The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 12102002 - SD4 SDA THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on December 10, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Gerber, DeSaulnier, Glover& Gioia NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Uilkema ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: HEARING on the appeal of John and Jodelle Russi, et al, of the Contra Costa County Planning Commissions's approval of revised project plans, landscaping plan and grading plans for construction of an approved congregate care facility of not more than 101 residential units for persons 60 years or older at the site located at the intersection of Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road, Pleasant Hill area. Clancy Becker for Sun Care Communities (Applicant) and Jim Johnson(Owner). RELISTED to December 17, 2002, at 11:00 a.m. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: December 10, 2002 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board Of Supervisors and County Administrator By: Deputy Clerk TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . Centra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Y t County DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2002 D. A SUBJECT: A Hearing on an Appeal filed by John and Jodelle Russ!, et al, of a County Planning Commission Approval of a Landscape Plan and Revised Entryway Design for the Approved Countrywood Congregate Care Facility Final Development Plan, File #DP883007, Located at the intersection of Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road in the Pleasant Hilll'11Valnut Creek/Lafayette Area. (SUN CARE COMMUNITIES APPLICANT) (District 11) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION 1. RECOMMENDATIONS A. ACCEPT public testimony B. DEN`(the appeal of John and Jodelle Russi, et al. C. SUSTAIN the County Planning Commission approval, but subject to an additional condition of approval relative to implementation of the landscape planting contained in this report. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES}: ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER_ VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT. THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact Michael Henn(925)335-9204 A ED cc: M!M Russi,Mlll+f)Montano JOHN S EN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Clancy Becker,Sun Care Communities, SUPERVISORS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Eric Hasseltine Public Works Department,Eng.Services Div. BY EPUTY D`f December 10, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#DP883007 Page 2 11. FISCAL IMPACT The developer is responsible for the cost of processing the development permit request. Ill. BACKGROUND I REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS In 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved a congregate care senior housing facility, named Countrywood,for up to 101 residential units. The approval involved adoption of a General Plan Amendment, a rezoning of the site to a Planned Unit District(P-1), and Final Development Plan approval. Prior to these actions,the County prepared, subjected to public review, and certified as adequate, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. The project is in an unincorporated area adjoining the cities of Pleasant Hill to the east, Walnut Creek to the south and Lafayette to the west. The site has a Lafayette mailing address, but is within the Sphere of Influence of Pleasant Hill. Active Status of Final Development Plan Approval The original approval was for three years, extending to 1994. This was followed by a two-year extension and two,one-year extensions, bringing the expiration date to June 4, 1998. In October 1997, before the expiration of the last extension, the applicant applied for a grading permit to exercise the approval. Through the developer demonstrating faithful compliance to secure the necessary related approvals, the project approval remains active. Final Development Permit Design Review Reguirements Two of the 1991 conditions of approval require that the County Planning Commission approve a limited number of final plans, but these conditions were not intended to cause a re-visiting of the basic project approval. In fact, no findings are required to be made other than finding that the final plans are in conformance with the earlier approval.The final plans subject to this review are summarized as follows: • Pleasant Hill Rd. access details. • The Diablo View Road turn-around with only a card-gated access to the facility. «► Reduction in height of the middle (west)wing to a partial two-story design. Plans for the creek crossing including Fish and Game consultation. • Review and approval of a final landscaping plan which conforms to conditions regarding the use of native plant materials, drought tolerance, screening, and planting of berms. S q December 10, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#DP883007 Page 3 CEQA Compliance Because the project had an EIR certified for it, there is no further requirement to reconsider the EIR or adopt a Negative Declaration to implement conditions consistent with the project approval. Only if substantial changes were made to the project, would there be a requirement to consider further CEQA review. County Planning, Commission Action Can August 13, 2002, the Contra Costa County Planning Commission reviewed the plans submitted to meet the conditions for review specified in the Final Development Plan approval.A comprehensive staff report was provided to the Planning Commission and is attached to this report. All of the 1991 conditions of approval are included in the attachments. The Commission agreed that the submitted final plans were consistent with the original approval, and approved the matters before them without additional conditions.At the request of an adjacent neighbor the bridge crossing will be adjusted approximately 20 feet to the west to save trees. Other area residents have appealed that action. Analysis of the Appeal There are various concerns raised in the appellants' letters. Briefly, they feel that there will be substantial adverse impacts resulting from the project including the lowering of property values, as well as traffic impacts including a general traffic increase and dangerous turning movements. Other issues cited include sanitation, drainage, noise, and sewage. it is also asserted that the original 1991 approval had expired. Similarly, because new residents have moved into the neighborhood since project approval, the appellants feel that those new residents have not received adequate notice or disclosure. They also believe that the development's financial feasibility was "unclear". The issues raised in the appeal letter were reviewed and analyzed during the rezoning, general plan amendment,development plan and EIR conducted during the 1988-1991 period which were incorporated into the 1991 project approval. The issues which are subject to Board approval today are the design of the Pleasant Hill Road access,the creek crossing,the Diablo View Road tum-around, and the landscaping plan. Although the matters addressed in the appeal letter were previously considered in the 1991 project approval, staff has provided a brief response to each item: • Lowering property values Response. The project is attractively designed and when the landscaping has matured will not be visible from the direction of Diablo View Road except from a few of the closer homes. The two closest neighbors have reviewed the landscaping plan and agreed with it in writing. i 1)7 December 10,2002 Board of Supervisors File#DP883007 Page 4 • Traffic impacts including a general traffic increase and dangerous turning movements. Response: The EIR studied this issue at great length. The traffic mitigations arrived at through the CEQA assessment have been imposed on the project. Most traffic will enter and exit from Pleasant Mill Rd. • Sanitation Response; Public sewers will serve the project and the appellants have provided no evidence that a sanitation problem will result from a senior housing project. • Drainage Response: This is a significant impact that the EIR studied at length. The downstream area is known to have existing drainage deficiencies. These problems cannot be attributed to this unbuilt project. Under the conditions of approval the project cannot proceed until the Public Works Dept has approved a final drainage plan. The development is within Drainage Area 46 and will make a large financial contribution toward area drainage benefits. • Noise Response:Senior housing is traditionally not a significant noise generator. Conditions of approval limit hours of construction noise. • Sewage Response. The project will be connected to the public sewer to the standards of the Central Sanitary District. The appellants have provided no evidence that a sewage problem will result from a senior housing project. • The original 1991 approval had expired Response: See discussion of this point on page 2 entitled Active Status of final Development Plan Approval. « New area residents have not received adequate notice or disclosure Response: The required notice was provided at the time ofproject approval. The August 13, 2002 Planning Commission meeting was also well noticed..Additionally, Supervisor Uilkema's office provided a public meeting in dune 2002. "Disclosure"usually refers to something that is provided to buyers by sellers or realtors, not by public agencies. • The developer's financial feasibility was unclear". Response:A difficult issue to address. If the developer cannot afford to continue, the project will not be built. it is suggested by the appellants that the developer may financially fail before the building is finished, and the use will tum into something more objectionable than senior housing. The conditions of approval limit use to senior housing and require a deed restriction further restricting the site to that use. it is not a practice of the County to require project developers to demonstrate their financial strength. 'Er+lam/ I December 10, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#DP883007 Page 5 Design Concerns Subiect to the Current Review Staff believes that the continued scrutiny created by the appeal provides the opportunity to improve or further clarify the matters that were before the Planning Commission. In particular,the landscaping plan approved by the Commission could be improved, particularly in regards to the screening of the new structure from the direction of Taylor Blvd. The visual impacts of the two and three-story complex as seen from Taylor Blvd. will initially be significant. The planter becomes narrow where the building is the close to the road. The landscaping shown on the submitted plans for this visually sensitive area is rather schematic,and doesn't acknowledge that there are some existing trees along the Taylor Blvd. property line. These are primarily native Maks and Toyons, which are partially on the property and partially in the right-of-way. Additionally, the species of trees and shrubs currently proposed along this important high- visibility area are slow growing. Staff recommends a condition requiring that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Zoning Administrator review and approve a final detailed landscape plan, accurately reflecting the topography, future grading, and existing trees and shrubs, with the purpose of assuring a substantial screen between the roadway and the future buildings. The neighbors to the east(Kimball and Gregory)have provided letters(attached)saying that they conditionally agree with the proposed landscaping. They do want protection granted to certain trees along the common property line with subject property that the applicant has agreed to. IV. OTHER AGENCIES OR JURISDICTIONS: At the time of report preparation no responses have been received from the three nearby cities. The Fire Protection District's response is attached. Recommended Condition of Approval At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, the developer shall submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval, a final landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect, and based on a field survey with 1 foot contour intervals,with existing and proposed contours shown.The plan shall show all paved areas and retaining walls with their footings.The applicant shall provide evidence that the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District has approved any fire lanes contained on the plan before submittal to the Zoning Administrator. a. Clarification of Landscape Improvements Along Western Perimeter - Along the Taylor Boulevard frontage, the plan shall clearly show the property line and the edge of the travel lane and pavement, and show all existing trees of 4 inches or more in trunk diameter both on-site and within the adjacent right-of-way. As much as is reasonably possible,the #D i I December 10, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#DP883007 Page 6 purpose of the plan in this area is to provide a dense screen of trees, separating the project from the roadway. Potential for Renuirement of Supplemental Plantings - If deemed appropriate,the Zoning Administrator may require that the landscaping, which currently encroaches into the right-of-way, be supplemented with additional plantings that may also encroach into the right-of-way. The Zoning Administrator may also require that the applicant enter into a maintenance agreement that is approved by the Zoning Administrator to assure that the owner of the congregate care property is responsible for on-going landscape maintenance within the affected area of the Taylor Blvd. right-of-way. if off-site improvements are required, then the applicant shall be required to obtain an Encroachment Permit(from the Public Works Department) that provides for any right-of-way improvement and maintenance requirements required by the Zoning Administrator. b. Information on ExistingTrees to be Retained Along the Eastern Property Line — The final landscape plan shall identify the existing trees(species, approximate dripline)along the eastern property line on the Gregory and Kimball properties that are proposed to be retained. c. Certification of Comgliance with Water Conservation in New Developments Ordinance--A licensed landscape architect shall certify the project for compliance with the design and reporting requirements of the Water Conservation in New Developments Ordinance(Chapter 82-26). d. Security in the Event of Landscape Failure -- The plans shall be accompanied by an estimate from the landscape architect of the cost of materials and labor for the proposed improvements. To address possible landscape/irrigation replacement in the event of failure of approved landscaping/irrigation within the 24 months following installation,the Applicant shall(1)enter into a landscape improvement agreement and (2) either post a cash performance bond or cash deposit with the County. Certified Cost Estimate of Completion of Landscape Costs — A certified (wet-stamp)estimate of the landscape installation costs(labor and materials)from either a licensed landscape architect or licensed landscape contractor shall be included with the submittal of the landscape plan. e. Processinq Fee for Landscape Security and Acceptance Costs--The processing of landscape security and improvement costs shall be December 10, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#DP883007 Page 7 subject to a fee covering staff time and material costs, with an initial fee deposit of$100. f. Acceptance of Landscape Improvements--Prior to authorization of a final inspection of a building permit, the Zoning Administrator shall accept that the approved landscape plan has been completed in a satisfactory manner..At least 15 days prior to the Applicant seeking a final inspection of the building permit,a licensed landscape architect or licensed landscape contractor shall make an on-site inspection of the improvements and submit a written report to the Zoning Administrator: • certifying the completion of the landscape plans including consideration of plant species, size and location; and • requesting that the Zoning Administrator accept the landscape improvements. f. Maintenance -- The property owner shall maintain the approved landscaping in good condition at all times. G:CurrentPlanning\rtaffReparts\DP883007BC-t 12--10-02 K . ......... . ........ . ....................................... '107:«. .i .. .i: r c 3 + 3 �#. t <: On « � � z s `a5Q FTHE { ► . . . ' t t� : .L �..t� tTB �3IlE18 ' E i 1# { r #. { { TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ' Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2002 SUBJECT: A Hearing on an Appeal fled by John and Jodelle Rueei, et al, of a County Planning Commission Approval of a Landscape Plan and Revised -Entryway Design for the Approved Countrywood Congregate Care Facility Final Development Plan, File #DP883007, Located at the Intersection of Taylor Boulevard' 4nd Pleasant Hill Roadin the Pleasant HIIIMa lnut Creek[L.afayette Area. (SUN:CARE COMMUNITIES-APP�LiCANVT) (District it) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) &BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATIONS A. ACCEPT public testimony B. DENY the appeal of John and Jodelle Russi et al. C. SUSTAIN the County Planning Commission approval, but subject to an additional condition of approval relative.to implementation of the landscape planting contained in this report. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER,,,_ VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENTS CORRECT COPY OF. AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Michael Henn(925)335-1204 ATTESTED cc: MIM Russi, MIM Montano JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Clancy Becker,Sun Care Communities, SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Eric Hesseltine Public Works Department, Eng. Services Div. BY DEPUTY December 10, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#DP883007 Page 2 II. FISCAL IMPACT The developer is responsible for the asst of processing the development permit request. 111. BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS In 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved a congregate care senior housing facility, named Ccuntrywood,for up to 101residential units. The approval involved adoption of a General Plan Amendment, a rezoning of the site to a Planned Unit District(P-1), and Final Development Plan approval. Prior to these actions,the County prepared, subjected to public review,and certified as adequate, an Environmental-Impact Report (EIR) for the project. The project is in an unincorporated area adjoining the cities of Pleasant Hill to the east, Walnut Greek to the south and Lafayette to the west. The site has a Lafayette mailing address, but is within the Sphere of Influence of Pleasant Hill. Active Status of Final Development Plan Approval The original approval was for three years, extending to 1994. This was followed by a two-year extension and two,one-year extensions, bringing the expiration date to June 4, 1998. In October 1997, before the expiration of the last extension, the applicant applied for a grading permit to exercise the approval. Through the developer demonstrating faithful compliance to secure the necessary related approvals, the project approval remains active. Final Development Permit Design Review Requirements Two of the 1991 conditions of approval require that the County Planning Commission approve a limited number of final plans, but these conditions were not intended to cause a re-visiting of the basic project approval. In fact, no findings are required to be made other than finding that the final plans are in conformance with the earlier approval. The final plans subject to this review are summarized as follows: • Pleasant Hill Rd. access details. The Diablo View Road turn-around with only a card-gated access to the facility. • Reduction in height of the middle (west)wing to a partial two-story design. • Plans for the creek crossing including Fish and Game consultation. • Review and approval of a final landscaping plan which conforms to conditions regarding the use of native plant materials, drought tolerance, screening, and planting of berms. December 10, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#DP883007 Page 3 CEQA Compiiance Because the project had an EIR certified for It, there is no further requirement to reconsider the EIR or adopt a Negative Declaration to implement conditions consistent with the project approval. Only if substantial changes were made to the project, would there be a requirement to consider further CEQA review. County Planning Commission Action On August 13, 2002, the Contra Costa County Planning Commission reviewed the plans submitted to meet the conditions for review specified in the Final Development Plan approval. A comprehensive staff report was provided to the .Planning Commission and is attached to this report. All of the 1991 conditions of approval are included in the attachments.The Commission agreed that the submitted final plans were consistent with the original approval, and approved the matters before them without additional conditions.At the request of an adjacent neighborthe bridge crossing will be adjusted approximately 20 feet to the west to save trees. Other area residents have appealed that action. Anatvsis of the Appeal There are various concerns raised in the appellants' letters. Briefly, they feel that there will be substantial adverse impacts resulting from the project including the lowering of property values, as well as traffic impacts including a general traffic increase and dangerous turning movements. Other issues cited include sanitation, drainage, noise, and sewage. It is also asserted that the original 1991 approval had expired. Similarly,. because new residents have moved into the neighborhood since project approval, the appellants feel that those new residents have not received adequate notice or disclosure. They, also believe that the development's financial feasibility was "unclear". The issues raised in the appeal letter were reviewed and analyzed during the rezoning, general plan amendment, development plan and EIR conducted during the 1988-1991 period which were incorporated into the 1991 project approval. The issues which are subject to Board approval today are the design of the Pleasant Hill Road access,the creek crossing,the Diablo View Road turn-around, and the landscaping plan. Although the matters addressed in the appeal letter were previously considered in the 1991 project approval, staff has provided a brief response to each item: • Lowering property values Response: The project is attractively designed and when the landscaping has matured will not be visible from the direction of Diablo View Road except from a few of the closer homes. The two closest neighbors have reviewed the landscaping plan and agreed with if in writing. SD ✓` December 10, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#DP883007 Page 4 • Traffic impacts including a general traffic increase and dangerous turning movements. Response: The E1R studied this issue at great length. The traffic mitigations arrived at through the CEQA assessment have been imposed on the project. Most traffic will enter and exit from Pleasant Hill Rd. • Sanitation Response: Public sewers will serve the project and the appellants have provided no evidence that a sanitation problem will result from a senior housing project. • [drainage Response: This is a significant impact that the EIR studied at length. The downstream area is known to have existing drainage deficiencies. These problems cannot be attributed to this unbuilt project. Cinder the conditions of approval the project cannot proceed until the Public Works Dept. has approved a final drainage plan. The development is within Drainage Area 46 and will make a large financial contribution toward area drainage benefits. • Noise Response: Senior housing is traditionally not a significant noise generator. Conditions of approval limit hours of construction noise. • Sewage Response: The project will be connected to the public sewer to the standards of the Central Sanitary District. The appellants have provided no evidence that a sewage problem will result from a senior housing project. The original 1991 approval had expired Response: See discussion of this point on page 2 entitled Active Status of f=inal Development Plan Approval. • New area residents have not received adequate notice or disclosure Response:The required notice was provided at the time of project approval. The August 13, 2002 Planning Commission meeting was also well noticed..Additionally, Supervisor Unkema's office provided a public meeting in June 2002. "Disclosure"usually refers to something that is provided to buyers by sellers or realtors, not by public agencies. • The developer's financial feasibility was "unclear'. Response: A difficult issue to address. If the developer cannot afford to continue, the project will not be built. It is suggested by the appellants that the developer may financially fail before the building is finished, and the use will tum into something more objectionable than senior housing. The conditions of approval limit use to senior housing and require a deed restriction further restricting the site to that use. It is not a practice of the County to require project developers to demonstrate their financial strength. December 10, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#DP883007 Page 5 Design Concerns Subject to the Currant Review Staff believes that the continued scrutiny created by the appeal provides the opportunity to improve or further clarify the matters that were before the Planning Commission.In particular,the landscaping plan approved by the Commission could be improved, particularly in.regards to the screening of the new structure from the direction of-Teylor-Blvd: The visual impacts of the two and three-story complex as seen from Taylor Blvd. will initially be significant. The planter becomes narrow where the building is the close-to the road. The`landscaping shown on the submitted plans for this.-visually sensitive area is rather schismatic, and doesn't acknowledge that there are some existing trees along the Taylor Blvd. property linea These are primarily native Oaks and Toyons, ;which are partially on the property and 'partially in the right-of-way. Additionally, the species of trees and shrubs currently ':proposed along this important high- visibility area are slow growing. Staff recommends a condition requiring that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Zoning Administrator review and approve a final detailed landscape plan, accurately reflecting the topography, future grading, and existing trees and shrubs, with the purpose of assuring a substantial screen between the roadway and the future buildings. The neighbors to the east(Kimball and Gregory)have provided letters(attached)saying that they conditionally agree with the proposed landscaping. They do want protection granted to certain trees along the common property line with subject property that the applicant has agreed to. IV. OTHER AGENCIES OR JURISDICTIONS: At the time of report preparation no responses have been received from the three nearby cities. The Fire Protection District's response is attached. Recommended Condition of Approval At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit,the developer shall 'submit 'to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval, a final landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect, and based on a`field survey with 1 foot contour intervals,with existing and proposed contours shown.The plan shall show all paved areas and retaining walls with their footings.The appiicant shall provide evidence that the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District has approved any fire lanes contained on the plan before submittal to the Zoning Administrator. a. Clarification of Landscape Improvements Along Western Perimeter - Along the Taylor Boulevard frontage, the pian shall clearly show the property line and the edge of the travel lane and pavement, and show all existing trees of 4 inches or more in trunk diameter both on-site and within the adjacent right-of-way. As much as is reasonably possible,the /, let c0_�_ December 10, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#DP883007 Page 6 purpose of the plan in this area is to provide a dense screen of trees, separating the project from the roadway. Potential for Requirement of Supplemental Plantings If deemed appropriate,the Zoning Administrator may require that the landscaping, which currently encroaches into the right-of-way, be supplemented with additional plantings that may also encroach into the right-of-way. The Zoning Administrator may also require that the applicant enter,into a maintenance agreement that is approved by the Zoning Administrator to assure that the owner of the congregate care property is responsible for on-going landscape maintenance within the affected areaofthe Taylor Blvd. right-of-way. If off-site improvements are required, then the applicant shall be required to obtain an Encroachment Permit(from the Public Works Department) that provides for any right-of-way improvement and maintenance requirements required by the Zoning Administrator. b. Information on Existing Trees to be Retained Along the Eastern Property line — The final landscape plan shall identify the existing ,trees (species, approximatedripline)alone the eastern property line on the Gregory and Kimball properties that are proposed to be retained. c. Certification of Compliance with Water Conservation in New Developments Ordinance—A licensed landscape architect shall certify the project for compliance with the design and reporting requirements of the Water Conservation in New Developments Ordinance(Chapter 82-25). d. Security-in.-the Event of landscape Failure — The plans shall be accompanied by an estimate from the landscape architect of the cost of materials and labor for the proposed improvements. To address possible landscapelirrigation replacement in the event of failure .of approved landscaping/irrigation within the 24 months following installation,the Applicant shall(1)enter into a landscape improvement agreement and (2) either post a cash performance bond or cash deposit with the County. Certified Cost Estimate of Completion of landscape Costs -- A certified (wet-stamp)estimate of the landscape installation costs(labor and materials) from either a licensed landscape architect or licensed landscape contractor shall be included with the submittal of the landscape plan. e. Processing Fee for landscape Security and Acceptance Costs—The processing of landscape security and improvement costs shall be December 10, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#DP883007 Page 7 subject to a fee covering staff time and material casts, with an initial fee deposit of$100. f. Acceptance of Landscape Improvements — Prior to authorization of a final inspection of a building permit, the Zoning Administrator shall accept that the approved landscape plan has been completed in a satisfactory manner. At least 15 days prior to the Applicant seeking a final Inspection of the building permit,a licensed landscape architect or licensed landscape contractor shall make an on-site inspection of the improvements and submit a written report to the Zoning Administrator: • certifying the completion of the landscape plans including consideration of plant species, size and location; and • requesting that the Zoning Administrator accept the landscape improvements. f. Maintenance -- The property owner shall maintain the approved landscaping in good condition at all times. G:Cur entPlannlnglstaffReports\DP883007Bt-b-12-10-02 f # t .. t t # i i 3 i . t : t { i 3 t #, s 3 r a f : 3 # :: i r ?2 t :> # i i t 3 # .: i . t 3 Resolution No.37-2002 RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CONCERNING ACTION ON THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENT PEPMT#883007 (aka COUNTRYWOOD CONGREGATE SENIOR CARE) IN THE PLEASANT HILL AREA. On June 4, 1991, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved a General Plan amendment redesignating a 6.4 acre site at the Pleasant Hill Road and Taylor Blvd intersection for a congregate care use, a rezoning of the site to a Planned Unit District (P-1), a final development plan with conditions of approval, and certified an Environmental Impact Report for a 101-unit congregate care senior housing project. Conditions 4 and 6 of the conditions of approval require Planning Commission approval of a limited number of plans, 'which are summarized as follows: • Pleasant 1=Ii11 Rd. access details. • The Diablo View Road turn-around with only a card-gated access. • Reduction in height of the middle (west)wing to a partial two-story design. • Plans for the creek crossing including consultation with the Deparment of Fish and Game • Review and approval of a final landscaping plan which conforms to conditions regarding the use of native plant materials, drought tolerance, screening, and the planting of berms. WHEREAS,notice of the hearing having been lawfully given,the County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the applicant's requests on August 13, 2002. During the public hearing the Commission considered comments from the project applicant,the project technical consultants, and all interested members of the public who wished to speak; and WHEREAS,the County Planning Commission has fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated all the testimony, evidence and comments submitted in this matter; and whereas the County Planning Commission determined that the submitted plans did provide the requested detail intended by the Board of Supervisors in the granting of the original permit and the conditions of approval, and the plans were satisfactory to allow the project to proceed. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission, at its meeting of August 13, 2002, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the staff report, approved the project by a vote of 6-0,with 1 absent. 1 S212 j'-v le-v��7 NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that on August 13,2002, the County Planning Commission approved the plans provided to it,pursuant to Conditions 4 and 6 of DP883007. AYES: Commissioners- Terrell, Clark, Mehlman,Battaglia,Hanecak,and Wong NOES: Commissioners- None ABSENT: Commissioners- Gaddis ABSTAIN: Commissioner None Further, on August 23,2002, in a latter dated August 22,2002, a letter was received from John and Jodelle Russi, et al appealing the Planning Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors. Hyman Wong, Chair of the County Planning Commission of Contra Costa County, State of California I,Dennis M. Barry, Secretary to the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on August 13,2002. ATTEST: Dennis M. Barry, AICP, Secretary of the Contra.Costa County Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: DENNIS M. BARRY, Secret County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa County, State of California G:Current Planning,StaffReport:#883007Reso12-10 2 .............................. .... ........ ......................... ........... 1 t } 3 } } # } 3 { } i } ..........$.' { ;: $ S } :: } 3. $ } { } ............$ .} .� i f { f 3 } { } s s } { $ i { 3 3 1 { } } S �r•w M•' Contra Costa County Community Development Department ^a 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 n� August 22, 2002 To the Board of Supervisors or To Whom It May Concern, This letter of appeal is submitted in accordance with the Contra Costa County Code Article 26-2.24. In accordance with such provisions,we respectfully appeal the Contra Costa Country Planning Commission decision of August 13, 2002 to proceed with the development of the Countrywood Congregate Care facility at the intersection of Taylor Blvd. at Pleasant Hill Rd. (Parcel#169-090-001). This is represented by the county file #DP883007. Our appeal is based on the following: 1. Property value in the surrounding area, including our specific properties at 35 Grove Creek Ct. and 3178 Diablo View Rd. will be adversely impacted if the Countrywood Development is allowed to proceed. 2. Our belief that the underlying permits,which were originally granted in 1990/91, have expired requiring a completely new evaluation of the project—including the various CEQA environmental impacts. 3. The failure to adequately address the significant health and safety risks presented by the projects including: • Traffic o the increased amount of traffic on Pleasant Hill Rd. n dangerous turning conditions, especially involving u-turns • Sanitation • Drainage • Noise as it relates to certain properties 4. The background submitted to the Planning Commission incorrectly omitted many of the concerns expressed in the community meeting and,therefore,the findings cannot be complete. We have attached a letter sent to the office of Gayle Uilkema as additional background and support for the timely communications of the issues discussed in this letter. The same issues were raised at the County planning Commission during the public hearing. We respectfully request that a hearing of these matters at the Board of Supervisors be granted where these issues can be further explored. Property OwncZ Address J�'oc� lIe us s r -?S` G ro✓e Cee e k e-f Sig tore Date Property Owner Address Me ,.