Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 12172002 - D.3
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD J Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ,:y>^ YY� County GATE: DECEMBER 10, 2002 SUBJECT: A Hearing on an Appeal filed by John and Jodelle Russi, 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 Hill/Walnut 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. 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. r n CONTINUED 4N ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE :-- RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE -APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES QL'-'�'i!j&2,'.Ijii;� ACTION OF ISO ON Deremhar 3 7., Inn? APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER See attached addendum VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND x UNANIMOUS(ABSENT None) 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 ATTESTED December 17, 2002 cc: M/M Russi, MIM Montano JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Clancy Becker, Sun Care Communities, SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Eric Hasseltine Public Works Department, Eng. Services Div. , DEPUTY December 10, 2002 Board of Supervisors File# DP883007 Page 2 ll. FISCAL IMPACT The developer is responsible for the cost of processing the development permit request. M. BACKGROUND / 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 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 Came 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 Pile#DP883007 Page 3 CEQA Compliance Because the project had an EIR certified for it, there is no further requirement to reconsider the EIR or adapt 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 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 1983-1991 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 it in writing. 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 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. 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 of project approval. The August 13, 2002 Planning Commission meeting was also well noticed.Additionally, Supervisor Uilkema'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 turn 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 Subiect to the Current Review Staff believes that the continued scrutiny created by the appeal provides the opportunity to improve orfurther clarifythe 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 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 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 December 10, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#DP883007 Page 5 purpose of the pian 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 Administratorto 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 Existing Trees 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 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 land seapelirrigation 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 Accep#ante 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 prier 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\StaffReports1DP883007BO1b-12-10-02 w � g ? approwd or Misr at at the -,f RouRvard and lop am clawy Socker Nor Sail Care Mary hKowarn. Lon An Man, CHYNIED the aqpQ of john, that ?he appicans be .... a I ve to ten 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 PERMIT##883007 (aka COUNTR WOOD 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 Hill 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, approvedthe project by a vote of 6-0, with 1 absent. I 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- Oaddis 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 1, 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, A1CP, 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,Staff1 eport:dp$83007Reso12-l0 2 I { Contra Costa County =, ? Community Development Department ' 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 , r=� 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 Creep 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 CE+QA.