and the areas underneath the creek, originally this
subdivision was approved- with 165 lineal feet of creek improve-
ments. If Mr. Kubieck and the soils engineers don' t feel this bank
should be tested at this time, it should be left alone and
originally everybody said that 165 feet of creek improvements were
needed and necessary, I like to extend those boundaries to 165
feet. What the sum line is we built the retaining wall within 10
feet of the original bridge which is within 10 feet of the new
bridge because we had a landslide. That retaining wall is now
supporting the new road and the new abutments. If that retaining
wall has any problems and it is outside the 60 foot, then what they
are saying is it is my problem to fix not only my retaining wall
but also the supporting structure supporting their new road and
their new bridge, and I feel that it is unjust and unfair. So I
would appreciate that this was extended to cover the total 165
feet, like originally was on the conditions and I believe that was
centered on the bridge which needed to go 82 and half feet each
direction. Again I would appreciate if we could continue this so
we could find out exactly what the Flood Control people are talking
about. Thank you.
CHAIR BEST: Thank you Mr. Farr. Are there another speaker?
HAL OLSEN, President of the Alhambra Valley Improvement
Association, a mentioned was made of the wording the deed so that
the people who buy the property will help maintain the creek, I
think it is the only fair thing to do and I certainly think they
should help maintain all of this and why should the existing
owners, two or three of them down there, suffer that maintenance.
The south bank has been put in wrong as you see in your own letter
which was given to you tonight I glanced at it very quickly and not
enough time to really to digest it, but it has been put in wrong,
the rock has to be taken out, Mr. Kubicek is saying that grouting
rock that ' s put in properly is not a good procedure, we were also
told that cut out walls are needed and I certainly attest to that.
I got them all around my place. If you don' t have them, it just
undermines everything. That' s not in, this thing is a state of
flux. The north bank has very little protection. The other thing
I heard so far is a couple of pockets near a pipe. A pipe which by
the way is a drainage pipe which by the way has been overlooked
until now. We have a big 25 foot hole there instead. We certainly
think this thing should be continued. It is very difficult to get
material and rebuild rapidly in the prevailing five minutes before
the meeting and try to make heads or tails of this. Thank you very
much. I hope you will continue it.
CHAIR BEST: Thank you Mr. Olsen. Is there another speaker? I
there are no other speakers , Mr. Armstrong you have the right of
rebuttal.
MARK ARMSTRONG: Couple of brief points. As to the request for a
continuance, I would remind the Commission that last time this was
continued about five weeks ago it was for the purpose of providing
the Commission and interested parties with a copy of the geology
report that was made available earlier to the staff , that has been
made available, the other purpose was to provide for a site
inspection, site inspection has taken place. The information Mr.
Kubicek has provided here I understand it, I haven' t seen it as
well as my understanding is that it deals with a part of the
question of compliance with that condition of approval and the
adequacy of the improvement that have been put into date and will
♦ Y
be put in. That is really not the issue here, that' s a question of
compliance if Mr. Farr or anyone else has any disagreement with
what Flood Control ultimately approves, of course, they have the
remedy of administrative appeal on the issue of whether or not
improvements are consistent with the condition of approval. As to
maintenance question, again we will support the recommendation of
Mr. Kuicek to obligate these property owners who have no frontage
on the creek other than their easement, essentially, which we have
said is appropriate for an obligation to maintain would seem to be
inconsistent with the common law provision for maintenance of
someone ' s own creek side. In large part, the creek area that -is
being improved is upstream of the proposed development too. So we
will request that you support the recommendation of staff and
modify the conditions accordingly. Again, if you have any
questions, we will be happy to try to answer them.
CHAIR BEST: Are there questions by the Commission? Thank you Mr.
Armstrong.
MARK ARMSTRONG: Thank you.
CHAIR BEST: At the matter listed before the Commission, we have
had a request for a continuance for residence in the area to review
what Mr. Kubicek has given us tonight. What is the is to be done
with the Commission on that?
COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Mr. . Kubicek this is a referral from the Board
of Supervisors. Does that mean that what we decide is going back
to the Board of Supervisors or does a final decision on our part
tonight?
MILTON KUBICEK: The matter was appealed to the Board by the
developer that the condition that was opposed was too onerous and
we concur that we felt that the improvements were more consistent
with what we were trying to accomplish in this particular area here
with needs, and it was decided that, if in fact, you understood
that what was actually being proposed what would have to do with
the creek to protect the 165 feet which would be to tear out the
banks and actually rebuild them if you really mean that in that
way, in fact, the Board referred it back to get a clarification.
Do you want us to do that? Did we really have complete flexibility
here? We don' t think we have complete flexibility. We think that
we have to have an environmentally sensitive solution.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Mr. Kubicek, I don' t know how to be any
clearer with this question. Is this a recommendation for a Board
decision or is the final decision resting with the Commission.
MILTON KUBICEK: I don' t know. If your decision is to require the
improvements we outlined, I think it will die here.
COMMISSION DAVIS: Let me explain to the Commission what my problem
is. If this is a referral from the Board of Supervisors that we
are going to make a decision and then it is going back to the Board
for their stamp of approval or amendment, then I have no problem in
making a decision tonight because I believe the residences will
have another opportunity to speak. But if the final decision is
being made here, then we need to talk about it ,a little bit more.
So my question is will it automatically go forward to the Board of
Supervisors or if the final decision here pending appeal.
CHAIR BEST: Could we just recommend it and go to the Board?
COMMISSIONER DAVIS: We could choose to send it back to the Board
on recommendation.
MILTON KUBICEK: Basically it will go back to the Board only if it
is appealed. Your decision tonight is to appeal.
COMMISSIONER BEST: Let ' s say right now for the sake of argument I
were to move approval of the amended conditions as proposed by
Public Works with the addition of notification conditions as a
referral back to the Board. It would automatically go to the Board
of Supervisors?