-, Date Prope Owner Address l // r /'C C'G v7J '�u✓ ,r��' 3/ 2,f' $i turd ~' Date Property Owner Address 6 i"'%J 1-4z,- 3/ 7 /0/" L v !:LL✓ Sig e Date f � Y Jack and Jodie Rossi 35 Grove Creek Ct. 925 932-2754 Lafayette,CA 94549 hoopft rr aol.com Mary Rose Contra Costa County Community Liason 3338 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Lafayette, CA. 94549 July 2, 2002 Dear Ms. Rose, First,thank you for hosting the meeting last Monday, June 24'h,2002. This was the first time since we moved into our Grove Creed Ct. home in May 1993 that we have heard any detailed plans regarding the proposed development and we appreciated the opportunity to learn.more. In short, our concerns were only heightened after listening to the presenters and we have some strong reserv=ations about proceeding with the development plans as described. In particular,we had the following questions we would like to discuss with Supervisor`[.lilkema. The permits were granted about 11 years ago,based on the nature of the community at that time.. Given the unique nature of the property and the evolution of the community since the original permits were granted, we question whether they are legally valid. • Regardless of legality, it appears that given the time that has passed and the nature of the community, it would be prudent to re-evaluate the appropriateness of the development and at a minimum, study the various impacts which have certainly changed since the early 90's. Specifically, there are some obvious health and safety issues such as. o Traffic Safety—The proposed entrance and exit will pose a potentially lethal hazard. Residents who travel the stretch on Pleasant Hill road to be used for merging and reversing direction know this area as a frequent speed and accident zone. Police records would verify this. The a-turns involved in exiting the facility and wishing to head toward the Palos Verde shopping center are impractical,confusing and dangerous. This u-tuni would also initially force more traffic onto Pleasant Bill.Rd. toward highway 24 and add to the traffic congestion.. Also, it would be nearly impassible for a large service/food truck to make the opposite a-tuna at the intersection of Pleasant Hill Rd./Camino Verde and Geary Rd. in order to access the facility. o Drainage---The area around the development already has complex drainage issues This project would require the digging up of a large section of Diablo View Rd. and the inconveniencing of many residents in 1 this area. (This is also an interesting proposal since the road has just been resurfaced and paved within the past few months.) Finally, the explanations given at the meeting were inadequate to assess whether a realistic and acceptable drainage solution exists. o Sewaee---Again, complex issues exist, as evidenced by one neighbor who says that sewage has come into his yard several times. He is still waiting for the Sanitation Department to correct this problem. Again, the explanations presented (actually not presented as the Sanitation Department representative did not attend)were not adequate to address the concerns heard. ® Disclosure issues exist as well. There are numerous homeowners, including ourselves, who were not notified that there was active development being undertaken between 1993) and 2002. As stated at the meeting, one of the agreements for reviewing the permits was ongoing activity. However,there was no.notification of this activity given to the area homeowners who would be impacted by this proposed development. Continual housing improvements and strong financial commitments were made during this time which may have been altered if there was proper notification of all homeowners in the area both at the time of purchase and between 1991-2002. • Financial feasibility is unclear. Given the potential magnitude of the disruption of the community (clearing, drainage, massive bridge construction, etc.)it certainly would have been more reassuring to see that the owner and developer have performed a legitimate and detailed financial feasibility study. In fact, as discussed at the meeting, this has not been done. The representative from Sun could not share any financial information and did not seem to readily have examples of other similar developments. The Elder Care representative admitted they had not concluded on how they would finance the project and indicated they had only one other development in Camarillo. I have direct experience with developers in this field and plenty of examples of projects started and not completed. .A worse scenario exists if the project cannot reach its target occupancy. Then the owner will have to evaluate alternative uses. What are the limitations as to use? The probability of success? Where is a legitimate and detailed financial feasibility study? We respectfully ask that we do have the opportunity to meet in private and discuss these issues and others more hilly. Please let us know how to airang e for a time to meet. Sincerely. f ; Jack and Jodie Russia; _. ..................................... _ ............................................................................... $ # { j . .. ... { { f } f £ { { t # x } } { } } �**k4 Y E } } 3 } } i 5 i T } { { 3 { } 4 { S 3 }..: i } {2 } 3 } 3 } c, 3 Agenda Item # ' Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY AUGUST 13. 2002- 7:00 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION CLANCEY BECKER FOR SUN CARE COMMUNITIES (Applicant) and_ JIM JOHNSON Owned, County File #DP883007: Required Planning Conuni.ssion review of revised project plans, landscaping plan and grading plans for construction of an approved congregate care facility of not more than 101 residential units for persons 60 years or older. Grading of approximately 15,500 cubic yards of earth is proposed (balanced on site). The subject site is located at the intersection of Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road, and bounded by Diablo View Road to the north. (P-1) (ZA: L-13) (CT 3260) (Parcel #169-090-001). IL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission approve the revised plans as required by conditions 4 and 6. III. BACKGROUND In 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved a retirement and congregate care housing facility for up to 101 residential units. The approval involved adoption of a General Plan Amendment, P-1 Rezoning and Final Development Plan approval. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified for the project and the associated General Plan Amendment. The project is in an unincorporated area adjoining the cities of Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek. and Lafayette. Through extensions and work by the developer demonstrating faithful compliance to secure necessary approvals, the project approvals remain active. Since neer homes have been built in the vicinity since the project was approved, and due to the lapse in time between the approval and the proposed construction of the project, a community meeting was held to review the proposal with neighbors in the vicinity. The primary concern expressed was drainage, since some improvements in the area are insufficient to handle existing capacity and pass through private s-z properties. Condition 11 of the approval requires that drainage from the property be conveyed within an adequate storm drain facility and improvements made to existing facilities, if necessary. Implementation of adequate storm drainage facilities will reduce the amount of run-off that comes off the site to the existing catch basins at the end of Diablo View Road. The Public Works Department will review drainage plans and require that all necessary improvements be installed for the project. The developer hosted a site meeting for neighbors on July 27, 2002. The purpose of the meeting was to show the proposed alignment of the bridge, identify trees to be removed in the path of the bridge, and to allow for the review of the landscape plan by the neighbors. Neighbors indicated a desire to have the bridge moved approximately 10 feet further to the west to allow for the preservation of the more desirable trees. The developer's entitlements allow the bridge in the location currently field surveyed. A field adjustment would be permitted as a minor modification to the development plan, and the applicant has agreed to review an alternate placement with his engineer. At the time the project was approved, the plans did not contain a great deal of detail, and did not incorporate minor changes that were requested by the Board of Supervisors. The approval was structured to require that revised plans be reviewed prior to issuance of the grading plan by the Planning Commission (condition 4). The landscaping plan (condition 6) must also be reviewed by the Planning Comnission, and a discussion of the landscape plan is included in this report. A copy of the approved conditions are attached for reference. In an effort to answer questions about the project and compliance with additional conditions of approval, a separate discussion entitled: "Condition Compliance Discussion" is provided to give additional information about the project to the Planning Connnission. IV, CEQA DETERMINATION An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified by the Board of Supervisors on January 22, 1991. The report fully analyzed the impacts related to the 101 unit facility. The proposed project has not changed, and the developer is still responsible for carrying out the required mitigation measures, namely. • To incorporate natural siding and roofing materials. • To articulate the amass of the building. (Revised project plans which reduce a large portion of the third floor and break up the building mass will be shown at the Planning Commission meeting) • Incorporation of perimeter landscaping to screen views of the project. S-3 • To construct a bridge so that project traffic would not impact Diablo View Road. • To require that the access from Pleasant Hill Road allow only for right turns in and right turns out to prevent crossover traffic hazards. • To make necessary drainage improvements so as not to impact adjoining properties. • The requirement for a sound wall on Taylor Boulevard and noise mitigation for project occupants. • Construction noise is limited to between 7:30 to 5:00 Monday through Friday. The Planning Commission's review of the revised plans and the landscape plan is considered a Ministerial function, in that the Commission's review is limited to the determination if the plans comply with the original approval. Ministerial projects are Statutorially Exempt from CEQA (per Section 15268), which means that the Planning Commission review of the plans does not require additional consideration of the CEQA documents, or any findings. V. DISCUSSION OF CONDITION 4 The following discussion indicates how condition 4 is or will be satisfied: Condition 4 This condition requires that various types of revised plans be submitted for Planning Commission review. Condition 4A requires that project access be by right turn only to and from Pleasant Dill Road. A "Y" driveway configuration has been designed to accomplish this objective and to prevent left turns to and from Pleasant Hill Road. This configuration has been accepted by the Public Works Department, and detailed improvement plans will be required to be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to construction. The design of the right turn exit will prevent turn movements across Pleasant Dill Road. The bridge will be constructed first, to allow for use by grading and construction equipment. This will prevent the use of Diablo View Road from being used by construction vehicles. In addition, the applicant will be requesting (from the Public Works Department) temporary access to the site from Taylor Boulevard to allow construction vehicles to enter the site until the bridge is completed. Condition 4B requires that access to the project be restricted from Diablo View Road, and that the access be gated. The purpose for this requirement was to limit traffic associated with the project from entering the project through a single family residential neighborhood. The location of the proposed gate and fence would be Z- S-4 along the driveway section from the end of Diablo View Road. The applicant would like to leave the specific design details for the fence up to the landscape architect. Condition 4C outlines redesign direction given during the public hearing process to reduce the visual impact of the structure as viewed from Taylor Boulevard. Reducing the number of stories of the center wing to two stones was accomplished. The applicant reviewed increasing the setback of the structure from. 10 feet to 15 feet. Given the site constraints, the applicant was not able to adjust the building siting. The only option is to shift the building towards the existing residences to the east, which is not a desirable option since it would make the building closer to the existing homes and yards. This option would require the redesign of the parking lot and driveway areas, allowing less room for a landscape buffer between the project and residences. Shifting the building would likely reduce the number of parking spaces below the required number. The pad elevation of the building, as shown on the proposed grading plan, would be below Taylor Boulevard. The applicant has responded to the issue of visibility of the building from Taylor Boulevard by setting the building at the lowest possible elevation to reduce the visual impact on Taylor Boulevard instead of increasing the setback. The retaining wall along Taylor Boulevard varies in height, with a height of up to 10 feet. The project base elevation will be below the grade of Taylor Boulevard. As directed in the conditions of approval, the applicant is proposing a stacked wall (see brochure for Loffelstein wall, attached) which can be planted. This will add to the aesthetic quality of the project and outdoor areas that are used by the future occupants. It will also reduce noise for ground floor occupants and users of the outdoor area. This wall will not be seen from Taylor Boulevard. As required by condition 4D and as shown on the plans, the ravine crossing will be constructed using a cast concrete panel retaining system. The crossing achieves a maximum height above the ravine of approximately 35 feet. The width of the crossing is 20 feet, with a 5 foot pedestrian walkway on the west side of the bridge. The grades of this crossing vary. Approval was received from the Department of Fish and Game for the ravine crossing (see attached). This approval is a renewal, due to the delay in building the project, and an additional renewal will be required. The conditions of the Fish and Game approval are extensive, and will ensure that the area. cleared for the ravine crossing is properly revegetated with tree replacement on a 2:1 basis. This replacement is in addition to the trees proposed to be planted with the landscaping plan. With Department of Fish and Game oversight, adequate revegetation and tree planting will be carried out in the ravine area. .LJ S_S J In anticipation of this project, the property owners at end of Diablo View Road planted redwood trees on their property to screen the project when it was built. Grading of the site to create level areas for parking and the building require the filling of a portion of the site, which would create a_retaining wall in the root zone of the trees. In addition, there are two native 18" oak trees along the east property line. Staff has recommended to the applicant that an arborist report and supervision by an arborist occur during grading and construction of the retaining wall to address tree protection along the east property line. Fencing of the root zones of all trees to be preserved is also recommended. The applicant has verbally agreed to monitor the trees. VI. DISCUSSION OF CONDITION 6 In addition to the grading plans, the applicant is required to submit landscape plans for the review of the Planning Commission. Condition 6D requires the preservation of trees which qualify as heritage trees. Even though the landscape plan will be submitted later, staff requested the submittal of a tree inventory and arborist report to address trees that may be impacted as a result of the ravine crossing, since the building permit plans for the ravine crossing have been submitted to the Building Inspection Department. This inventory and report are included in the attachments, along with a diagram of the affected trees. Since the approval of the project was in 1991, the County's Tree Preservation Ordinance was not in effect. As a result, only the Heritage Tree Ordinance applies. There was an understanding at the time of approval that some of the trees at the site would require removal for the ravine crossing. The inventory of trees (attached) identifies 15 to 21 trees requiring removal by the ravine crossing. Only trees larger than 72 inches in circumference (approximately 23 inches in diameter) qualify for review by the County. Of the 21 trees, none are large enough or healthy enough to qualify for heritage tree status. Six of trees are eucalyptus trees in poor condition. Landscape plans for the development include substantial tree and shrub planting around the building. Approximately 157 (15-gallon) trees are proposed for the site. Native or indigenous trees such as oaks, redwoods, and bays are proposed around the perimeter of the site — along Taylor Boulevard, adjacent to residences on Diablo View Road, and the ravine. Trees in the parking lot, surrounding the building and in the courtyard areas are appropriate ornamental varieties. The proposed redwood and bay trees along the east property line will combine with the grove of trees planted by the adjacent property owner to provide substantial screening of the project over time. D In working with the neighboring property owners, the applicant may need to make some minor adjustments to the proposed plant materials and placement. The applicant has met with the two adjoining property owners and is in the process of securing approval of the plans as required in condition 6C. Approximately 249 (5-gallon) shrubs and 372 (1-gallon) shrubs are proposed in the planter areas on the site, along with ground cover, vines and lawii. Staff finds that the proposed landscape plan is appropriate and will enhance the project over time. No changes or modifications are reconarnended to the Planning Commission. VII. CONDITION COMPLIANCE DISCUSSION The following discussion is provided for information only. It is intended to inform the Planning Commission and neighbors of the applicant's efforts in complying with selected conditions of approval. No action is required for any of these items. Condition 3 Original project plans included use of a small, pie shaped piece of land at the end of Diablo View Road for parking. This property is owned by the County, and has not been offered for sale at auction. To recognize that the land may not be available, the project was approved with the condition that if the site is not available, that parking at a rate of .52 spaces per unit be provided. With 101 rooms, the total number of required spaces would be 53. The plans include 53 parking spaces. Condition 5 Condition 5 required review of the grading plan by the County Geologist and the Zoning Administrator. Revisions to the plans were made by the project engineer to address issues associated with the plan approved in 1991. A comment letter by the County Geologist is attached for Planning Conumaission review. The most significant change to the plans originally approved was the reduction in the slope of the northeast conger of the lot to a gradient of 2.5:1(previously 3:1). This reduced gradient will allow for the planting of trees, shrubs and groundcover on the slope. At the top of the slope, there is a low retaining wall which rises above the driveway of the proposed facility, creating a bene. This bene is designed to elevate the trees to screen some of the project and parking from neighboring residential properties below. S-7 �' Condition 7 This condition requires that the open space ravine area between the proposed building and Pleasant Pull Road be protected by deeding of the development rights to the County. This is a common tool that the County uses to protect open space and riparian areas in the County in perpetuity. This restriction can only be changed by an action of the Board of Supervisors. Condition 8 Condition 8 requires a final review and approval of the building permit plans by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit. This is an internal, administrative review. The Zoning Administrator will review building materials and colors, roof equipment, and lighting. Lighting is to be directed downward and away from adjoining properties. Condition 12 Condition 12 requires that a noise study be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of a grading or building permit to mitigate noise impacts from Taylor Boulevard. A noise study has been completed and is attached for reference. The study recommends an eight foot tall fence or wall along Taylor Boulevard. In addition to the wall, the second and third floors facing Taylor Boulevard will be required to have sound rated construction and windows (Sound for the first floor-is blocked since most of the first floor is below Taylor Boulevard). MPL 7/30/02 Agenda Item # Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY AUGUST 13, 2002- 7:00 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION CLANCEY BECKER FOR SUN CARE COMMUNITIES (Applicant) and JIM JOHNSON (Owner), County File #DP8$3007: Required Planning Commission review of revised project plans, landscaping plan and grading plans for construction of an approved congregate care facility of not more than 101 residential units for persons 60 years or older. Grading of approximately 15,500 cubic yards of earth is proposed (balanced on site). The subject site is located at the intersection of Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road, and bounded by Diablo 'View Road to the north. (P-1) (ZA: L-13) (CT 3260) (Parcel #169-090-001). H. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission approve the revised plans as required by conditions 4 and 6. III. BACKGROUND In 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved a retirement and congregate care housing facility for up to 101 residential units. The approval involved adoption of a General Plan Amendment, P-1 Rezoning and Final Development Plan approval. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified for the project and the associated General Plan Amendment. The project is in an unincorporated area adjoining the cities of Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek and Lafayette. Through extensions and work by the developer demonstrating faithful compliance to secure necessary approvals, the project approvals remain active. Since new homes have been built in the vicinity since the project was approved, and due to the lapse in time between the approval and the proposed construction of the project, a community meeting was held to review the proposal with neighbors in the vicinity. The primary concern expressed was drainage, since some improvements in the area are insufficient to handle existing capacity and pass through private properties. Condition 11 of the approval requires that drainage from the property be conveyed within an adequate storm drain facility and improvements made to existing facilities, if necessary. Implementation of adequate storm drainage facilities will reduce the amount of run.-off that comes off the site to the existing catch basins at the end of Diablo View Road. The Public Works Department will review drainage plans and require that all necessary improvements be installed for the project. The developer hosted a site meeting for neighbors on July 27, 2402. The purpose of the meeting was to show the proposed alignment of the bridge, identify trees to be removed in the path of the bridge, and to allow for the review of the landscape plan by the neighbors. Neighbors indicated a desire to have the bridge moved approximately 10 feet further to the west to allow for the preservation of the more desirable trees. The developer's entitlements allow the bridge in the location currently field surveyed. A field adjustment would be permitted as a minor modification to the development plan, and the applicant has agreed to review an alternate placement with his engineer. At the time the project was approved, the plans did not contain a great deal of detail, and did not incorporate minor changes that were requested by the Board of Supervisors. The approval was structured to require that revised plans be reviewed prior to issuance of the grading plan by the Planning Commission (condition 4). The landscaping plan (condition 6) must also be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and a discussion of the landscape plan is included in this report. A copy of the approved conditions are attached for reference. In an effort to answer questions about the project and compliance with additional conditions of approval, a separate discussion entitled. "Condition Compliance Discussion" is provided to give additional information about the project to the Planning Commission. IV. CQA DETERMINATION An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified by the Board of Supervisors on January 22, 1991. The report fully analyzed the impacts related to the 101 unit facility. The.proposed project has not changed, and the developer is still responsible for carrying out the required mitigation measures, namely: • To incorporate natural siding and roofing materials. • To articulate the mass of the building. (Revised project plans which reduce a large portion of the third floor and break up the building mass will be shown at the Planning Commission meeting) • Incorporation of perimeter landscaping to screen views of the project. S-3 * To construct a bridge so that project traffic would not impact Diablo View Road. * To require that the access from Pleasant Hill Road allow only for right turns in and-right turns out to prevent crossover traffic hazards. t To make necessary drainage improvements so as not to impact adjoining properties. * The requirement for a sound wall on Taylor Boulevard and noise mitigation for project occupants. • Construction noise is limited to between 7:30 to 5:00 Monday through Friday. The Planning Commission's review of the revised plans and the landscape plan is considered a Ministerial function, in that the Commission's review is limited to the determination if the plans comply with the original approval. Ministerial projects are Statutorially Exempt from CEQ.A (per Section 15268), which means that the Planning Commission review of the plans does not require additional consideration of the CEQA documents, or any findings. V. DISCUSSION OF CONDITION 4 The following discussion indicates how condition 4 is or will be satisfied: Condition 4 This condition requires that various types of revised plans be submitted for Planning Commission review. Condition 4A requires that project access be by right turn only to and from Pleasant Hill Road. A "Y" driveway configuration has been designed to accomplish this objective and to prevent left turns to and from Pleasant Hill Road. This configuration has been.accepted by the Public Works Department, and detailed improvement plans will be required to be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to construction. The design of the right turn exit will prevent turn movements across Pleasant Hill Road. The bridge will be constructed first, to allow for use by grading and construction equipment. This will prevent the use of Diablo View Road from being used by construction vehicles. In addition, the applicant will be requesting (from the Public Works Department) temporary access to the site from Taylor Boulevard to allow construction vehicles to enter the site until the bridge is completed. Condition 4B requires that access to the project be restricted from Diablo View Road, and that the access be gated. The purpose for this requirement was to limit traffic associated with the project from entering the project through a single family residential neighborhood. The location of the proposed gate and fence would be OV, S_4 along the driveway section from the end of Diablo View Road. The applicant would like to leave the specific design details for the fence up to the landscape architect. Condition 4C outlines redesign,direction given during the public Bearing process to reduce the visual impact of the structure as viewed from Taylor Boulevard. Reducing the number of stories of the center wing to two stories was accomplished. The applicant reviewed increasing the setback of the structure from 10 feet to 15 feet. Given the site constraints, the applicant was not able to adjust the building siting. The only option is to shift the building towards the existing residences to the east, which is not a desirable option since it would make the building closer to the existing homes and yards. This option would require the redesign of the parking lot and driveway areas, allowing less room for a landscape buffer between the project and residences. Shifting the building would likely reduce the number of parking spaces below the required number. The pad elevation of the building, as shown on the proposed grading plan, would be below Taylor Boulevard. The applicant has responded to the issue of visibility of the building from Taylor Boulevard by setting the building at the lowest possible elevation to reduce the visual impact on Taylor Boulevard instead of increasing the setback. The retaining wall along Taylor Boulevard varies in height, with a height of up to 10 feet. The project base elevation will be below the grade of Taylor Boulevard. As directed in the conditions of approval, the applicant is proposing a stacked wall (see brochure for Loffelstein wall, attached) which can be planted. This will add to the aesthetic quality of the project and outdoor areas that are used by the future occupants. It will also reduce noise for ground floor occupants and users of the outdoor area. This wall will not be seen from Taylor Boulevard. As required by condition 4D and as shown on the plans, the ravine crossing will be constructed using a cast concrete panel retaining system. The crossing achieves a maximum height above the ravine of approximately 35 feet. The width of the crossing is 20 feet, with a 5 foot pedestrian walkway on the west side of the bridge. The grades of this crossing vary. Approval was received from. the Department of Fish and Game for the ravine crossing (see attached). This approval is a renewal, due to the delay in building the project, and an additional renewal will be required. The conditions of the Fish and Game approval are extensive, and will ensure that the area cleared for the ravine crossing is properly revegetated with tree replacement on a 2:1. basis. This replacement is in addition to the trees proposed to be planted with the landscaping plan. With Department of Fish and Game oversight, adequate revegetation and tree planting will be carried out in the ravine area. S-5 350 In anticipation of this project, the property owners at end of Diablo View Road planted redwood trees on their property to screen the project when it was built. Grading of the site to create level areas for parking and the building require the filling of a portion of the site, which would create a retaining wall in the root zone of the trees. In addition, there are two native 18" oak trees along the east property line. Staff has recommended to the applicant that an arborist report and supervision by an arborist occur during grading and construction of the retaining wall to address tree protection along the east property line. Fencing of the root zones of all trees to be preserved is also recommended. The applicant has verbally agreed to monitor the trees. VI. DISCUSSION OF CONDITION 6 In addition to the grading plans, the applicant is required to submit landscape plans for the review of the Planning Commission. Condition 6D requires the preservation of trees which qualify as heritage trees. Even though the landscape plan will be submitted later, staff requested the submittal of a tree inventory and arborist report to address trees that may be impacted as a result of the ravine crossing, since the building permit plans for the ravine crossing have been submitted to the Building Inspection Department. This inventory and report are included in the attachments, along with a diagram of the affected trees. Since the approval of the project was in 1991, the County's Tree Preservation Ordinance was not in effect. As a result, only the Heritage Tree Ordinance applies. There was an understanding at the time of approval that some of the trees at the site would require removal for the ravine crossing. The inventory of trees (attached) identifies 15 to 21 trees requiring removal by the ravine crossing. Only trees larger than 72 inches in circumference (approximately 23 inches in diameter) qualify for review by the County. Of the 21 trees, none are large enough or healthy enough to qualify for heritage tree status. Six of trees are eucalyptus trees in poor condition. Landscape plans for the development include substantial tree and shrub planting around the building. Approximately 157 (15-gallon) trees are proposed for the site. Native or indigenous trees such as oaks, redwoods, and bays are proposed around the perimeter of the site — along Taylor Boulevard, adjacent to residences on Diablo View Road, and the ravine. Trees in the parking lot, surrounding the building and in the courtyard areas are appropriate ornamental varieties. The proposed redwood and bay trees along the east property line will combine with the grove of trees planted by the adjacent property owner to provide substantial screening of the project over time. S-6 l In working with the neighboring property owners, the applicant may need to make some minor adjustments to the proposed plant materials and placement. The applicant has met with the two adjoining property owners and is in the process of securing approval of the plans as required in condition 6C. Approximately 249 (5-gallon) shrubs and 372 (1-gallon) shrubs are proposed in the planter areas on the site, along with ground cover, vines and lawn. Staff finds that the proposed landscape plan is appropriate and will enhance the project over time. No changes or modifications are recommended to the Planning Commission. VIL CONDITT'ION COMPLIANCE DISCUSSION The following discussion is provided for information only. It is intended to inform the Planning Commission and neighbors of the applicant's efforts in complying with selected conditions of approval. No action is required for any of these items. Condition 3 Original project plans included use of a small, pie shaped piece of land at the end of Diablo View Road for parking. This property is owned by the County, and has not been offered for sale at auction. To recognize that the land may not be available, the project was approved with the condition that if the site is not available,that parking at a rate of .52 spaces per unit be provided. With 101 rooms, the total number of required spaces would be 53. The plans include 53 parking spaces. Condition 5 Condition 5 required review of the grading plan by the County Geologist and the Zoning Administrator. Revisions to the plans were made by the project engineer to address issues associated with the plan approved in 1991. A comment letter by the County Geologist is attached for Planning Commission review. The most significant change to the plans originally approved was the reduction in the slope of the northeast comer of the lot to a gradient of 2.5;1(previously 3.1). This reduced gradient will allow for the planting of trees, shrubs and groundcover on the slope. At the top of the slope, there is a low retaining wall which rises above the driveway of the proposed facility, creating a bean. This berm is designed to elevate the trees to screen some of the project and parking from neighboring residential properties below. ...... ............ . Sys?7 S-7 : Condition 7 This condition requires that the open space ravine area between the proposed building and Pleasant Hill Road be protected by deeding of the development lights to the County. This is a common tool that the County uses to protect open space and riparian areas in the County in perpetuity. This restriction can only be changed by an action of the Board of Supervisors. Condition 8 Condition 8 requires a final review and approval of the building permit plans by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit. This is an internal, administrative review. The Zoning Administrator will review building materials and colors, roof equipment, and lighting. Lighting is to be directed downward and away from adjoining properties. Condition 12 Condition 12 requires that a noise study be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of a grading or building permit to mitigate noise impacts from Taylor Boulevard. A noise study has been completed and is attached for reference. The study recommends an eight foot tall fence or wall along Taylor Boulevard. In addition to the wall, the second and third floors facing Taylor Boulevard will be required to have sound rated construction and windows (Sound for the first floor is blocked since most of the first floor is below Taylor Boulevard). MPL "7/30/02 v . . _ o u y..._.. in0 Lm 0 V � mc� aj a N cr uju Ir o � hi t� d 4 +p rn �` . r �� ice); (�,� •""''.� rte �, '�'L �<,� •, fid`+ �r �- V D)�� f i � Z� Ntxl o� `c j —cam/ ' Aq � r� �� ,, ,�, � I. ;�� `.,jam✓) . al V ~ C)INC}5l '1R gi L N PARK U 111 b o x O Z d � M 2 WEV. CT O cr I ---C Y► ,�pY 40 ../�'' WAY u . . 526 N •�.,r 4.. W Nh e6ti• •E ..w�n .-.. � PIEPSPK EL-PA HT P EAST 4 N 4 'EL PANCnp DP HU Mq ni, P a ELr w ' ^tN A N R 526 a A K � akares � YEt4k Ci 524 Yj f'tiy � P,Ip GZ y � If f t;6 A s� i ' P +ro t i23 s a n Q. i PAl.C+S VEwbES - A A �I MALL �y',..- .•''gyp � o tK: Q t - 71 t a cr 1539 1540 1541 115 ` 1543 MCS CERTIFICATE RY CIIREC'MR n F CC1MMUN;lY DEV-LOPMFNT $ � M q p� � 6$1 v � N '•'� Y = W UL N C tV •� p ® LLWWII q J �W LLJ R ��t". � � �1W�UYdpjpjjj � �1' "N� ^�^-�� •j_.. s a lig gwg � r <b 9 bil Rq # iF jbANN �ag � W < ` < Q f all a . _ Nisga b s � s 111,1 '�bxWc alb It I Ill 9!fill d P a FF g � g qj ii, loop IX611 b� I lip If fill, ifI 'fig ull u . � g l# fg .. p d � � g � bgf log OUR �gg gs tilt," g x eggf, lie, 11111, it fig Oil 111�,� Ing'' � � jul gal liffl Q RE SSp 77 Og Pit pal rnH" 3 If H gill yg{ MYJ, l w •`' "t'rw...„,.��`C7 .,�'. a7. •,i--"'.' � ,gyp•"jd � �c�,_,:.. � � �r � gyp'•• ;b�'. •,,, 4 .,,tq�y�'�' _ i � lygp t r9 fiP?!t {p } CD Y y g z All W L5 >>rt t; _\ - a•....