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. o 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 finding's cannot be complete. We have attached a letter sent to the office of Gayle Hilkema 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 Own Address 0cz4e He, �LAS a + .f ro�e ee G Sig tore Date Property Owner Address Date Properp Owner Address t f Date Z—� f Property Owner Address Sig ure,,,7 Date r Jack and Jodie Russi EGroveek Ct. 925 932-2754 A 94549 hoop6r aol.com Mary hose 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 24th, 2001 This was the first time since we moved into our Grove Creek 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 reservations about proceeding with the development plans as described. In particular, we had the following questions we would like to discuss with Supervisor Uilkema. • The permits were granted about I I 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 u-turns involved in exiting the facility and wishing to head toward the Palos Verde shopping center are impractical, confusing and dangerous. This u-turn would also initially force more traffic onto Pleasant Mill Rd. toward highway 24 and add to the traffic congestion. Also, it would be nearly impossible for a large service/food truck to make the opposite a-turn at the intersection of Pleasant Full Rd.lCan-dno Verde and Geary Rd. in order to access the facility. n 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 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 Sewanee-- 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 renewing 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 Cure 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 fully. Please let us know haw to arrange for a time to meet. Sincerely, 3 .Lack and Jodie Russe Agenda Item Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 2002~ 7:00 P.M. 1. INTRODUCTION CLANCEY BECIKER FOR SUN CARE COMMUNITIES (Applicant) and JIM JOHNSON (Owner), County File #DP883007: 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). 11. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission approve the revised plans as required by conditions 4 and 6. 111. 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 S-2 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 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. CSA 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 cross-over 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 CFQA documents, or any findings. V. DISCUSSIONT 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 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 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 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 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. 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 Commission review. The most significant change to the plans originally approved was the reduction in the slope of the northeast corner 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 berm. This berm 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 Hill 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 Moog momm'"Ww m, 0 ",- :. °` u tri 1 u+- on SCJ/ so t3 N O d c� T_ C7 u; .t 4 a k ini t. y Art R A { g� HAMtL :tt 527 yg. I'9 v , gE L NO �r L�4 N r, X F A RK tt WAY Ix 52ro Y'�N 1 PLED' R•15 � ago n � � l ) ' D✓ F EASt EL RA x { e H1U ELE LA c5:� r''7 7'.'y WI i VICKI CT U. }N }� iw t t QCT PA Kcc .� 524 r r A 4 k r - FO lW qvt { .r ptY$t-C '�, /,/ ar...t.r++rY•s r r..�.r.G E A R Y— X t 4 a i Ir VERDE LAi �' Ji • M ALL ICAJ pt , If• .. t ^—y U tib'. rn • 4 91 PICO t ,�_____.. ..... . ._ t i 15.39 1540 1541 {1'S42� M43 M13 CERY16tC AS'€Ry DIPFCTOA OF COMMUNITY 6FVE LOPMF N7 ^^ "• „^"' ° s y � w - I r� N C 1 �E m a E 11M, Jill ij�ji�jvu ol Ill i I �. Isilgig1. g % * la q� � . evii � r � iK $ � � " � '0 1 RUH s � � r 111 Oil,011M � � � �� q1l 1 11 � �� fo Zed CL Mal i%H. d 1011 1 ow fi a e � � H � J� �y " q AN I �Y g f1p t aFP ; � m X11 7 � �� � �u s �� i � 1moo I s W o z s CL G s w PROP y m e a � > s � aid ro w mi ;II11I. �_ s» r 3cat l LLL j2HP 51 �� 1 S B` a m � � � If NOR fill Th Ji, ,i IN yak ' G� to a. � l` W. z n Z:4 yo A r--.yay I QJpf { 7" f` 47 baa n IRA C9 k y ' ` `tt5'r 6Y S3 r��fY,• ��.