HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10241995 - D5 r
TO:' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: October 24, 1995
SUBJECT: STATUS OF EXONERATION OF IMPROVEMENT SECURITY BOND,
PROJECT NO.: MS 63-82, TASSAJARA AREA
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. Recommended Action:
A. DIRECT staff to work with the applicant and neighbors to resolve the drainage issues and
propose a drainage plan to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator and bring
the matter of exoneration of the improvement bond back to the Board at that time.
B. CONTINUE this item until after the Zoning Administrator approves an acceptable drainage
plan and DIRECT the Community Development Director to notice the time and date of this
item when it is brought back to the Board for consideration.
II. Financial Impact:
None to the County General Fund. Staff time will be paid by the applicant.
III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background:
October 3, 1995 the Board of Supervisors continued the item to exonerate the improvement bond
for MS 63-82 and directed staff to meet with the neighbors and applicant to discuss the issues
involved. A meeting was facilitated by Supervisor Gayle Bishop at her office with neighbors and
staff on October 12, 1995. At that meeting, several drainage issues were discussed along with
historical drainage patterns in the area and history of the applicants project. At the end of the
meeting, it was decided that more information was needed by the applicant to devise an
appropriate plan to address the drainage in the area. The following was agreed to:
A. That the applicant would determine the existing drainage facilities in the project
area and where they drain to.
Continued on Attachment: SIGNATURE: � ���
_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
_RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON 0 o2�I (qqS APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT_. )
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
RMA:sd
g:\engsvc\bo\BOMS6382.t10 1 hereby certify that this`is a true and correct
copy of an action taken and entered on the
Contact: Mitch Avalon 313-2371 minutes of the oard o Supervisors on the
Orig. Div: Public Works(E/S) date shown.
cc: Flood Control District ATTESTED:
County Administrator PHIL BATC LOR, Clerk of the Board
Community Development of ervis r and CAdministrator
Applicant By Deputy
OCTOBER 24, 1995
PAGE TWO
III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: (con't)
B. Where the surface waters from the site drain to.
C. Staff observed in the field that the creek crossing the north west corner of the
applicant's property has been reduced in capacity by placing concrete rubble along
the creek banks. This rubble constitutes a blockage of the creek flows and will
have to be removed. The applicant will propose a plan to reestablish the creek
capacity and provide an inlet structure at the pipe crossing at Old School Road .
The inlet structure can consist of shaped rock riprap.
There were other items discussed, such as extending the creek widening across Old School Road
and along the inadequate portion adjoining the Hale property, which according to the Hales' was
a distance of about 200 or 300 feet. There was also a discussion about historical drainage
patterns and whether the site drained originally to the south to another tributary creek rather than
the creek on the north west corner of the applicants property. At the conclusion of the meeting
, it was agreed the applicant's engineer would review the drainage and propose a solution for
review by County staff. The proposal would be reviewed by Public Works and reviewed and
approved by the Zoning Administrator. At that time, the item can be brought back to the Board
with a final resolution on the exoneration of the improvement bond.
IV. Consequences of Negative Action:
Staff will not have direction to resolve the drainage issues.
.r
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
Date: October 19, 1995
To: Board of Supervisors
From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
By: Diana J. Silver, Deputy County Co sel
Y p
Re: MS 63-82: Simba Group, Danville Area; Condition of Approval 6.H
On October 3, 1995, the Board of Supervisors deferred to October 24, 1995 its
decision on the recommendation of the Public Works director regarding the exoneration of the
subdivision agreement for MS 63-82 (Simba Group, Danville Area). The Board directed the
Public Works staff to review the drainage issue and directed the County Counsel to review legal
issues regarding the responsibility of the subdivider for construction of drainage improvements in
order to comply with Condition of Approval 6.1-1 of MS 63-82 which requires the developer to:
"Verify the adequacy of the two culverts which
convey storm waters across Old School Road and
construct any necessary improvements to upgrade the
system to adequately convey the 25-year designed
storm."
In order to satisfy COA 6.1-1, this office has been informed by the Community
Development Department and Public Works Department that the developer submitted
improvement plans in 1989 and posted a bond for the improvements in the amount of $93,000.
In 1995, Public Works recommended that the developer be required to contribute
$7,000 per lot, a total of $14,000 to the County drainage deficiency trust fund in satisfaction of
the drainage issues identified in COA 6.11. Harvey Bragdon, Director of Community
Development, acting as County Zoning Administrator, determined that the proposed modification
to COA 6.11 as outlined by Public Works would be acceptable in meeting the intent of COA 6.1-1
(letter dated June 14, 1995).
There has been no waiver of the condition nor has the applicant requested the zoning
administrator to schedule a hearing to modify the condition as a result of the discussions between
Public Works and the Community Development Department. Therefore, the condition of
approval remains in effect and the improvement agreement is enforceable unless modified by
Board of Supervisors -2- October 19, 1995
noticed hearing at the request of the applicant. The Board may continue the request for
exoneration of the subdivision agreement pending the applicant's request for hearing and a final
decision. In the alternative, the Board may deny the request for exoneration at this time without
prejudice to be renewed at a later time if the condition is modified.
DJS:bmw
cc: Public Works
Community Development Department
GMEDA
djs-5\a:\simba.mem