„t3s� 's9�sra -:.'• E AIR m � � d •gw +,r x�dk' 'ry+. h.+�4,�y y,::',,;y, ' sr it `Ff Wil C, tf'ryyftlyt".YK')�Fv! trt y, _ X4'4Y C7 a .!6rpX59Z;i13 i i?� - -t 3Y`. OD, 96'x' vi. yglr'� t ussserau .r acv., iG \ {fix � ., �• b a� r � �dd='��i��`�``, f�G✓ 6� -wti +tr+ �� ij�nlrx� � f�� ,`s a�t r9titpy�31t5.ynJ �r t SS oy.��^Yi 3\�t'., 4 R��.7<..�'. ^'S g�a0y ,r•• Y e � � � �+'�qi�i�'�!�} � �}t'f� ��•� +�� {ihl�'hJ1� l�'- ll��iyi i(�,� �, o ITT S" lei �� u 2 �� t7f��.►�� . � I � � � �i,�.� � � � � �, �,it;�� Ij t��,,/� ii iii,I•��t��! jiC� �.t��j i Itt I 1i1� t 4 i yt'1 #tM Ilf ,f+i I ��' �G� iH I Itr � t it6 f' f fi " II t{i ,i I7� t1 f JJ 1 52- -04"k, *q WAR. "-�°rosy du xB g r +mr ^3 •.�'i r 4 _�},U it�� , r t C { n ! S�'I�' F 1 C =R+ee' '�~ Vin ' -�• i t:'' ,r r t +,}t :+ t•.} dy I is s PM •� k a i i ,ti.t'i i it f(44t i i kt.r7',� +lilt i i'!s '' i� ' 1� '�r2' � fit. •,-{1' ,i- F(.i I,'i,lti, i'�..;j4{'^'i i1+7(Y �4SN ij.{}}Ft i ' ��E�1 i U§y x5(p^•� '`. 1�Ti }7 -t ,�* 9j{?4}��4i tr'' 1�+� i�).� Lt I,�1 jl.r..� if ik�Lt(1i.1�i�.i. w.lti i Ta #{i ahi 5!j (i+ i. . 'u , �d¢r .TS1y1P5�' 3. � i 9�Z�Tr""' � i ' 1 - LU Ge�C�%,�Qf` � —... ;S��a, � t+4 7 1 i i'♦ i i r,{ ' ,� , 7I �� k ii{V+ I + t + ' I UU I t+4 { 114 ry fl !t 'j, Ii i t 11 fin t '.,..;xl� ,t ly hit 10 KI >r � I � •,�j 1 ',�. � til ' .�.?i � � fi{. I' � ( 9 �. • ,�,. � .(v! �. w � � �1. .. c �' i t ..l1 of �.. 11, 1. t iF`i1'C {�11 1i iJJ!+ Iii,tl5 t- ,t .a1. i -t91•i �. i tj-�t. d{'s!i9� d � ( �.� � (�t�i�l�#��"�ifl��1�,�(l��i � !{,)t��., H1S 1� }y ".+id r��t ,lt +l1.4 Iji t' l % 1 } 1! 71a l�'f i{i _','��'.i'�• � }tl Il�f�l IEbt��gC.F�r,l{. I jt�ta� l{f{�r11��1'� t�+�ij,� i�iTlfi� t:+L i rtli � ?I' {{ •rr tt a a + z Edi+ I'T ir3 4'ffi.',.(7hLt7fll17C G! Q } 7 y a✓�di 8Y3�t oi�, 1 l y it+r If ry i +i- i, ! , 1 lir�.i�•ItI f� s ' 5 w 1 ! 1 t , � �� t 1 r4, !1 i t ,-ty�. 1�� t W A i "1 t x !.t't l I t, ,,s it >✓. go yw's�esvnvmtsa�•�s �.a i ' 1 "u i�`,i {{�� ( i 4�rt*E't ai 1 a�3 1 `ti i r�{ 1 �} t w,' t t } � +� '•i " i� •'i � 1 y.�, �! '�l�{y-�'t i�'��i .;t �',-4#1�i"i„��ia��}J d��t��!'(f{'P 71�I�a�� rll}i 17 i I �'�t � f �1 i • n4. � , C '1 , I , tl � 7 Z y t !r7ta i � p �v 1 ! is , '(`.-, — -.-.�'° ,3 t t r�i��il'i�+;I. } a• I ! ,iJt , Jtt� i9i: 5 t71 v t � dpi ,�i �S 1 I �'I iFn�>I+m f�•1r Ylrt>jt Ii+ l�i i�. .l, LJ ,� tli t}, �_ � ... �� 11;.t;+tl 'ixv t•14. i. !} t , 1ti it F}t+1i4.{r'i 1;Jkt' 91 -t x..' 3 'j11 1'� l I9 d b a >t ,i iyrEa fil7�y f�Ti i' ,y, i.tjlr L � i tl . 'rV�, d..` �'71"11' }} t -��.-! .tilii�i�J !, •�t i`�v�,y,y, ,- .1�.-.� .��ll��+��:��,tf•; .d YcWl yy.� OWN fJa; if _ � y&J s Y� i �liiiil + i1F#+ Jiitnit ` i#i t �++I, r��I #� ' m x •I' I n+ t �4t' ,}+��I t. �3.J I,r,i LIJ {ll �, 1 }, r r•rt i'' !i ri� (F� i�!t "itF f• ii'll1 111, 1 ��{ s. Ii Ni It i ,1 t � !,l�It� �9 l+{, 1• { tt�,1.1 Ott �e s '�{r!. �`/`` i � s 1 fry��fii,Tr' [j '' ' t � I fr I�}��ilkF{I�iI�'� ilf!*' � .._ ,_e ti ,i ilti{ !it i tlj It ��r� r�r(itIt�9i1i ;�" 1��11 � t) 7a 1 t i i I I I ROM 12( i i }� ! rl i `!4 � �� 1{ jyllV t iii'i� 1r 11if1 t � i �} , E` Ga .�i',J[l��r�(}�i�'!.1':� i 101105.i-i.'ji l�to m#op I -: 17 1 S' 5OIL, `'� r S A IR � -.. a. 99•aa'3-an7y `J?IH`u fct �\• � I �ji i L Go C Ek•dIS � r I fE i l a 77tM!7?8 H/936 I i •,': � �, + .. -. ' 1 2y gY7�.Y1Y77'k'NI038 e - .�........... .. j LVNO�NGJ 1gJM� ,3 i ! S d NGJ lOJMV.' os Fa•�r �,... �! 'd ?.' _1-- spa 5�nsr �«i) __ o iq '.I. T �•`p� 974x7 J.7a VAtGl.r NP&X rE F Etk MS - I Ud4446 A!1 ) r g F'd d - YL^9"'.9� 7 9.j7 a5- I JNd -� s 9a ?^Non Nl ssta?32 73E _ 91 OTRl zr=s •`x au¢ exy 1'M ;' /w&. ml Jn7Jd d ql dF I WW df p15;1'339V4138Y3AatV]ll ; �'Jil I C 1'� CL it -/ 'e) VO Y g W t ki y + a- a � it w Ns r:.. ga WS All .<�...Y.� � t it X/ ,• �� r .A an -;.•' 'fit:+� K ta rZ • rtr +G '. ' "�� {' 'Cad N►.,�N � �4 er x e ` �"_ _ _•�_ _•___.__..._._ �' yeti ,1 a p tt ------- 41- LI)-- LI) a � ao I v4 r 16 -------------- Y Ff F r� tl a v co u I { ell, � i { �•`as d _ d.� rti r �A rt it t � Int 1 t'e 1 y / \ c �r r►.:i~ ba ^ h \\ (n� 1 � � w i ca f � i r i �J It� .> ' IU Awl j J 1 w F" m { i i � i , CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: Hasseltine Best APPLICATION NO. C:30017-81 2350 Salvio Street #303 Concord, CA 94520 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 169-090-001. OWNER: Country Wood Congregate Care APPROVED ZONING: L-13 C/O Richard Bradbury 1911 San Miguel Drive APPROVAL DATE: June 4, 1991 This is to notify you that the Board of Supervisors has granted your request for a development plan, subject is the attached conditions shown as Exhibit "A". HARVEY E. BRAGDON, Director Community Development Department By: Mary Flenii g - Chief, Lan Development ,-PLEASE NOTE THE EFFE=DATE, and be aware of the renewing requirements as no further notification will be sent by this office. The Clerk of the Board will provide a copy of the Board Order with approved Conditions of Approval. sz l 4•- �,Y EXHIBIT "A" CbNDIT101S OF APPROVAL FOR. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3007-88 1. Development shall be as 'shown •on'plans submitted with the application dated received by the Community Development Department on April 4, 1990, subject to the conditions listed below. 2. This approval is for retirement and congregate care housing facility of not more than 101 residential units for persons 60 .years or older and as such shall be recorded as a deed restriction on the property. A copy of the recorded document shall be submitted to the Community Development Depart- ment prior to occupancy. (If a -residential unit is to be occupied by a couple, one spouse :must be 60 years of, age or older.) - 0. This ,approval includes and is subject to the County--owned property contiguous to the north to be part of, this development to provide for off-street parking and a cul-de-sac turnaround at the end of Diablo View Road. A, In the event that the County-owned property is unavailable for parking purposes, revised parking plans will be submitted for the. review and approval .of the Zoning Administrator providing for .52 onsite parking spaces per dwelling unit ad indicated on the plans received 4/04/90. A maximum of 25 of spaces may be "compact" spaces. Such plans will be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of building permits. ._ 4. Prior to issuance .of a building or grading permit, revised plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. The plans shall be agendized on the County Planning Commission agenda for the review and approval of the Plannin; commission. ..The plans shall provide for the following» A. The project access to be at Pleasant Hill .Road with right turns only, and with an adequate acceleration lane and extension of the island area to prevent left turns on.. Pleasant- Hill Road. Ghannelization shall be subject to the review of the public Works Department, Road .-Engineering Division. B. No access to Diablo View Road except for card-gated emergency access and allowance for use by transportation vans of the congregate care. facility and also subject to review by . the Contra Costa County consolidated Fire Protection District. The location and design of the gate and related fencing shall be shown on ,revised plans. The turnaround at the end of Diablo View Road to 'be constructed with no access to adjacent parking. All off-street parking shall be shown. Additional use of Diablo View Road is subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator one year after occupancy: 2. C. That .portion of the and 'of the. middle wing of the building with a 10 foot setback from Taylor Boulevard shall be reduced to two-story . height and those affected residential units (3) shall be relocated to the end of the most northerly wing providing for a height of not more than two stories for the relocated units. Consideration shall be given to providing a 15-foot building setback along Taylor Boulevard. The, proposed building as viewed from Taylor Boulevard and the surrounding area shall be reduced in height by lowering the grading for the building pad to grade to the extent feasible. Retaining walls embankments and earth berms shall be shown on revised plans including cross-section drawings. Where retaining walls are needed they shall be of a stepped design or crib-lock design as is appropriate. D. The ravine crossing shall be constructed using crib-lock retaining galls as indicated on submitted plans and with a waterway/open space opening size subject to review and -approval of the Zoning Administrator in consultation with the Department of Fish and Game. The roadway for the crossing shall have a minimum width of 20 feet and shall be widened to provide for a separated 5 foot wide pedestrian walkway. The road grade to Pleasant Hill. road shall not exceed 10 percent. B. Prior to filing for grading permit, grading plans shall be submitted for review and approval by thb County Geologist and the Zoning Administrator. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits a landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. The plans shall be agendized on the County Planning Commission's agenda for review and approval. The plans shall utilize California Native Species, conform- ing to the Contra Costa County policy on water conservation requirements for new development. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to occupancy. A. Evergreen screening trees shall be planted at the east, west .and north boundaries of the property. B. The proposed trees on the site are to be a minimum of 15 ..gallons in size. The propose shrubs on the site are to be a minimum of 5 gallons in size.. C. All embankments, earth berming and retaining walls shall be shown together with landscaping for those area. Plans shall be submitted for review by the two property owners contiguous at the east boundary, and their approval indicated with the landscape plan. D. Existing trees which qualify as heritage trees per Ordinance Code Section 816- 4.502 that are tokbe preserved and may be endangered by construction or grading activities, shall be protected at the dripline by barricade or other suitable means. tel. ° -7 . A scenic easement or , the deeding of the development rights shall be provided for at the area of the ravine across the .south portion of the property extending from.,Pleasant Hill Road north to approximately contour Elevation 250 feet. This shall be accomplished prior to occupancy. g . Building design shall be similar to that shown on revised plans dated, received April 4, 1990, with the application subject to final review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit. The. roofs of all buildings shall be free of such objects as air .conditioning equipment, television aerials, etc., or 'screened from view and exterior lights •shall .be...deflected so that lights shine onto applicant's property and not toward adjacent properties. A. Provide ,building colors and material to blend with the environment. Roofing shall be of brown tone tile. Stucco walls. shall be of earth_ tone colors and balconies and trim shall be 'natural woad. B. Additional soundproofing shall be provided for those residential units directly adjacent to Taylor Boulevard for a interior noise level of less .than 45 DBL.. . (See 'Condition 012) C. Provide complete automatic fire sprinkler protection and smoke exhaustion system for the entire building subject to approval by the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District. g • Submit a TSM (Transportation System Management Program) for vans, 'busing, etc., for review and approval by the. Zoning Administrator prior to - occupancy. Van service• for ,on-call or scheduled use shall be provided for the residents. 1p. Should archaeological., materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a-professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has' had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) , if deemed necessary. Comply with drainage, . road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as follows: A. Unless exceptions are specifically granted, this development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Conformance with Division 514 includes the following requirements: 1) Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. 4. This will require the improvement of some of the downstream drainage facilities (e.g. , ' culverts) subject to the review and approval of the public Works Department. 2} Designing and constructing storm.drainage facilities required by . Division 914 in compliance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with design standards of the. Public Corks Department.. 3) The design of the on-site watercourse crossing shall be subject to the review .and approval of the Public Works Department. H. Unless exceptions are specifically granted, comply with the require- menta of Division 110.6 (Road Dedication' and Setbacks) of the County ordinance Code. Compliance with the ordinance includes the following: 1) Pleasant Hill Road frontage improvements which include the construction of an acceleration lane for, west bound traffic exiting the site and the installation of a median barrier along the frontage to prevent left turn exits will satisfy this requirement. All improvements shall be subject to the review and approval of the public Works Department. 2) 'Traffic shall be restricted to right turn--in and right turn-out only at the Pleasant. Hill Road accessway. 3) installing street lights on Pleasant Hill Road. The final number and location 'of the lights shall be determined by the County Traffic Engineer. C. Install all new utility distribution services underground. D. ' Construct a standard cul-de-sac, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department, at the westerly terminus of Diablo View Road. E. Furnish proof to the public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage improvements. F. Submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to the public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, for review, pay the inspection, plan review and applicable lighting fees. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Traffic Engineer. The improvement plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, prior to the issuance of any building permit. The review of improvement plans and payment of all fees shall be completed prior to the clearance of any building for final inspection by the / l3-C)z r d � Public Works Department. If final inspection is requested prior to construction of improvements, the applicant shall executry a road improvement agreement with Contra Costa County and post bonds required by the agreement to guarantee completion of the work. 3,.2. Prior to issuance of a grading'or building permit, an acoustic study shall be prepared to, assure that the residential units shall have interior noise level of not more than 45 dba of the CNEL scale 'and to further reduce noise levels of outdoor patio and deck areas. Noise attenuation measures such as type, size and location of sound barriers, additional grading for earth berming, shall be .,shown , and subject to review and approval: by the Zoning Administrator. .13 . A. decorative sound barrier .wall and/or fencing..shall be provided along the west boundary of the property and submitted, for review and. approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to construction. 14. Noise generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M., to 5:00 P.M., Monday 'through Friday and shall be prohibited on State and Federal holidays. The restrictions on allowed working days may be modified on prior written approval by the Zoning Administrator. ADVISORY NOTE A„ This project may be subject to the requirements of -the Department of Fish Game. The -applicant shotil`d notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within, this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish & Game Code. 8• The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. C. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County consolidated Fire Protection District. D. The applicant will be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 46 as adopted by the board of Supervisors. BT/a& DpX/3007-88C.BT 3/9/90 4/04/90 4/10/90 - P/C Rev. (v) 1/16/91 - in 5/16/91 in /^� j( r� Dennis Ni.Barry,AICD L.,,r( mmunity Contra Community Development Director DoNelopment Costa De�partment County Cou ntj Administration Building - 651 pyre Street " 4th Floor, North Wing Mart;"z,California 94553-0095 Phor-le', (925} 335-1276 N 7Vw our�� November 13, 1998 Mr. Jinn Johnson Sierra Building Company P.O. Box 563 Danville, CA 94526 Dear Mr. Johnson: SUBJECT: COUNTRYWOOD CONGREGATE CARE PROJECT I have reviewed the materials transmitted to me by Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema's office regarding the Countrywood project. In reviewing Mr. DeBolt`s letter of October 21, 1998 with Mr. Ron Killough of the. Building Inspection Department Grading Division, I was able to determine that the response from Public Works and the Grading Division were not returned to Mr. DeBolt's firm in January of 1998. Because of the timely filing of the application for the grading permit, it is my determination that your timely compliance with the conditions required for the issuance of the grading permit will allow for the project to proceed. Please contact Mr. Robert Drake of our staff regarding required submittals in compliance with the Conditions of Approval of Development Plan 30107-88 and request that your civil engineer contact Mr. Killough regarding the comments on the submitted grading plans. if you have any questions on the foregoing, please call. Sincerely, Dennis M. Barry, AICD Community Developmen Director DMB:gms dmb2Vohnson.le cc; Members, Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board Ron Killough. Bob Drake Gene DeBolt Office Hours Monday - Friday: 5:00 a.m. - 5:00 p,rm Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd&5th Fridays of each month vc PP dt 1 d � �� i ✓ i3� � a� .•. 1 1 { .rrr rj�.` '` i f Vii'. �o ' .Y';�, p R \ Z . l h.l ..— `�` r , ' 4 0 `�` ,' f 1� � • III �y r s}�,�'` l� 4.,' IL Ld EL i ! t y Ld LU 10. CL 1�"'�y'^"`4�. N „,�-`....�,..�� /,�.'`• .��` \.,,,. It ,q. ,��' W wr= jr W 6 g" s15 :A(- lRE'iI�IV.�L;A T K t�A.KJJ i` N t� .Cit€ it u Simi -311 Val�v t t.. n L�rsa�. .� I�"I l u l'N`�' y° "HIS AGEMENT, entered into between d)e State of California, Department of Fish and Game, hereinafter calltJ the Department, lid of laiisr State of_CalifQui , hereinafter called the operator, is as follows: VHERE�S,pursuant to Division 2, Chapter G of California.Fish and Came Code, the operator, on the 22nc1 clay of o) 92$, notifi.d the Department that he intends to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change the htd, :hanneI, or lank of, or use material from the streambed of, the following water: trihuta 'ayson C&ek o the Cou.ny of Contr�� s a , State of California, S _-___ T AN R 2W VHERE,%.S,the Department(represented by Michael Q. BueIna has made an inspection of subject area on the 13 _ day of October _ , 19-9—L , and) Ii.Ls determined that such peratious xray substantially adversely affect existing fish and wildlife resources including; ripal San lta b! at. ur r e and rl(rn-YLIe i7i •a cr rentiles. CHER-EFORI=, the Department hereby proposes measures to protect fish and wildlife during the operator's woi-L. The optrator, lic:relly agrees to accept the following recommendations as part of his work: 1. Xll work in or near the stream or lake shall be confined to the periodLJay 1 1999 ti,'ou i7 C ewhe.r 15.1999 2. This agreement covers the installation of a road bed across the open charulel, north of Pleasant Dill Road and east ofT`Taylor Blvd. The road bed side slopes will be shielded on both sides with an open sided construction block, which will provide plarldrig areas for native vines. 