MILTON KUBICEK: That is the recommendation by your Commission to
the Board of Supervisors -for the change because if we did so then
it is your purview --
COMMISSIONER BEST: To refer it back to the Board with a recom-
mendation.
MILTON KUBICEK: My impression is that the Board does not want to
see it.
COMMISSIONER BEST: I 'm sure that true, Mr. Kubicek. I think we
are going to send it back to them, Mr. Kubicek.
COMMISSIONER NIMR: I think we need to go back to square one on
what the original thing was here. That we had to find a way to
mitigate what went into the creeks in this new development and the
original idea was that Stonehurst and Deadhorse would be developed
together and that both of them would be taken care of together, and
so the Board put a condition on it having to do with a structure
that the Public Works Department now feels is unacceptable. So we
are still back to square one trying to find a way to mitigate what
Mr. Kubicek describes as a very small amount into the creek but it
still has to be mitigated, somehow and in view of the fact that Mr.
Sidelman, who is an engineer representing one of the owners out
there, was involved in this meeting that can to some sort of
consensus and the final paragraph of this memo -from Mr. Kubicek
says that there is still is going to a response from some agreement
that was made with other homeowners. And it may be that even we ' re
kind of close. I don' t know. So I was thinking that if we could
finally get the information together in a timely way so that
everybody can agree on some consensus that maybe we could do it. I
think that one of the problems has been that there has been a lack
of trust in either the contractor, the developer and the county to
make sure that the conditions , namely, that the creek does not
erode more than it is now. We know there is already a problem
there and have not been met. As someone from the community pointed
out that some of the things that have been done, haven' t been done
properly, and I think that we are moving in the direction of a
little more confidence in people seeing that things are being done
differently. So I would really like to try to put it off for a
couple of weeks and see if we could finally get a resolution
because all we are going to do is send it to the Board and maybe
they will send it back again.
CHAIR BEST: A comment given the agenda we have coming up and the
length of time we have been dealing with this, Commissioner Nimr
you are correct we are very close and if it is going to the Board
does afford those couple of weeks perhaps to really come to a
conclusion.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Another thing that I think is important what I
was hearing was that the community would like and I think that was
the spirit of our motion the last time, we were not telling you to
rip out the creek for 165 feet but asking you to take responsi-
bility for that much and find some kind of a way of assessing that
responsibility to this development and I think that' s what the
people are kind of asking us to do, is to have this development
take that responsibility somehow, and I think that ' s what I would
like to see. Not necessarily have to do it any specific way. I
think if we left it flexible so that you could decide how it would
be done. But I think maybe if we gave it a couple of more weeks
maybe we finally can come to some consensus where people would find
it acceptable. But barring that, I can accept the idea that we
just drop the conditions with nothing to replace it.
CHAIR BEST: I don' t think it has been suggested that we drop the
condition. The original proposal is now being replaced by some-
thing and that ' s what we replace it by and now we are being asked
to drop that.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Madame Chair, I am prepared to move that we
refer this to the Board with the recommendation to approve the
condition as recommended by the Public Works Department and our
most recent staff report with the additional condition requiring a
deed notification to the property owners that reads approximately:
"You are purchasing a lot that shares responsibility for mainte-
nance of the creek bank improvements required as part of approval
for Subdivision 6443 . " My intent in this motion is to see this
moved on with the hope of eventual timely resolution. we spent a
considerable amount of time on it. I can see us spending even more
and I have a difficult time when the Commission continues and
continues and never comes to a decision. I am comfortable with
these conditions as recommended.
COMMISSIONER FELIZ: I second the motion.
CHAIR BEST: Is there any further discussion?
ti.
COMMISSION NIMR: Are you talking the consensus items that are
bulleted on --
CHAIR BEST: Recommended conditions and the latest staff report.
Are there any further discussion. Will you call the roll Mr.
Wandry.
Commissioner Davis Yes
Commissioner Feliz Yes
Commissioner Acconero Yes
Commissioner Aiello Yes
Commissioner Nimr No
Commissioner Whitney No
Chair Best Yes
CHAIR BEST: It was been decided that has been approved and per a
recommendation that it will go on to the Board of Supervisors.
LV/AA
7/22/87
P� k
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DATE: February 1988
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Deadhorse Ranch, Subdivision No. 6443
At 2 : 00 p.m. on February 2 , 1988 , you will be conducting a hearing on
the referral from the Planning Commission regarding the Deadhorse
Subdivision in Alhambra Valley.
The Planning Commission approved a modification of condition No. 24-L
to provide rock slope protection in the natural creek in lieu of a drop
structure. Subsequent meetings with the developer and adjacent
residents has surfaced confusion, with regard to future maintenance
responsibility for the creek and bridge. We recommend the following be
included as a part of your approval of this item:
"All property owners using the bridge shall bear a prorate share
of the maintenance costs for the bridge, the creek improvements
located within the access road right of way, the retaining wall
system at the northwest corner of the bridge approach which is
located partially outside of the access road right of way, and
repairs to the adjoining slope of said retaining wall -system that
might be necessary for wall stability."
The contractor' s work on the subdivision improvements has been poor at
best. To insure that the creek work is done correctly and in a timely
fashion we recommend that your approval include the following
additional item:
"The construction of the creek improvements shall be performed
under continual inspection by the - developer's engineer. Upon
completion of the work, the engineer shall certify, in writing,
that the work was performed according to the approved plans."
MFK:md
dhrnh. t2
cc: County Administrator - --
County Counsel f'Y�.�
Community Development Dir.
FEB 1988
f ili;Vr.i.'�:iti G':;V6(-,p5
CUN;RA C-$IA rQ
�. _ �.