� xvo691'rili x sK Qif � `.p :.,Pj< Ib i.- �:'• � ,.__ oa's9.XY4 ! i d S'`vb'` .. � i� � r{SY;k_ '�tl d�9�AI! �fy��:y�`Fa r 1 j� t'r�7"� � S �� •M�• H� t VA 1IM1'3 d INi ay3'dad '� L' y r ! '. '.... �" }•� �_ � �'3 w' �y, Vis' r4 0 l�'r§p �� 4y.�t 1 W �# �... `� s s�yy. � �� � 1' a6,�i43r �((._-rs3 . oil3`h'•u� ` men If hllhj � Wcaca 1 � ��ar X�- dzn52,.t �•, , r oil Y N I y t �: ,. l i5a'�r ,�'''� F�•;b j' � i`° '�.r . (1} y,�r`��+v4 �'� " a`r e 1 , :� I ��I t i t 99 t All l.y °tl a3jk� ` to � � s ;� } � s},s�• I��� � I��at�l,! I! 1.4�I, 1� }�,I ;t il�, il, jfi. �. �4 �' �� � � iii II'j 'jf,f1 � I��� �'� � � I f•! � +�I-� ��}k(� I'(� rr 1, `! it +a�. � M � � � � ifl�� � �j11�,f.tj¢•{��t.l.r�.i. +��.�t !ti `t 7jl��iil+'r rj �i l�jy� �fiit}��� �� � { $�� ri 1 x , ri' ri�iit i 71� fflllll�'"� II� too! '. ..�.'� � a irl� ll�.i{ tllft�� 1'' 1 t 1 jt tE '# �.'iI I it t..i 4 I{It! a i it it ,II f 111r� i !il iii( ffi I rI i�tl ll, , II�lrl����l �� IT I j 1) Illl k I�i I T i (((((("il!,fr 1�i1���rY r++!!,!�1{' Iljf , p+� I i'fl ,1'li ,d!. II! --t r p k fj 11���i{r ij }� hitt Pao -.(- Pre f + i x , li i1` j •r 1 jf i iii I%, i I % II i.I � , i�,��f iifi{i i41i I,'t ,o� zoil �'�" r� �+ �+ ri j I(4fi( t f i'I s iW t Hill I Sly l ,I j .. 1k &off+ t c poll � 9 g� ., i �vv�a� c r >• t ,. tt , �i r 'f f. ,?• "J7 .,•.g. Id dtbM1°..�'!+"� co ga- f IN: i maleu o xs HO •iG9 Two SAW z r� � � � "�.� f � r� t I �� f , f + I�,�I f`Yi��'111 ilFd j � � lo-f a� if t li 7 'f�1 I+r 1 !1 + �. P! t Mfr l ,f ,!{ � � x t � � r s 1 i ' f f ( r ,f N f I 31 `f i t mom r iii �` �. ��.. --• �,..,� ,,,,,��. � - � ,iI�,l, '� tTlr 11 V rl I�� ,'+m;,fr i jri� <1 2z r I �, , I f ,� ij. i✓ n.:,, ''M1$�¢; l'�' � fL r � .... r 1, f •fl { 1 _I •"' t I r; 01. �4�, ""�,F4j ���/A°. poi "�4� ..., .�.��.��.�,. s �' '� ... t "l. "r'"y0.• \ pll d LIS is! .�W� /y� t�,-"7 CL i! ( KS CS Y 'r.y� r IITit i _;+ ail , L- l � 1�1ii I •n'l i�i I 1 }i 1 . i Cil ltilElEll fiij t Tilt ripI li i-r 1, i i iii if ��� ii'ti �'1i }11 ��a# ,� 4 ! I I 11 } a I �£ � I N�� f r� III ,IIIIIi1 1 JI'f 1 I1 IY }lilt!�h Room I 1 1 l i Ir, Zt }i I�� 1fa-�. I �I lip } l [. 1{. III i IIf 11 m 1����, i.I 1�I`Il_� 11 � I � $ I I I l r l a C I 1}'II-Ijl+ }I I i, !f� NOUN l 1 I J1 1 Il�.-= 17 1 1#h++1 1I l � �' � 1� 1 1 , 1I0,110010 'lll'� 1 I J I tll' III II 1-li 1 �' ir11 pill ,{11 111 s , <aG5 a(ZL% f I GI I ;. J Ill l 111 37!10 i I � 1 1 , , y I I {1FxJ I a I I I ir, I11tIj1ji' rv,ro,ua+nri�3�tat 9�Cg w,—I��h�1��I_ Ip�I I I�II,. �I� �✓—•e" � ,FI i ��I IIiI# f}I llf1,�l11�I,�1 Idli�ltlI rJtalI'NOR. {,J.II1 i t 1{I J"!E1Ill�ir'11,' 1I {Ia II Ifts ,I 11 +111 , i �'I IIII ll If II t IL 1 1 f Ifll 1 II a .� LLl� t � 1 r 1 1n�S I f � L: G t �fd 11 I ,jpvN/i�.t7ruuo�atc W'✓0_lIJO��Nc7c�'Us 1PV3 PIX 1,WIN,O/•/ a 1 73llu+u a cxrMIKE E 3,n It J I LL. V �� , I };ji +ir ubppotmuNy 9i 1' 9 y I.1� 11 �, t �1,3iIF. 11 -1 Y+IS'P7NINNL13d�9 c' 1 7 all ,I I' 4 ,II }1 u rmit Gear/ - t" i } I 1# IT 11 1 11 1 rF 1I 1 1 I I 1 ' I I it i I i ' i"OW 1 11 t 111 Ila_. , 1 1 CLQi 4 "}h X97 JIiNjdf38)? , I t 11 I1 r r its !s1 a"��,9�e l wsr� r '�` 1\ \\ 1}��1(+�� I +•�11rN�Nr{r �}1 , I Ii�, tF 11 A 11171 t�i1..�j�.J1i 1"111( 114'fli 1'1171 1 t 'NMI 1 II{ E 1 1 11i, �! ' It ' 11 ra :�71 Ili f I, ,1 a t 4 1\ #111 �1i11II{�l{Il f fi F,1 1 n1i11 11 i1 . 1 a. 1 , 111111 r' Ii J II11l��1111 as :, A :III 1 1 r ' I Ilii 1 1111 11 ' r i 1 I 11 G I J*Lrl r• t F'{Y``r�--�? -r�rr TI—f I- ,:., 1'111 111 t -�1 (11 , 1 li( 1"�I r 11 1,"lIi 1111 t i'I Il Iflnll I'I!� F—' his a � {H 1 IF 1t I) ,I. 1111 I 111111 iI nf{3IJ I ,1I 'I' (� I +,� a l 1Hill lr I {til 1J1� II 'liII, II i!� 11 '11a�11 IJ�II���.IJI, 1-i� 11", I II 1,1,, I r 4 qp o I IEZE6Z�P:C � �cr to t4 b'Bi}td a v 2 �i"t 340't$+£•.877}9.-�� 7iT�� •v >- � � J I .9'. 's"'v. - I t t t i f co t 6 i Cg. f 1FEL=ata ! - !Z' nrw a+Nnl� Noav F. U1801NOJ� 111�tdVs �a-an a7t� > � w 3r1 7 i�a�uo vx t mw g9mxvv,c �a j}� a�t�e�m. a �/� T-7� N1939 EG�d'Ail J1¢WSJ�1t2 � 1a°is�x�al a.Bl,St'��.... 31YJ03H ,k7. 1 ._ �9Al/tl OGL9itl , 1 4i 4 7 I dd81z mi la,M nr a t '� `s=•.. 1� 4f r.. -j -YIFII P. ^Y-a sl,ana�ntsexr+rik n f.r�--..� ' i 8 t w> ILv„ G E -�B� n 7 f fill hill x e w � n A&C1Y' 3 � � it w � � 0 5 � � � i � � � � � ❑ dM.