3. After the exact location of the road is determined, an evaluation will be made by a professional environmental specialist to establish the value of losses to the local area.. A mitigation plan shall be submitted to the Department for review and approval prior to the start of any construction. Mitigation shall include.replacement of any removed trees at a ratio of 2:1 will) native like species. All plantings shall be maintained for a period of five years after completion of the project and survival shall be at least 70%. 4. Disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not exceed the minimum necessary to complete operations. The disturbed portions of the =earn channel shall be restored to as near their original condition as possible. 5. Restoration shall include the revegetation of stripped or exposed areas. 6. Rock-, riprap, or other erosion protection shall be placed in areas where vegetation cannot reasonably be expected to becoine reestablished. 7, lnstallation of bridges, culverts, or ether structures shall be such that water flow is not impaired. Bottoms of temporary culverts shall be placed at or below stream channel grade. Bottoms of permanent culverts shall be placed below stream chwinei 16rade. 8. No equipment will be operated in live stream channels. 9. Equipment shall not be operated in the stream channels of flowing live streams except as may be necessany to construct crossinsis or barriers and fills at chatmel changes. 10. When work in a flowing stream is unavoidable, the entire streamflow shall be diverted around die work area by a barrier ternporar} culvert, and/or a new channel, Construction of the barrier and/or die new charuiel shall normally begin in t')t downstream area and continue in an upstream direction, and the flow shall be diverted only wher, construction of the diversiot Lr completed. Channel bank or barrier construction shall be adequate to prevent seepage into or fronn die rworl: area.. Channe baulks or barriers shall not be made of earth or other substances subject to erosion unless first enclustd 1,} sheet piling. r0cl riprap, or other protective material. The enclosure and tl)e supportive material shall be removed wl)er, )e work is complete and the removal shall normally proceed from downstream in an upstream direction. t i Temporary fills shall be constructed of nonerodible materials and shall lieremoved irnr)Ie'liUeI% �iup,On twor L�),�pietic n t � , With the otsture traps* Equally random in their effect, outstandingly stable. It corresponds to the plants, too, find it the ideal base, that of an interconnected masonry I because a green retaining wall built structure although the retaining wall is dry from Loffelstein blocks is of course built from individual blocks laid «dry>). not so dry. The troughshape of the The Loffelstein retaining wall can Loffelstein block prevents the water slope at any angle;therefore,the slope from draining off straight away. can vary from the top to the bottom Therefore, the earth is able to absorb of the wall. The transition into the more water and the block, too, will unconsolidated planted soil is just as absorb moisture to a certain degree. problem-free,The plants and the t Thus, plants have the ideal growing Loffelstein blocks grow together Into a; x conditions.The particular advantage one natural unit. lies in the harmonious blending of Loffelstein block,soil, water and vegetation.The L®ffelsteln block can r: ` do more for environmental protection than was hitherto possible. Only in special cases is a frost-proof founda- tion needed.The wall is built by alternating blocks and earth interfill. The shape of the Loffelstein blocks \; gives the finished retaining wall an t interlinked chain structure which is (' y el Steiri Orli s t ._.-_.�►.. � � � ( ,# # tet. qr iV to ♦ ..reg", a oti. .3 Q s ' do �y e t . . A :N 0 .+- w`Xy,A Ail dt r a s ��+i"��• .,,Y * ,� �R tr✓ P�'1 �b{�'�, � r� " .� t `� Y�� }��liw . t p x �e5�� sale IV t s X1�111�1 e'�t ff- OOCcOW OW, "etilr►1C1� r VERSA-LOKI' System Overview VERSA-LOK segmental On many projects,VERSA-LOK retaining wall systems are retaining walls work purely as economically installed gravity systems-where unit without mortar and do not weight alone provides resistance require concrete footings to earth pressures. Maximum below frost. They are ideal for allowable wall height for gravity all residential,commercial, walls varies with soil and loading and agency proects,and are conditions. Generally,with level routinely speciEd by state backfill and no excessive loading, transportation departments VERSA-LOK gravity walls may and the U.S.Army Corps be built to heights of four feet. of Engineers. When weight of units alone is not enough to resist soil loads, horizontal layers of geosynthetics are used to reinforce soil behind walls. With proper soil reinforcement and design, VERSA-LOK walls can be constructed to heights in excess of 40 feet. The illustration below highlights components of a VERSA-LOK segmental retaining wall system. r '1 Note: Actual unit color,size,and Soil reinforcement and drainage materials weight may vary slightly by region. vary with site and soil conditions. Unit Characteristics VERSA-LOK solid retaining wall units are made ' Pteit from high-strength,low-absorption concrete to vut_utK create a consistently durable product that exceeds Rataining Wall unit industry standards. Solid provide Impervious Fill characteristics l� I Drainage Aggregate superior resistance Soil Reinforcement to damage before Compacted eacklill during,and after Drain Pipe P construction in Gaveling Pad all climates. UndlaturW Soil VERSA-LOK solid units are integrally colored and may be easily modified to create an unlimited variety of design elements. Walls display a natural split-face texture to complement any environment and,because they are made of concrete,are environmentally safe. V11E tSl#-LOK [knit softfficaitonas H (ght: s inches:'` X159.4 mm} Wlclth{teat): 14 inches,. 1355 6 mire} . Depth:" 12 inches (k4.8 i� Face Area: 213.idol. (0.062 ml volume: 0.63 600 (0.018 m') Weight: A 62)bs.`. o3 I'g kg) Weight/Face Area: 123 lbs./foot.',(599.84 kglrri°) d Design Flexibility Premium soli w y and Design Flexibility Premium 02832/VER ine 6274 Industry Approved The VERSA-LOK system has rapidly earned approval from landscape architects,engineers,and contractors. It provides unlimited design flexibility, unsurpassed durability,and fast installation. The VERSA-LOK system may be easily installed by landscape contractors,grounds maintenance personnel,or municipal construction crews. Easy Installation Holes and slots molded into units accept " VERSA-TUFF"noncorrosive, nylon/fiberglass pins. 'his unique Kole-to-slot pinning system permits easy variable-bond construction-keeping vertical joints tight. As wall courses are installed,pins are inserted through holes in uppermost course units and are received in slots of adjacent lower course units. Pins interlock units and help provide consistent alignment. Unlimited Design Flexibility The trapezoidal shape of the VERSA-LOK unit permits construction of concave and convex curves. An unlimited varier of inside r corners,outside corners,an steps may also be created using the VERSA-LOK standard unit. Because standard units are used for all design elements,it is not necessary to order or estimate special pieces. Matching concrete caps are available to attractively finish any VERSA-LOK wall and may be used as treads in step installations. For more detailed information !' regarding construction and unique •capabilities" lease request a p p q VERSA-LOK Design& Installation Guide from your local supplier or by calling VERSA-LOK toll-free at(800)770-4525. inmatched i fexibility Premium Solid Units Unmatched In Durability and Design FlexiIIRPrell�lu urability. VERSA-LOKrovides premium retaining walls for governmentaLcommercial,and residential applications. • Engineers value the structural integrity and durability of walls constructed using VERSA-LOK r solid concrete units. • Contractors welcome VERSA-LOK"s easy installation. No special units need to be ordered or estimated. • Landscape Architects appreciate the freedom to create curves,corners,steps,and an unlimited variety of design elements using VERSA-LOK. • Property Owners enjoy VERSA-LOK's classic,natural appearance,low life-cycle,cost,and virtually maintenance-free performance. VERSA-LOK offers a variety of technical support including in-house engineering assistance and reference materials. Please call C800)770-4525 with questions or to request any of the following: •Design&Installation Guidelines •Technical Bulletin#1 Shoreline&Retention Ponds •Technical Bulletin#2 Building Steps •Technical Bulletin#3 Curves&Corners •Technical Bulletin#4 Capping •Technical Bulletin#5 Base Installation •Technical Bulletin-#6 Vertical& Freestanding Walls •Technical Bulletin#7 Tiered Walls •Construction Details on CD-ROM containing technical drawings and standard specifications •Scale Model VERSA-LOK Units •Drafting Templates •Specifier's Reference Binders and more... p VEIRSA rLOKORetaining Wali Systems A Division of Kiltie Corporation 6348 Hwy,36,Suite 1 Oakdale,MN 55128 (651)770-3166 • (800)770-4525 - (651)770-4089 fax http://www.versa-lok.com Premium Retaining Walls for governmental, commercial,and residential applications. Made worldwide under license Isom%TTA-LOK Retaining Wall Systems.US.Patent D319,885,US.Patent D321,060,tis.Patent 0341,215,US,Patent D346,667,U.S.Patent D378,702, U.S.Patent D391,376,and other US,patents pending;Canadian Industrial Design Registration No.63929,No,71472,No.73910,No.7391L No.73912,No,7787.6,No.79058,and No.82288. LCB.O. No.4625 •01998 Kiltie Corporation•Printed in llS.A. r i • I --�-\4. t r i r i d c% W t�� S' r o rl" m u n i tI� r Dennis M. Barry, AICP Community Development Director DevelopmentCosta , . Department Count. /{{ �{}{rye ry $� �� M� V M1i County Administration Building 02 �t� 651 Pine Street _ 4th Floor,North Vying Martinez,California 94553-0035 + Phone: (925)335-1210 Date: .- AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST We request your comments regard!R&the attached application currently under review. } DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows: �' Building InspectionctriG�, � HSD,Environmental Health, Concord Project.Planner. 4 C Ltke.l k,k SD,Hazardous Materials � 1-w3r VPIfW-Flood Control(Full Size) County File W-Engineering Svcs (Full Size)C.A49 (n, Number: O 68 3061 Pate Forwarded IVV Traffic(Reduced) Prior To: A pv-4i zoo-z- -P/W Special Districts(Reduced) —Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs Redevelopment Agency apply to this application: —Historical Resources Information System A Dative Amer.Her. Comm. . o Redevelopment Area A Fish&Game,Region - US Fish &Wildlife Service Active Fault Zone ire District 0-'ty61 qvt anitary District W+nl Flood Hazard Area,Panel# Ciater District Nt�D ty pieksA,%h- - 'i YOM 50 dBA Noise Control tw-;�J School District Sheriff Office-Admin. &Comm.Svcs.AK6 CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site —Alamo Improvement Association F. El Sobrante Plg:& Zoning Committee Traffic Zone MAC ®DOIT-Dep.Director, Communications1-' CEQA apt SIP_ FAEVIAXLY CAC R-7A Alamo C Community Organizations oi. RECEIVED Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are req ' ed y l f r orci naM P ase s nd �c ies of your response to the Applicant&Owner. No comments on this application. PLAN _ Our Comments are attached CIT Y{ W NU C EEK Comments: ! Si �a�ur ,,J Age S.current planningttempiatestformstagency comment request iiate ERMUD REVIEW OF AGENCY PLANNING APPLICATION =tehi.,t supplied herein is based on preliminary information,is subject to revision and is to be used for planning purposes ONLY. NOMMEMMEMENEWA DATE 412102 EBMUD MAP(S) 15398522 EBMUD FILE: S-7212 J AGENCY: Contra Costa County AGENCY FILE: DP-883DO7 ❑ TENTA� MAP County Administration Building 0 DEVELO 4NT PLAN'; 651 Pine Street ❑ REZONING4PA 4u'Floor,North Wing ❑ OTHER Martinez,CA 94553 Attention:Michael Laughlin, Project Planner r ; APPLICANT: Hasseitine Best OWNER: County Wood Congregate Care 2380 Salvio Street#303 1911 San Miguel Drive Concord, CA 94520 Walnut Creek,CA 94598 LOCATION: Project located on Pleasant Hill Road.Lafa ette,CA 94549 Application to build an 101 unit senior care facility in a 3 story building that takes access from a TOTAL ACREAGE 6.2 ac bride that will be built form Pleasant Hill Road. NO.OF UNITS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT 101 ❑Single Family ®Multi-Family ❑Commercial ❑€ndustrial ❑other Residential PROPERTY ® In EBMUD ❑Requires Annexation ELEVATION RANGE OF STREETS ELEVATION RANGE OF PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED 270'-280' 220'-275' ( x ALL, PART) j { ALL, PART) of development may be served from of development may be served by EXISTING MAIN(S) MAIN EXTENSION(S) LOCATION OF MAIN (S): Tailor,Boulevard. LOCATION OF EXIST. MAIN{S): PRESSURE ZONE SERVICE ELEVATION RANGE PRESSURE ZONE SERVICE ELEVATION RANGE Colorados E3A) 250.450 A main extension may be required to serve the subject property.Offsite improvements may be required depending on fire flow requirements from local fire agency and metering requirements from EBMUD.The applicant should contact EBMUD's New Business Office to request a water service estimate to determine the costs and conditions for providing water service to the property.Engineering and installation of water mains often require substantial lead time which should be provided for in the project sponsors development schedule.Due to the District's limited water supply,all customers should plan for shortages in time of drought.. FOR INFORMATION REGARDING: THIS REVIEW CHARGES Et OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE Contac The EBMUD Water Service Planning Section (510)287-1084 CQntact The EBMUD New Business Office(510)287-1008 1 Water Service Planning #City/Town/County �^ }� New Business Office !$!Applicant RC ® Owner ❑ Aqueduct MAR VALMORES, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER J'WiTER SERVICE PLANNING SECTION OSF�a a t N9 � o m at t' CL CL ` 0 cc 0 F-- Cq 0 cu In 0 6. fn cccn, r �r. M , � + � •�'�� . •, � � amu•, a$ ��. • cri 7 co d) CN 0 Cert v DARWIN MYERs AssOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 2 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY March 8, 2000 Michael Laughlin, Contract Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building; 651 Pine Street, 2nd Floor N. Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Geologic Review Services Contract DP 883007 /Condition of Approval /Further Comments Proposed Countywood Congregate Care APN 9169-090-001 (5.39 Acres) Lafayette Area, Contra Costa Country DMA Project 9 3014.00 Dear Michael: On October 7, 1999 we provided review comments on the captioned project. Since that letter was issued the applicant has provided further discussion of soil conditions,grading and retaining walls. The information submitted may be identified as follows: Kleinfelder DeBolt Civilig,nearing Response to Peer Review Letter by Letter to Jim Johnson, Sierra Builders Darwin Myers Associates (with enclosures for crib walls and Pertaining.to Geotech Investigation for Loffelstein walls) Lafayette Woods Sr.Housing Facility in DeBolt Job 478101 Contra Costa County, California (letter dated December 8, 1999) Kleinfelder Job 410-3010-38 /GEO (letter dated November 17, 1999) Approach This letter is organized to provide our comments on the Kleinfelder letter, followed by comments on the DeBolt letter and exhibits. Finally,we provide recommendations. Kleinfelder Letter The.Kleinfelder letter dirt not present the results of engineering analysis. Instead, it provides some explanatory information and indicates that testing/monitoring during the actual construction will ensure that the design assumptions are valid or changes would be made in the design to respond to the exposed conditions. Based on that approach we suggest that specific "creneral notes" be added to the grading plan so that the grading contractor and geotechnical lvr� Page 2 engineer will be aware of the County's expectations and the Building Inspection Department will be in a position to assist CDD with compliance. It should be recognized that Kleinfelder elected not to respond to the global stability analysis we requested in the October 7, 1999 letter. Our concern is that weathered rock can lose considerable strength. The slide area that was the subject of this request is proposed to receive fill; fill that makes up a part of the"pad"which is intended for support of a south wing of the senior housing facility. The concern we had in October is that if weathered rock ben eathlimmediately south of the fill slope failed, it could threaten the stability of the adjacent portion of the building pad. Kleinfelder responded to our request by stating the orientation of bedding is favorable and that their engineering geologist would observe fill conditions during grading, and that the size of the reconstructed slide area could be expanded to the south if warranted by exposed conditions. DeBolt CiN41 Engineering Letter The DeBolt letter addressed the type of walls,as well as the gradient of fill slope between the proposed project and nearby residences. Our comments are as follows: 1. Desi . The project proponent has not submitted a design for the retaining walls, but we do have conceptual information on the wall systems being proposed for use. The wall proposed for the creek crossing is a crib wall with a batter of 1:6 (horizontal to vertical). I don't believe the sections shown will work with that batter. We anticipate that the toe of the wall would extend below the flow line of the creek. Thus the overall maximum wall height would be in excess of 20 feet and possibly on the order of 25 feet. The Type C"double stacked"wall shown,is less than 20 feet high. Additionally,Kleinfelder indicates up to 3 inches of differential settlement should be anticipated. The structural engineer would be expected to ensure that this movement can be tolerated. 2. Tabor Boulevard Walls. DeBolt provides sections for the proposed walls adjacent to the Taylor Boulevard right-of-way. These sections indicate the walls are less than 10 feet in vertical height. The grading is expected to expose soil overlying bedrock, but the thickness of soil at the site of the walls is not established by available subsurface data. The intent of the applicant is to construct"Loffelstein"walls. The batter on these walls is shown to be about 1:6 (horizontal to vertical) on the cross-sections provided by DeBolt Civil Engineering, but the literature provided on this wall system indicates that the batter can be as flat as 2:1, depending on strength parameters of the soil. It is not clear what batter is appropriate from these exhibits. gradient of Fill Slooe. The letter indicates that the developer desires to provide a sci-een that will soften views of the project as seen from the neighboring residential lots. We share that concern. Our recommendation that the slope gradient be 3:1 (or possibly as steep as 2.5:1). A flatter gradient improves stability, reduce the erosion hazard and -,will facilitate revegetation. By landscaping the slope, possibly including some 15-gallon trees, the desired screen could be created. Page 3 Recommendation I General In our opinion, the information provided satisfies the grading and geotechnical related conditions of the development plan. The Building Inspection Department may have additional requirements that must be satisfied prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, and the proposed walls must have building permits. 1 General Notes As we noted,the design of walls has not been submitted,and various inspections and monitoring are to be performed by Kleinfelder. We recommend that the grading plan include the following "general notes". I. The northwest-facing fill slope shall have a gradient no steeper than 2.5:1 (maximurn). 2. The engineering geologist for the project shall determine the depth of over-excavation in the landslide area. The observations of the engineering geologist shall be plotted on an as-built geologic map of the site that shows the details of observed features and conditions. The engineering geologist shall also observe exposed conditions for the proposed Taylor Boulevard walls; map the details of exposed conditions and features; and provide recommendations for any changes in the design of the Loffelstein walls based on exposed conditions. Logs shall be included in the final grading report to document the field observations. 3. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the retaining wall at the creek crossing, the geotechnical engineer shall document the depth of alluvial soils in the area. The field data, along with any supplemental recommendations for over-excavation and/or revised estimates of settlement shall be submitted to the Building Inspection Department. 4. The request for building permit for the wall across the creek channel shall be accompanied by design calculations demonstrating satisfactory performance;with anticipated differential settlement. 5. The design of the Loffelstein walls adjacent to the Taylor Boulevard right-of-way shall be subject to comment by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of the building permit. Ca�4 Page 4 We trust this letter provides the evaluation and comments that you requested. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, DARWIN M'YERS ASSOCIATES .`�RED G��a W. U..V,r,, DARW ® MYERS IN Darwin Myers, CEG 94 NO.946 Principal 71r CERTIFIED ENGINEERING cc: Ron Killough,Building Inspection Department GEOLOGIST Steve Wright, Public Works Department Fernando J. SilvaI, Kleinfelder Inc. OF CA Jim Johnson, Sierra Building Company Gene DeBolt,DeBolt Civil Engineering 301411tr(1).wpd l.2-"10 7 KLEINFELDER An W?)P10yrr=Aflt 1 Cnrr+NIV November 17, 1999 File No.: 10-3010--38/GEU Mr. Jiro Johnson Sierra Building Company 573 St. George Road Djanville,California 94526 Subject- Response to Feer Review Letter by Darwin Myers Associates pertaining to Geotechnical Investigation Report for Lafayette Fonds Senior Housing Facility in Contra Costa County,California Dear Mr. Johnson: We have prepared this letter to respond to the peer review comments by Derwin Myers Associates (DMA) in their October 7, 1999 letter pertaining to our geotechnical investigation report for the subject project. Our geotechnical report entitled "Gooteehnical Investigation Report, Proposed Lafayette Woods Senior Housing Facility, Contra Costa County, California," dated August 16, 1199 (File No. 1.0-3010-38/GEO), presorted geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of'the proposed development. We understand that DMA reviewed our geotechnical report at the request of Contra Costa County Commur>ity Development Department as a condition of approval for the grading permit. The October 7, 1999 letter by DMA indicates that it is their opinion that our report satisfies the condition, of approval pertaining to gcotcchnical analysis. However, they had sorne specific comments on the geotechnical report that they felt needed to be addressed prier to issuance of the grading permit. The following are;our responses to those specific continents. •omt ,tt — The K'leinfelder- report makes reference to removing 6 feet of compressible soil (minimum)for the road crossing, and reference is made to a crib lock wall, We did not see an estimate of the amount of settlement anticipated in this scenario for the roardlwall if 6 feet of compressible soil is removed The report does not indicate the balsas for recommending a crib lock wall, as apposed to other potential solations (e.g.. reinforced earth keystone wall). Also, it should be recognized that tate test pit in the watercourse did not penetrate bedrock, and over- excavation of`all compressible deposits should be encouraged at the road crossing. Rmgp2= The test pit which we performed within the narrow valley which traverses the southern portion of the site encountered 12 feet of soft to medium stiff silty and sandy alluvia) clays. These softer soils were exposed at the bottom of the test pit, indicating that they probably extend deeper. Up to about 25 feet of fill may be placed for the section of roadway embankment which crosses this area. Based can the results of laboratory tests and engineering analysis, we 10-3 110-39/GE )(1019L.674,doc)tjb Page I of `tdovernber 17, 1999 Q 1999 Xleinfcldcr,Tm. KLEINFLLCER 7133 lcoil Center Parkway, suite 1U0, Pleasanton, CA 94366-?17" (925)4£34-1700 (925)484.5636 fax YD `,SCJ ,,-e�;timate that the soft alluvial soils could experience about 6 inches of consolidation settlemerxt .ceder the weight of the roadway embanlaxtent, and possibly several inches more if the , ,,c�srnpressible soils extend substantially deeper than 12 feet. If the upper 6 feet of the soft alluvial rCils are overexcavated and replaced with engineered fill consisting of the onsite residual soils a-rL d sandstone materials, we estimate that the amount of settlement remaining will be about 3 irxc,-hes. Six feet is considered a practical depth of overexcavation and is near the groundwater table. _A,,s indicated in the "Project Description" section of our report} two crib loch type retaining walls ,:r a planned, one on each side of the proposed roadway. This type of wall is what was shown on .th,.e,. project grading plaits at the time our geotechnical report was prepared. Therefore, the _,tr vuctusal engineer or wall designer needs to evaluate whether this type of retaining wall system be designed to tolerate a minimum of 3 inches of settlement at this segment of the roadway. riot, then an alternative retaining wall system may have to be selected for this project. , j-lis estimated amount of settlement is based on the assumption that little more than 12 feet of ,,,ft alluvial soil is present within the swale area. Since our test pit in this .area did not extend be,30w a depth of 12 feet, the actual thickness of this compressible soil is not known at this time. ,r]3,crcfore, we recommend that after stripping and clearing operations have been completed in tl.ad,s area,the actual thickness of the soft soil should be verified in the field under our observation. This may be accomplished by boring or probing through the soil or possibly by potholing with a bn,cichoe. Based on the actual thickness of the soft alluvial soils, the depth of overexcavation many have to be increased to more than 6 feet in order to limit the amount of settlement to 3 inches. Therefore, unit prices for ovorexcavation and replacement of the soft alluvial sail should bac obtained during bidding. Carl —Kleinfelder has identified a landslide on the south facing shape of the water course that is approximately 20 feet from the proposed south wing of the building. Kleinfelder has recommended removal of the slide debris within the footprint of the area proposed for grading. As characterized by Kleinfelder, it is a small slide and we don't understand why the slide debris wouldn't be totally removed alternatively, Kleinfelder should obtain additional data on the slide and present a global stability analysis. . As indicated in our report, the small landslide encountered on the slope north of the narrow valley at the southern end of the proposed building, is only approximately 5 to 6 feet in depth and has a large evacuated scarp within which bedrock outcrop was observed. As shown on plate 2 of our report,the bedding of the exposed bedrock is shown to strike northwest and dip 35 degrees to the southwest. The landslide debris is located on the lower portion of the slope beyond the limits of the proposed grading. Given the favorable bedding of the bedrock exposed on the upper portion of the slope and given that it is a shallow landslide, it is our opinion that only the unstable wails in the scarp area will require ovemxcavation and removal prior to construction of the small fill near the top of the slope. Since the landslide debris mer d,owtlslope will not impact the proposed improvements, it is our opinion that it is not necessary- to remove this debris. However, the actual depth of overexca.vation to remove landslide debris 10.3010-381GBO 0 0 1 9L674,doc)/jb Page 2 of 3 Novcnber 17, 1999 Q 19�9 rleinr"eider, Inc, i:.F.INFELDER 7133 Koil C"nterParkway, 5ultc 100, Pleasanton, CA 94566.3T[3l (925)454-17110 1923)484.3838 rat will be determined in the field during grading operations by an. Engineering Geologist from our office. Based on observed conditions at that time, we may recommend that the entire landslide debris be removed if deemed.necessary. We trust that this letter presents the information that you require at axis time. If you have any questions, please contact as. Sincerely, HO �s lKLERNFELDER,INC. �,, � No.art or Fernando J.. Silva, Lawrence R Houps, CE, GE Senior Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer FJS/LRH/j"b 10-3 310-38/GEO(1019LG74,doc)!jb Pap 3 of 3 November 17, 1999 Z 1999 K1einfcidcr,Ire=. K 1.EPS S F E L 1)E R 7133 Kol i Center Parkw2y, Suite 100, Pleasanton,CA 94556.3101 (925)484-1700 (9�)5) 464-5838 fax Jun 15 00 11 : 4Ga DeBolt Civil Engineering (925) 837-4378 � p. 3 DeBolt Civil Engineering June 16, 2000 811 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Job No. 73101 Danville, California 94526 Tel: 925/837-3780 Fax: 925/837.4378 DRAFT Mr. Michael Laughlin Project Planner CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Community Development Department 051 Pine Street, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Michael: Enclosed are four full-size and one reduced size prints of the Grading Plan for DP 3007-88 on Pleasant Hill Road. This plan shows the gate and fencing at the Diablo View entrance and also show's the number of stories for the different portions of the building. In accordance with Condition of Approval 4, please agendize this plan before the County Planning Commission. The Taylor Road ends of all the wings of the building have been reduced to two stories with the three story element setback an additional thirty feet. The minimum setback from Taylor Road for the middle portion has been held at 10 feet, but the average setback for this wing is 13.5 feet. This location is the beat that can be done given the other constraints on the design (maintaining setback from residential 'properties to the east and circulation requirements of the Fire Departmentl. The elevation of the building and surrounding area has been kept as low as possible allowing for the needed walls and landscaping. The walls and existing topography help to screen the site. Please call us if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. DE BOLT CIVIL ENGINEERING Eugene F. DeBolt EFD: k Enclosures cc: Mr. Jiro Johnson w/enol. ROGER P.+ MR I NER I & ASSOC I RT;=S ' "HONE NO. 1415E 472077 Mar. 12 1959 12:55RM P1 ROGER P:MA{NE81' MNSULnNG ACOUSTICAL ENGINEER Sutra.Construction March 24, 1999 PO Box 568 Danville, Ca, 94526 Pax 925831. 1363 Attn: Jim Johnson Subject. Country Wood Noise Survey, .lab 0399828 Gentlemen: As authorized by you, we have conducted a noise survey of the referenced project located adjacent to Taylor Blvd. on the West Side and facing Pleasant Hill Road on the East. The noise survey was conducted in confdrmanoc with City& State requirements for habitable occupancies. The specified requirement states that,"Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, an acoustic study shall be prepared to assure that the residential units shall have interior noise level of not more than 45dB on the CNEL scale and to further reduce noise levels of outdoor patio and deck areas. Noise attenuation measures such as type, size and location of sound barriers, additional grading for earth bemiring, shall be shown and subject to review and approval by the Zoning-Admiriistrator", The Noise Survey was conducted on the West Side of the land parcel. The recording microphone was placed tent flet from the existing bathed wire fence and five feet above ground level. The location is shown on the attached map Sheet 1. The data is shown on sheets 3 thru S- Sheet 2 explains the graphics. The time and time increment for each measurement period was dictated by those considerations that would conform to the CN'EL measurement requirements. These considerations require that measurements be observed during three difFerent time periods over a. 24-hour period, Measurement periods were typically for one dour each. The time period for rnaxirnum traffic noise during commute hours (17:45:25)was less since it had started to raiz} (with thoroughly Bret pavements, the noise character of tire noise changes completely), Also, maximum traffic flow had just commenced when T had to stop the Real Tune Analyzer, A 2dB correction has been applied to the Leq measurements for this time period to compensate for this. The instrumentation used for this project is pari of our mobile field measuring system and consists of a Larson Davis Precision Real Time Anialyzer, Model 31.00 with a Diconix Model 150 printer, Backup includes a Bruel & Kjaer Precision Sound Level Meter,Model 2209, Calibration was performed utilizing a Larson Davis Calibrator,Model CA 250, 3140 21ST S CRI=E7,SUITE 102.3•SAN FRANCISCO, Ca.94110-415-647-2076 I=AX 415.647.2077 3865 HIGHWAY 3n -L'ONEDELL, NIU 63060•314-629-51 PO D f -0 R P. MR I NER I & RSSOC I AT=S "HONE NO. 14156 372077 Mar. 12 1999 12:SE RM P2 FROM : RD C::� _ lz=CGER P. MAIhIERI CA 250. The results of the field measurement are contained in the attached sheets 4 thru 8. Sheet 3 explains the enclosed graphics for the convenience of the reader, ,T.he measured data represents the Average Noise Level dB:A (L eq) for the measurement period, Note that the time of the measurement is indicated on the right hand side of the sheet. This is related to the CNEL by a formula that takes into account both the L eq and specifies the time period for the L eq to be observed. The CNEL of locus coincident with the edge of'the property tine is 73.5 dB. The increase in traffic to the year 2010 would only raise this level to CNEL 75 dB. p-ECOMNMNDATIONS C.onstruct an 8 foot high barrier fence on the West side of the property and on the top of the retaining galls air poured continuous concrete footing, The wall should extend about 60 feet South of the end of existing retaining wall(272,00 END WALL) and to the end of the North reitaining will(268.00 ENI) WALL), The extent of standard construction with normal thermal windows and that same construction ,with 30-32 STC windows(as described below)is shown on the existing grading plan entitled VP 3007-88 dated October 1997. In all,,cases,the first floor requires only standard cuxtstruction. The 30-32 STC,where indicated, applies only to the 2"d &3"4 floors. tt would be noted that if the elevation of the site could be lowered several feet andJor berming increased and/or fcncc heights raised from 8 feet so as to break the line of sight from the oe,nterline of the North bound lane of Taylor Blvd to the centerline of Yd floor windows, standard airtight construction with good,quality thermal windows could be used throughout the project, It should be painted out that to achieve an acoustically effective barrier or fence, it roust be made reasonably airtight, i.e., without cracks, gaps or other opening. It should ht tightly to a concrete foundation and be adequately structured to resist wind farces. The barrier can be constructed of world, masonry, concrete, earth berm or any combination thereof. The minimum surface density should be 3 pcf: If a wood fence is used, sheet materials are preferable to conventional wood fencing because of the tendency of the latter to warp and form openings with age. However, high quality,tongue and groove, shiplap can be L3tilized, X11 joints, including connections with posts or pilasters, must be close fitting or sealed. Due to berming and fencing, all exterior patio areas would have CNEL's of less than 60 and ,Would be suitable for outdoor activity. FROM : ' FRJ6ER P. MAINERI & ASSOC IRTP; ` HONE NO. 14156472077 Mar. 12 1999 12=SSAM R3 •z . A.t ' 11 . .�` P �r OPEN Sheet 1 Of 6 Site plan showing construction type a FROM : ROGER P. MR I NER I & RSSOC I RTAS "HONE NO. : 14156472077 Mar. 12 19S9 12:57RM P4 A FiOGER P. MAINERI CONSUL NG ACOUSTICAL 1I4GINSE:R w EXPLAYAYION 0*F ENCLOSED GRAPUICS The results of our airborne noise measurements are shown thru 61, These sheets are computer printout obtained with our Meet 31 0 Larsen-Davis Real Time Analyzer. A brief explanation of these sheets is required. The bar chart of the top ties in with the line frequencies below, The sound pressure level is on the vertical axis and he band oone is e horizonz �al axis and go from 0 to 43 and cover a frequency ba from Hz,. The summations, A level and C level, on a standard sound level meter are shown immediately to the right of the frequencyspectrum tter og the setting and its level and other data is indicated on h$ right the time and date. The vertical columns in the tabulation are first, the frequency band is number; second is the frequency; third is the displayed decibels-, the RMS docibels; the-fifth is not applicable but has nd time constant um sound included-, the sixth and seventh columns are the maximum average. In the pressure levels which are used to obtain the RMS enemy tabulation, the absolute values of the vertical belowtas SpA i U �U is not ng to the right of the frequency' spectrum. bars are shown utilized in the presentation). Sheet 2 of 5 f ROM RORER P. MR I NER I & ASSOC I AT-c; OHONE NO. 14156472077 Mar. 12 1999 12.57Rri PS , 21 MOR 21 a39t 58 CRL 8WXD 'H WEjaHT T E L 4Y S DETEC:TR 0.