`�. p � � Z NUN ° s milli X11 ; 1. �q 19 "Z 9" i y R � tt 1r r �' hhy 12#Alga x1 CL 3 y� V •� V.s / �so \ ctl CO \\ c � o I \ r ) 3 r{1 ----------- POO/ - ---•--o r ------------------- , t d d � a an i � I r 1�' i G� S } 1 �� bar"�'♦4a i i r �6 ! 1 r : t t p h 1 p� 1-6. t n� rJ t t p4 p4 d l - d R 4 pe c� l it in'3 t•,t ..���� d �t t .,ai• t IE � iE I t / - { , f.f C ws;k /J -------- IK 3 ' j M � / / O b ' d 06 1 I ,J b / i o0 c� I 1 , \ J'J ::k t• Ct: -Ti,. Al 1 I G i N a i U � v ;n � r � t t . i U i wommumommommo p i i r CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMML7NlCT'Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: Hasseltine Best APPLICATION NO. C3007-88) 2380 Salvia 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 Beard of Supervisors has granted your request for a development plan, subject to the attached conditions showy!as Exhibit "A". HARVEY E. BRAGDON, Director Community Development Department By: Mary Flemi g - Chief, Lan Development PLEASE �iQTE TIFF E FFCTWE BATE. and be aware of the renewing requirements as no further notification will be sent by this office. The Clerk of the Beard will provide a copy of the Board Order with approved Conditions of Approval. EXHIBIT "A" COMITIONS P R VAI, FOR DEVELOPMENT ILA 007!-E38 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 1031 residential units for persons 60 years or alder 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 ages or older.) 3. This Approval includes and is subject to the County-owned property contiguous to the north to be part of this development to provide for Taff-street parking and a cul--de-sac turnaround at the and 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 as 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 Planning 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. Channelization shall be subject to the review of the public Works Department, Road 'Engineering Division: B. No access to Diablo View Read 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 rand 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 (2) 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 15i-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 walls 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. S. Prior to filing for grading permit, grading plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the 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 816-4.602 that are to*be preserved and may be endangered by construction or grading activities, shall be protected at the dripline by barricade or other suitable means. 3. 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. S. 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- tons colors and balconies and trim shall be natural wood. 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 #12) 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. 9. Submit a TSH (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. 10. 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. 11. 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 914 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 Works Department. 3) The design of the on-site watercourse crossing shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. D. Unless exceptions are specifically granted, comply with the require- ments of Division 1006 (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. Z) 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 t r 5. Public Works Department. If final inspection is requested prior to construction of improvements, the applicant shall execute a road improvement agreement with Contra Costa County and past bonds required by the agreement to guarantee completion of the work. 12. 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 gest 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:€0 P.M., Monday through Friday and shall be prohibited ori 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 should 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. B. 