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . « . , . . . . , r .. . . . . , . . U fi H Lft TO FPST CHAROE O . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . . . . . . 60.. . . . , . , . . . . . . , . . . .. . . . .. . . .!. Z r , 21 MPR 21,37120 LC A- , . . .!. . :. i .., . it ;;Wo? RL �0`ti3 ! i U MODE L.041-Hz fit-Hz # FREQUENCY DISP d9 RMS dB SEL dB MAX dB MIN dB 0 1.00 Hz 27.4 27.4 84.9 27.4 27.4 1 1.25 RZ 27.4 27.4 54,9 28.4 27.4 2 1.60 Hz 27.4 27.4 S4.9 27.4 27.4 3 2.00 Hz 27.4 27.4 $4.9 30.5 27.4 4 2.50 Hz 27.4 27.4 54.9 28.0 27,4 5 3,15 Hz 27.5 27.5 55.0 34.0 27,4 6 4.00 Hz 27.8 27.8 5S.3 37.9 27.4 7 S.00 Hz 29.0 25.0 S6.S 43.4 27.4 8 6.30 Hx 31 .E $1.2 58.2 48.0 27.4 9 8,00 Hz 35.5 3S.S 8$, 1 60. 1 27.4 10 10.0 Hz 39.6 39.6 67.1 68.2 27.4 11 12.5 Hz 44.6 44.6 72.2 68.7 27.4 12' 16.0 Hz 47.6 47.8 75.4 67.7 27.5 1$ 20.0 Nz S2.0 S2.0 79.S 7S.8 31.4 14 25.0 Hz 54.7 54.7 82.2 75.7 33.9 IS 31.5 Hz SS.8 S5.3 82.8 76.4 88.0 16 40.0 H7, SS.S S5.5 84.0 7S.'S 37.4 17 $0.0 Hz 57.4 57.4 84.9 74,0 40.2 18 S3.O Hz 60.1 60.1 $7.7 78.5 40.8 19 80.0 Hz 62.5 62.5 90.0 76.2 43.6 20 100 14z 64.5 64.6 92. 1 84.4 41.8 21 1.25 Hz 61.2 61.2 88.7 76.4 40.0 22. 160 Hz 59.4 S8.4 85.9 74.3 36.4 23 200 Hz 57.6 S7.p 8S. 1 72.0 34.5 24 250 Hz SB.3 S6.9 84.S 70.1 92.6 25 315 Hz S4.7 54.7 82.2 69.9 29.3 26 400 Hz 52.9 52.9 80.5 66.7 29.8 27 Soo Hz S4.0 S4.0 81.S 66.7 33.3 28 630 Hz S5.9 S5.9 83.5 67.7 33.4 29 800 Hz. 5S.4 55.4 87.0 70.0 35.6 30 I.00kHz 60.3 60.3 87.9 747,5 35.7 31 1.2SkHz 58.8 S8.3 65.9 67.8 35.6 32 1.SDkHz 54.8 S4.8 82.3 64.7 32.1 33 2.00kHz S1.7 51.7 79.3 61.8 28.7 34 2.SOkHz 47.8 47.8 75.3 .58.4 27.4 35 3. 15kHz 44.7 44.7 72.2 SS.6 27.4 as 4.00kHz 43.1 43.1 70.7 53.3 27.4 37 5,00kHz 41 .4 41.4 69.9 53.8 27.4 39 6.30kHz 38.S 28.5 GG.4 Sl.l 27.4 $9 6.00hHz 36.3 36.3 63.9 50.6 27.4 40 1.0.OkHz 812.7 32.7 60,3 47.4 27.4 41 12.SkHz 29.2 29.2 56.7 42.8 27.4 42 15,OkHz 27.7 27.7 55.3 39.2 27.4 43 20.OkHz 27.S 27.6 S5.2 27.9 27.4 S 59.0 59.0 86.5 86.1 56.3 A S2.0 52.0 79.6 75.1 44. 1 C SS,S 58'.3 9S.9 85.7 54.7 U S8.7 S8.7 85.3 86.0 56.0 Sheet 3 of 6 Noise during late n.icjht traffic - eery light traffic FROM �,C1C�1±► r. 111 t Nt N 1 & H55US 1 RTr-S PHONE No. 14156472077 Mar. 12 1999 12:5BRM Ht, wo M�6aFt. S4:E34: 3 CAL „ SWIDTH WE;GHT DISPLAY UNITS DETECTR . • �. . . 1 I t 0- , . . LL �1R 9 i e rd3:44 FREtE. #� WE�YOH EL�ir 6� 2 kHz .� : U M NU MODE LOW-Hz. HI--Hz # FREQUENCY i1ISP d8 TAMS d8 BEL dB MAX dB MIN dB C3 1.00 NZ 27.4 27.4 4S.S 27.4 27.4 1 1,2.5 Hz 27.4 27.4 46.6 27.5 27.4 1.60 Hz 27.4 27.4 45.6 27.4 27.4 2.00 Hz 27.4 27.4 45.6 27.8 27.4 2.50 Hz 27.4 27.4 46.6 27.4 27.4 3.15 Hz 27,4 27.4 4S.6 28.0 27.4 0 4.00 Hz 27.4 27.4 46.6 27.8 27.4 ? 5,00 Hz 27.5 27.S 45.7 3I.S 27.4 B 6.30 Hz 27.8 27.8 46.8 3s.3 27.4 9 6.00 8Z 28.9 28.8 48.0 39.6 27,4 .10 10.0 Hz 34.1 34.1 S3.3 41.7 27.4 1 i 12.S Hz 42.S 42.5 61.7 50.5 27.S 1!Z -15.0 Ha 47-5 47.5 65.7 S7.9 33.1 13 20.0 Hz S1 .3 S1 .3 10.5 60.3 37.8 1.4 25.0 Hz S4.6 54.6 73.8 63.2 98.5 i S 31.5 Hz 55;4 SS.4 74.6 64.2 42.0 16 40.0 Hz S7.8 S7.8 76.9 67.5 42.6 17 50.0 Hz 58.7 58.7 77.9 68.3 4S.S 1.8 53.0 Hz 60. 1 60.1 79.3 68.7 47.3 .19 B0.0 HZ 62.S 62.5 81.7 69.6 49.2 2 a 100 Hz 64. 1 64. 1 83.2 74.8 49.3 21 125 Hz 62.5 62.5 81 .7 74.2 47.7 !22 160 Hz S9.8 S5.8 79.0 66.7 47.2 23 200 Hz 59.1 S8. 1 78.2 68.5 4S.6 24. 250 Hz S8.6 5S.6 77.8 58.8 43.6 25 315 Hz 55.8 SS.8 74.9 €4.6 41,3 26 400 Hz S4.3 54.3 73.4 63.6 41.0 27 $00 Hz SS. 8 5S.8 7S.0 66.0 43.3 28 630 Hz 57. 8 S7.8 77.0 6S,6 44.1 29 800 Hz so.s 60.3 80.1 67.5 47.2 30 1.QQkHz GI.8 81.9 81.0 68.2 49.9 31 1.25)CHz 50.4 60.4 79,S 67.2 48. 1 32 1.60kHz Se.S SS.6 7S.7 62.S 44.7 33 2,OQkHz S3.4 S3.4 72.5 60.4 39.2 94 2.SOkHz 49.3 45.3 S8.4 S5.4 34.8 95 3.i5kHz• 45.5 4S.9 55. 1 53.7 28.8 SS 4,00kHx 44.3 44.3 63.4 S2.2 27.4 37 S.0OkHz 42.4 42.4 61.6 60.7 27.4 38 6.30kHz 40.0 40,0 59.1 48.2 27.4 39 8.Ook- Z $7.0 37.0 56.2 4S.S 27.4 40 10.OkHx 33.0 33.0 52.2 41.6 27.4 41 12,5kHz 28.7 28.7 47.9 36.3 27,4 42 1Sa0kHz 27.6 27,6 46.8 23.3 27.4 48 2O.OkHz 27 .6 27.6 46.8 27.9 27.4 8 72.S 72.5 91.7 80.0 61.2 A 67 .7 67.7 85.9 74.2 S5.1 0 72.2 72.2 9.1.3 79.7 60.5 t3 ' 72.2 72.2 91 .4 79.8 60.5 Sheet 4 of 6 noise during early afternoon moderate traffic PROM HOGER P. MA I NER I & ASSOC I RTES PHONE ND. : 14156472077 Mar, 12 1t��lj :Le-,z>tjHi,i r r 22 MAR :€.:3011114r-SL $WIDTH WgIGHT DISPLAY UNITS DETECTR 90_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . , }� Ct CST g 78_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D� �M416 295 6.00- . . IRG �-•20icHz L.L. Hu MODE LOW-Hz HI-Hz # FREQUENCY Dt8P dS RMS dB BEL dB MAX dB MIN dB 0 1 .00 Hz 27.4 27.4 SS.9 27.8 27.4 1 1.25 Hz 27.4 27.4 S5.9 27.9 27.4 2 1.60 Hz 27.4 27.4 5S.9 27.4+ 27.4 $ 2. 00 Hz 27.4 27.4 5S.9 27.9 27.4 4 2.SO Hz 27,4 27.4 55.3 27.9 27.4 5 3. 15 Hz 27.4 27.4 SS.9 30.2 27.4 6 4.00 Hz 27.5 27.5 56.4 4018 27.4 7 S.00 Hz 27.7 27.7 $5.2 41. 1 27.4 8 6.30 HZ 28.3 28.9 S6.8 4S.5 27.4 9 8.00 Hz S0.2 34.2 58.7 46.2 27.4 10 10.0 H2 34.5 34.5 63.0 SO.2 27.4 11 12.S Hz 41.0 41.0 6S.S 5S.7 27.4 12 16.0 Hz 46.3 46.3 74.8 64. 1 27.4 13 20.0 Hz 49.8 49.8 78.3 64. 1 34.9 14 2S.0 Hz S3.0 S3.0 91.4 67.S 38.7 1S 31.5 Hz 54.2 54.2 92.7 66.9 3S.4 16 40.0 Hz 56.3 SS.3 64.8 68.6 3S,4 17 S0.0 Hz 57.5 57.5 $S.O 74.4 38.7 13 63.0 Hz 60.0 60.0 88.S 7S.6 39.5 IS 80.4 Hz 63.S S3.5 92.0 83.2 43.6 20 100 Hz 63.9 63.9 92.4 83.0 40.3 21 12S Hz 62.0 62.0 50.5 83.4 37.7 22 ISO Hz 60.6 60.6 $9.1 82.0 35.4 23 204 Hz 58.0 68.0 86.5 73.8 3216 24 ZSO Hz S7.4 S7.4 8S.9 72.9 31.4 2.5 815 Hz SS.S 55.5 . 84.4 75.6 23.9 26 400 Hz 53.3 53.3 81.9 67.8 29.9 27 $00 Hz S4. 1 54.1 82.6 65.9 28.5 28 530 Hz SS.9 55.9 84.4 66.4 30.6 29 800 Hz S9.3 S8.3 17.8 69.7 31 .7 30 1 ,00kHz 60.2 60_3 86.8 70.1 31.5 31 1 .25kHz 58.6 58.S 87.0 69.8 31 .4 32 1.60kR% S4.8 S4.8 83.2 69.8 28.3 33 2.00k"z 51 ,7 91 .7 80,2 61 .0 27.4 34 2,SOkHz 47.7 47.7 75.2 S7.1 27.4 3S $. lSkHz 44.7 4+4.7 73.2 55.4 27.4 3S 4,00kRz 43,2 43.2. 71.7 SS.S 27.4" 37 S.ODkHz 41 .4 41 .4 69.9 54.8 27.4+ 38 S.30kHz 38.9 38.9 67.4 51.S 27.4 39 8,00kHz 36.2 36.2 64.7 94,3 27.4 40 1D.OkHz 32.3 32.3 60.8 46. 1 27.4 41 12.SkHz 28.7 28.7 S7.2 41 .4 27,4 42 16,0kft 27.7 27.7 55. 1 3410 27.4 43 20.0kHz 27.6 27.5 56. 1 27.9 27.4 8 71 ,9 71 ,9 100.4 73. 1 62.7 A 6611 65.1 94.6 68. 6 57,6 C_ 71 .S 71.5 540.0 72.6 62. 1 U 71 .7 71 .7 100. 1 72.6 62,4 Sleet. 5 of 6 Noise during late afternoon moderate traffic ............. FROM ROGER P. MAINER1 & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. 14156472077 Mar. 12 11399 12-59RM PCS -W,rm,XVHT DISPLRY UHITS DJETECTR Be- . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W T . . . . . . . . . . mopk IND .. . . . . . . . . FjbjEa *�2 SEIGHT EL- 40- LO I H 7. RL .-41L.l. LOU-HZ M. u mum # FRFQUENcy DISP dB RMS dB SEL dB MAX dB MIN dD o J .DO RZ 27.4 27.4 Solo 27l4 27.4 1 1 .25 RZ 27.4 27.4 Solo 27.9 27.4 2 I-SO Rz 27.4 27.4 Solo 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 50,0 2810 27.4 4 2-SO Hz 27.4 27.4 50.0 27-9 27.4 5 3. 15 Hz 27.4 27.4 solo 28.1 27.4 6 4.00 Hz 27.4 27.4 solo 33.0 27.4 7 5.00 lix 27.3 27.9 50.4 39-9 27.4 8 6.30 RZ 28.8 28.8 SIA 43.6 27.4 5 8,00 Hz Sill Sill 53.6 45.2 27.4 10 LOA RZ 35.4 35.4 59.0 48.3 2?.4 11 .12's H= 42.0 42.0 64.5 54.4 27.4 12* 16,0 Hz 47.1 47.1 69.7 57.2 29.4 is 20.0 Hz 51 .2 51.2 '73.8 6216 ms 14 25-0 Hz 54.3 S4.3 76.9 64.2 37.4 15 31'5 Kz SG.S ss,s 7810 64.3 39.2 16 40.0 14Z S7.0 57.0 79.5 66.7 40.9 17 50.0 Hz 58.6 58.6 Sill 71.7 43,S 18 63.0 HZ 60.4 60.4 83.0 73:0 47.6 Is 90.0 Hz Gals 63.8 86.3 79-5 45,9 20 In 14M 61.6 61.6 94.2 72.0 46.5 21 IZS Hz 63=1 Ml 85.6 74.4 4S.0 22 160 Hz 60.8 60.8 83.3 74.7 41.6 23 200 Hz S9. 1 59. 1 81.7 66.6 38.8 24 250 Hz 58.4 S9.4 81.0 G?:7 27,0 25 315 Hz 5e.1 5611 78.6 66.8 36,7 26 400 Hz 55.1 55.1 77.8 SSA 36.3 27 Soo Km 55.9 Me 78-3 64.5 33,5 28 630 RZ S?.S 5716 80.1 65.1 34.6 29 800 Hz GI- I 61.1 '83.7 69.6 37.1 So 1.O0k[4z 52.3 82.3 84.8 69.9 36,2 31 1.25kHz 60.5 so's 8311 6918 34.0 32 i.rmDkHz S6.8 56-8 79.4 64.9 3S.1 33 2.00kHm 53.8 S3.8 76..$ so's 30.3 34 2-5OkHz 45.8 49.8 72.3 SGA 27.4 35 S.lSkRz 46.8 46.8 69.3 ss's 27.4 36 4.00kRz 45.4 45.4 67.9 54.4 27.4 37 S.DOkHz 43.6 43.6 66. 1 Ms 27,4 38 S.9 D).sHz 41.3 41.3 63.9 52,2 27.4 as S.0 0)%Hz 38. 1 38A 60.7 49.9 27.4 40 16.0kHZ 34.2 34.2 56.8 48.7 27,4 41 12,5kHZ 29.8 29.9 62.4 44.5 27.4 42 IS.OkHz 2`7.8 27.8 50.4 37.6 27.4 43 20-0kRz 27.6 27.6 SO,2 28.1 27.4 8 72.8 72.6 95.2 75.9 71.S A 6810 S810 90.5 71.9 66.6 c 72.2 72.2 54.8 75,5 70.9 U 72-3 72.3 94.9 75.5 71, 1 Sheet 6 ref 6 Lx7cLse during early evening heavy traffic Mark & Janelle Kimball Page 3 • Diablo View Road cannot handle weight of heavy equipment. Ask that all heavy equipment to come in off of PH Road or park off of Taylor Blvd. • We are concerned over the danger created by speed of emergency vehicles driving down Diablo View Road. As my husband and I will be so personally impacted by this project, we are both perplexed and disappointed that no one cared enough to offer us the opportunity of discussing the onset of this project. I am hoping that you will help us through this difficult transition so that we may benefit in some small way from having to accept this unwanted development. Thank you for your time and efforts. Sincerely, Markand J elle Kimball 3195 Diablo View Road Lafayette 94549 935-2039 CC' Eric Hasseltine For: Clancey Becker 1350 Treat Blvd., Suite 210 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Gayle Uilkema, Sup, Mary Dunne-Rose, Community Liaison County Administration Blvd. 651 Bine Street, Room 108A Martinez, CA 94553-1293 . ..... _. . ..._. _......_ _.. _... .. .. _ _ ....... ......... ............ ......._. _......_. ............. .._ _. ._ Q' '�'� � ' . ZI T` June 14, 2002 ' Mr. Michael Laughlin, Project Planner 02 CCC Community development Dept. t 17 F'' J. 41 651 Pine Street, N. Wing - 2nd Floor ,Martinez, CA 94553 RE: DP883007 - Countrywood Congregate Care Project Dear Mr. Laughlin, This letter is to put into writing specific concerns that we have with regard to the development of the above planned project as our home (3195 Diablo View Road) is directly impacted by this development. We question whether we will have the opportunity to discuss Ythese important issues at the Town Hall Meeting to be held June 24th since others will be in attendance and there are time constraints placed on the meeting. My husband and I hope that we can count on you to be a liaison (an advocate for us) between the developer and us so that we will incur the least amount of detrimental impact as is possible to our property value. I have spoken with Eric Hasseltine and requested a private meeting with him and Clancey Becker with the hope that we may discuss our concerns. This meeting is yet to be scheduled. These are the issues that we are most concerned about: • Most important to us is the need for protection of our trees (redwoods and 2 large Oaks) that border the two properties. We are requesting the assistance from an arborist. These trees have been planted for screening purposes in anticipation of this development coming to fruition. Mark & Janeile Kimball �2- Page 2 • Make certain that berms are there as well as mature trees (15 gal) to be planted, as previously agreed to by developer. Will we be advised of landscaping as mentioned in "Project Site and Grading Plans" provided by the County dated 2/28/02? • Will we lose any property and/or plantings at the front of our property on Diablo View? If so, will there be any reimbursement of those plantings/river-bed rock? • Concern over lighting of facility at night since our bedroom f aces the foci I ity. • Where will any street lights be located? • Will telephone poles that border our property be replaced? • Why the change of parking from a small lot to now having a f airly good sized cul-de-sac placed at the very corner of our property in full view? This change removed berms & plant- ings between our property and the parking lot. The cul-de- sac requires the removal of several fairly large oak trees that currently provide us screening and now places it in full view. • Diablo View is too narrow to provide ay off-street parking during construction. Parking on the side of Diablo View Rd. creates a hazard to those of us that I ive at end of the street since Diablo View is basically a one-lane road. We would ask that workers park off Taylor or PH Road. . ........................................................... ........................... 6 169 070 051 169 070 051 169 071 001 Teary&Peggy Holcomb Teary&Peggy Holcomb Rene Conroy John&Louis-Nielsen John&Louis Nielsen 1 -Wildwood PI 311 127 Diablo View Rd 312'7 Diablo View Rd#A Pleasant Hill,CA 94523 Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 169 071 007 169 071 008 169 071009 Carroll Proffitt Kathleen Ann Klipera Roger&Jeannine Miller 4 Limewood PI 3093 Diablo Vievv Rd 2764 Pontiac Dr Pleasant Hill,CA 94523 Pleasant Hill,CA 94523 Walnut Creek,CA 94598 169 080 005 169080006 169 080 016 Michel&Eleanor Thomet Carol Lind Lavern Gonzales &Janice 77illijaMS 3169 Diablo View Rd 3)165 Diablo View Rd 1545 Pleasant Hill Rd Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette,CA 94549 169 080 017 169 080 018 169 080 019 Carol Jones Richard&Lucille Huber Albert&Diam Jacobs 15 55 Pleasant Hill Rd 1561 Pleasant Hill Rd 3151 Diablo View Rd Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette,CA 94549 169090020 169080022 169090024 Michael&C'-\,'M. arch John Gregory Mary Tague 3 157 Diablo View Rd 1563 Geary Rd 3131 Diablo View Rd I Lafayette,CA 94549 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Lafayette,CA 94349 169 080 025 169 080026 169 080 027 Armen&Betty Manis Daniel &Susan Wagner Ghirardo &Valerie Chi-rardo 3 141 Diablo View Rd 3 1.8 7 Diablo View Rd 3 189 Diablo ViEw-Rd Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette,CA 94549 1 169080029 169080029 169 080 030 Mark&Janelle Y-imb all 'Warren&,Marg GutzvUer Warred&Peggy Gutzvviller 3195 Diablo\Tievr Rd 1567 Pleasant Hill Rd 1567 Pleasant Hill Rd Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 941549 Lafayette,CA 94549 169 090 031 169 080 02 169 080 0213 Shantagonda Patil&-An=Patil Ehaled L-Randa Navvid John&JodelIt Russi 15 Grote Creek CI 25 Grove Creek Ct 35 Grove Creek Ct r Lafayette, Lafayette. CA 94549 Lafayette,CA 94549 CA 94549 169 080034 169 090 001 169 100019 Kenneth&'IFend-v Miller E Greg&Beverly Kent Jasbir&Nisha Singh ;17-Diablo View Rd J A 3(5HINT S 0-NI LSC 955 Pleasant Hill Rd Lafavette. CA 945"49 PL)Dox 56x Lafa-vette,CA 94549 D=ville, CA 94526 169 i00 019 169 1010 020 169 100 022 A.Iazn & Sandra Kxeuszhui John Rocluot: &- Com-.ha Concannon Leo &-Christina Schizvtllo 1649 Talrlor Bllvd 1651 Taylor P-,Ivd 1605 Rancho Rd afa�7e'�jt' a,4, 945,1 Lafayette. CA. 91,15,49 LafaVtrte. CA 94349 q, 169 010 '0 1 a 169 040 003 f7 Conva C:�c7 sta Counter Robert&Susan Graham 169 040 031 255 Glacie-x Dr 3094 Hedaro Ct Sang Tsai&F Chang Wong Martinez, Lafayette,94553 Sang Tsoi' Lafayette, CA 94549 t�Tong 803 Ironbark Pl Orinda, CA 94563 169 040 03 4169 040 037 Mauxeerl N'ran Westrop Earl &:Patricia Prosek 169 040 038 1073 Diable 'View Rd 4000 WellingtonPl Dona Sorrell Lafiyettc�, CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 4015 Wellington l'1 Lafayette,CA 94549 169 051 O 0 1 169 051 017 Adrianus &__ NTancy Stenzen William&Thelma Walter 169 051 01 s 3102 Diab10 View Rd 3110 Diablo View Rd William Stiee Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 3116 Diablo View Rd Lafayette,CA 94549 169 051 024 169 051 025 Marl,lyeTTO Leonard John Vazmoord T69 031 034 M 3135 Diablo View RdBlo Mar Frances 5 Sranuaard l' c harp&:Jacques &: Th B10%ha Lafa Yette, C A 94549 3134 Diablo View Rd 346 N 87h Aire Lafayette, CA 94549 Des Plaine.,.IL 60016 159 060 009 169 060 014 Therese Hill & HILL 199 7 Rena Bugnatto 169 060 042 3196 Diabl o View Rd 3165.Diablo View>Rd James&Cathrm Reid Lafayette, C A 94549 Lafayette,CA 94549 316=Ramada Ct Lafayette,CA 94549 169 060 045 169 060 046 Tha,as &. Cynthia Leathers Felin.&Flora Valenano 169 060 046 3146 Diablo Viet Rd 3156 Diablo�riewr Rd Fell:&:FlbTa Valenz ano Lafayette, G A 94549Lafayette,CA 94549 3156 Diablo View=Rd Lafayette, CA 94549 169 060 047 169 060 048 Timothy& wren.Murphy K G Walker&.David Milstein 169 060 049 Banjar=Murphy 3178 Diablo View Rd Roger&:Lori Sherman 3172 Diablo 'Vieww Rd Lafayette,CA 94549 3184 Diablo View=Rd Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette,CA 94549 169 060 050 169 061 007 Ralph&:Janet Mason Henry&Grace lay Tsai 169 061 OOF 3190 Diablo Vievh'Rd 1748 La Playa Dr Marl.,.Ferro GA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 3 13 8 Diablo View=Rd Lafayette, Lafayette,CA 94549 169 070 002 169 070 005 James &Lesley Rosselli Harley&.:Jacqueline Buettner 1690700!9 3123 Diablo View Rd 6 72 Huntington Way Sheila Horton Lafattette,C A 94;49 3111 Diablo t'i:w Rd Li;�ermore, CA 94550 Lafayette,CA 98549 169 070 044 169 070 0^, Chris &.Lisa Ransoxr_ Caanett& Frances fiv le 169 0"70 048 Zx'ildti�'ood I I 3099 Diable zr-ie��,Rd .Barton &l4larilyr�Hosn Peasant Hill; CA 94523 Lafayette, CA 94549, 3097 Diablo View Rd LafaVvtte,CA 94549 Clancy Becker, President Mr. Jim Diggins A Lic is' Sun Care Communities DeBolt Civil Engineering �' 3021 Citrus Circle, Ste. 250 811 San Ramon Valley Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA.94598 Danville, CA 94526 Alan Pomeroy Eric 1-1 Elder alder Care Alliance 3182 Olci Tunnel Rd., ste. E 2361 E.2911' St Lafayette`, CA 94549 Oakland, CA 94606 John and. Yo delle Russi 35 Grov-0 Creek Ct. L inn Van Nord Tim and Karen Murphy Lafa�,ette, CA 94549 3134 Diablo Vier Rd. 118 Allen Ct. Lafayette, CA. 94549 Moraga, C.A. 94556 Jim and Loretta NTranesh Nick Montana 1662 Glen Oak Court 3178 Diable) View Rd. Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 ' 169 171 002 169 171 003 169 1'71004 94? Roger&Virginia R.egier Bryan Mclane Walter&:Christine Lang 1546 Pleasant Ln 1544 Pleasant Ln 1547 Palos Verdes Mall 0317 Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette,CA 94549 Walnut Creek-, CA 94596 169 171 005 169 171 006 169 171 016 Richard&Janice Marl,. Hairy Yanellas Robert&.Barbara Zimmerman PO Box 863 1532 Pleasant Hall Rd 1536 Pleasant Hill Rd Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 54549 169 171 019 169 171022 169 171 024 Blaise&:Pearl Russo Ruben Rangel Blase&:Pearl Russo 1532 Pleasant Hill Rd 1550 Pleasant Hill Rd 1552 Pleasant Hill Rd Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 169 172 001 169 172 002 169 172 003 Antonia &:Bonnie Montoya Elleanir"Vinegar Wayne Lowe 1527 Pleasant Hill Rd 1313 Yorba Linda St 1535 Pleasant Hill Rd Lafayette,CA 94549 Bakersfield,CA 93309 Lafayette, CA 94549 169 172 003 169 231 017 169 231 018 Wayne Lowe Fred Macdougall Bruce&.Marilyn Macdougall 1535 Pleasant Hill Rd 1667 Foothill Park Cir 1571 Sharon Cir Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette, C-4. 94549 169 231 019 169 400 002 Joan Kasich&Donald Sheridan. Victor John&I ina Lee Gianu=io t �{'j n=ct 1I C 1562 Pleasant Hill Rd N''icto Gianunzio Lafayette,C.A. 94549 60 Ridgecrest Ct 3 f7,5 " 'f" Lafayette, CA 94549 i c ..:.. .........