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/aa DPX/3007-88C.BT 3/9/90 4/04/90 4/19/90 - P/C Rev. {v} 1/16/91 - jn 5/16/91 - jn Community Contra Dennis M.Barry,AICP Development Costa Community development Director Department Coun.L . County Administration Building ._.c 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North thing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phone: ( 25) 335-f7 .; '. November 13, 2998 Mr. Jim Johnson Sierra Building Company P.O. Box 568 Danville, CA 94526 Dear Mr. Johnson: SUBJECT: CC7L;lNTRY'WOOD 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 Ulough of the Building Inspection Department Grading Division, I was able to determine that the response from Public Works and the Grading Envision were not returned to Mr. DeBolt's firm in January of 2998. 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 3007-88 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,3AIC'5 Community Developmen irector DMB:9ms drr:b2Vohnson.le cc: Members, Beard of Supervisors Clerk of the Board Ron Killough Bob Drake Gene DeBolt Office !-lours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month a 1 WK k t' '�.8'_..--•-,"'��"`�.=.�;,;: � `,'�._�-y w.0 oaf-..__g,'� l� _ v i DEPARTMENT CSE FISH AND {aAIVIE CENTRAL COAST REGION (707)944-55524 Mailing addrerr POST OFFICE BOX 47 YOUNTVILLE CALIFORNIA 54599 Serra ad drew 73299 S4LVEAADO TRAIL NAPA CALIFORNIA 54558 December 123 2001 Notification Number; -1298-95 James Johnson 7221 Pine Grave'tray Folscsm, C.alifomia 95630 re m ed Alteration Agreement Renewal Unreamed 'tributary to Grayson Creek Contra, Costa. County Dear Mr. Johnson: By this letter,the Dg-artment of Fish and Caine is renewing the above agreenicnt until l�ecen t�cr j 1. 2002, with the construction period to occur bsetweena, l and Qatgber 1 S1 . All of the conditions of 6e original agreement(Notification Number '3-1298-98)are to remain in effect. Please keels this letter and the attached copy of your agreement(Notification Number R3-1298-98) available on sit{:for inspection by Department personnel. Sincerely, Robert W. l"loerke Regional Manager Central Coast Region Enclosure:Notification Number E23-1298-98 Cc: ''dn.Koriski U,Young Ki-M—,m Atkinson AGREEMENT REGARDING PROPOSED STREAM OR LAKE ALTERATION 'HIS}AGREEMENT, entered into between die State of California, Department of Fish anti Gaine, hereic alter of tl)c Departs lent, lid 3c i Sroi _y Jn oy�11 of AjIL'j)Q} , Stag of Califorsiia , hereinafter called die operator, is as follows: VHEREAS, pursuant to Division 2, Chapter G of California Fish and Garvie Code, the operator, on die 2 ji day of 92B, Notified die Department that he intends to substantially divert or obstruct die natural flow of, or substantially cliange ul,,e lied, hannel, or bank of, or use material from the streambed of, die following water: tributary to Ora sun Qxek n the County of Contra CQs a , State of California, S T,-IN-_ ,l VHEREAS, the Department(represented by__Mic is '�C} E�e� - leas made an inspection cif subject area cin the 13 di day of October , I9-$ , and) has deteriilined that sucli operations may substantially adversely affect existing fish and wildlife resources including. riparian hall iult_wile-lid zrn -g 11 bird� nd Inaln lQlrjlgal sh. aquatic life. reptaes, aud water 1` , CHEREFORE, the Department hereby proposes measures to protect fisli and wildlife during tine olieratcir's Work. `l'he operator hereby groes to accept die following recommendations as part of his work: I, All work in or bear die stream or lake shall be confided to die period Malt I.1999 tisrou ah atober 15.1-22-9- 2. 5.Ir2-92. 'Mis agreement covers the installation of a road bed across the open channel, north of Pleasant Hill Road and east of Taylor Blvd. The roadbed side slopes will be shielded oil bods sides with an open sided construction block, which will provide planting areas for Native vines. 3. After the exact location of the road is determined, all evaluation will be shade by a prm professional environental specialist to establish the value of losses to the local area. A mitigation plass shall be submitted to die Department for review and approval prior to tlse start of any construction. Mitigation shall include replacement of any removed trees at a ratio of 2:1 widi native like species. All plantings shall be maintained for a period of five years after completion of flit project and survival stall be at least 707o, 4. Disturbance or removal ofvegetation small not exceed the tninimutn necessary to complete operations. The disturbed portions of the stream channel shall be restored to as sear their original condition as possible. 5. Restoration shall include the revegetation of stripped or exposed areas. G, Rock, riprap, or oilier erosion protection shall be placed in areas where vegetation cannot reasonably be expected to become reestablished. Installation of bridges, culverts, or other structures sisals be such that water flow is not isrpaired. Bottoms of temporary culverts shall be placed at or below stream channel grade. Bottoms of permanent culverts shall be placed below stream chanliel ',rade. & 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 necessary to construct crossuigs or barriers and fills at channel changes. 10, When work in a flowing stream is unavoidable, die entire streamflow shall be diverted around the work area by a barrier, temporary culvert, and/or a neve channel, Construction of #Ise barrier and/or the new charmel shall normally begin in diw downstream area and continue in an upstream direction, and flit flow shall be diverted oru'y whet, construction of the diverse ll, is completed.. Channel bank or barrier construction shall be adequate to prevent seepage into or from die work area. Chatiilsl banks or barriers shall not be made of earth or other substances subject to erosion unless first enclosed by slieet filing:, rack-, riprap, or other protective material. The enclosuree and the supportive material sliall be removed whert the work, is cornpleted and the removal shall normally proceed from downstream in an upstream direction. 1 Temporary fills sliall be constructed of nontrodible materials and shall 'be, removed imnied.iately tip"Im work coinpietion. 12, A silt catelilnent basin shall be consti-ucted across the stream immediately below the project site. This catcclinient basin sliall he constructed of gravel which is free fro .cud or silt. Upon completion of the proje nd after all flowing water in die area is clear of turbidity, the gravel along with the trapped sediment shall be removed from the stream. 13. If a stream channel has been altered during the operations, its low flow charaiel shall be returned as nearly as possibie to its natural state without creating a possible future batik erosion problem, or a flat wide channel or sluice-like area. The uradient of the streambed shall be as nearly as possible the same gradient as existed prior to disturbance. 4, Structures and associated materials not designed to withstand high seasonal flows sliall be removed to areas above the liigli water mark before such flows occur. 15. No debris, soil, silt, sated, bark, slash, sawdust, rubbish, cement or concrete or washings thereof, oil or petriileuni products or other organic or earthen,material frotin any construction, or associated activity of whatever nature shall be allowed to enter into or placed where it may be washed by rainfall car runoff into, waters of the State. When operations etre completed, any excess materials or debris shall be removed from the work area. No rubbish sliall be deposited wid.irr 150 feet of uht high water mark of any stream. l"he operator, as designated by the signature on this agreement, shall be responsible for the execution of all elements of this agrveuient. coley of this agreement must be provided to contractors and subcontractors and must be in their possession at the work site. the operator's work cliatlges from that stated its the notification specified above, this agreement is no longer valid and a new rtification shall be submitted to the Department of:Dish and Cause. Failure to comply with the provisions of this ag,reemem and with liez pertinent Corte Sections, including but not limited to Fish and Game Code Sections 5650,5652and 5948, may result in prosecution. olting in this agreement authorizes the operator to trespass on any land or property, nor does it relieve the operator of responsibility )r compliance with applicable federal, state, or local laws or ordinances. HIS AGREEMENT IS NOT INTENDED AS AN APPROVAL OF A PROJECT Cly'. OF SPECIFIC PROJECT FEATURES BY HE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME. INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION'S WILL BE PROVIDED Y THE DEPARTMENT AS APPROPRIATE ON THOSE PROJECTS WHERE .LOCAL, STATE. OR FEDERAL,PERMl T S OR THER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ARE REQUIRED. liis agreement becomes effective on signature of operator 9 -,.: rperator `ills Titl �isl� ar�d 3ati�e��arden lrganization California Department of Fish and Game late _ o Date I o yr t � Pr MW�M t polo 10, 41 of la 3 S7 f1P 3 7-88,Contra Costa County Sheet 4 of 2 free No. common name s eeies size condltlott of tree constructtortCammeats f true ae riuMrCus egr11M 11 Faircondition.very low between welter,773&772 at toe Of s opera ge of branched. Construction.Will most likely requirt pruning due to 10 low branching(oft.Grading into mot zone under 1 drip On&'tree may need to be removed, Elue gum uaalyptus globulus 30,12.12.W Poor cond ion.NO rano Nes Between eta ea out four feet outs e 2 and poor structure. limits of grading.Grading into root sone under drip lite.Tree may need to be removed. Blue gum i ucaWM globulus 13 Poor con ton.ME brano ws Between stakes 772 9 771,'Alout rour feet cuts de } and poor structure, limits of grading.Branch grows into the construction J ! zone and will need to be removed.Grading into V mot zone under drip tine.Tree may need to be nue guru ErrCetyptus globulus Poor condWon.5ead EranMs tween stakes 771&77U and appears to Be within- and ith nand poor structure, the road bad.Tree will need to be removed for construction. 9 Blue gum Eucalyptus globulus 30 oor condition. Cad bran as Removal unnecessary,and poor structure. but to be considered glue gum ucefyptus glabulus f 4" FOR con on.Paled trunk 8 attached to upright. Removal unnecessary,but to be considered Blue gum ucalyprus globulus 42 poor ERNIE Many dead 7 branches and malty branch Removal unnecessary,but to be considered failures. s? 8 Slue gum uoafyptus giabu us 0.1 Originaltree a stump. my stump sprouts remain. Removal unnecessary,but to be considered Blue gum Eucalyptus globulus 26 floor co [tion,Extensive branch dean,. � Removal required for rxtnlsbvcGon. Well within roadway. Blue gum Eucalyptus globulus , 40 oor co Etion, stem a ranch Removal required far construction, 10 , dean. wag within roadway. 1 Deodar cedar CMdrus deoders 12 Suppressed growth.Fair 10 feet from tree 10 toward stake .Wall within candition, roadway.construction witi require tree removal., oder cedar CMdrus deodara air con rower wer branches en w t RR ova roadway,Rov required or r 122 dead,stunted growth,bark construction, removed at bass(10"xe-). i3Mader cedar Cedrus dMadare 13 .��.., nofCondition. of branches WMtI within roadway.Remove-[required foe 13 alive.Trunk severely damaged construction, by sap sucker activity. edwoad -SRZ5S semparvlrerrs T9,18 Fair Z30ron,PoMeR@ SaMen ste es R1 1767,Rp rap for culvert is at i 14 structural problems as double bass of trunk.Free will new to be removed for s trunks develop Blah, construction. 15 Buckeye Maculae calf o cM 8.4,4.aPoor condition.Many broken. to M rap at cu vert,Wit neR 10 Be removed dead or damaged branches, for construction. Lombardy poplar Populus Was 28 Daad i0 tom s a a 743 going toward 74T in zone o 18 construction for culvert.Needs to be removed for construction, 17 i3uc" wesculus calfro fca 10,8,15 air 0-001-10M wellwitmiaway,Kim—oval req red for construction, Wi tow SO&we le poor Condition.Top7liroka out; W 1 w Wrimadway.Removal required for its hollow cavity in trunk,Advanced construction. decifne. Willow Saffx nlgm 18 Trunk WN severe toan 0 a Wen WE roadway. ernov reqUI—rea lor t9 covered by vines,Top broke out. construction, / Many watersprouts. 0TFVe 0188 eumpa 14 oorcall ii on.Stuna grout . th roadway.Removal requ red for i Hollow cavities in trunk. construction, Blue gumucatyptas gtnbulus 8 st s f 10 to 28 egra a ee Mal g sprouts are outs a txhnstru on area,but 21 uprooted.sprouts are weakly failed trunk lays in path of construction.Tree and attached to old stump. stump sprouts need to be removed for construction. r 22 walnut Jugiarta edgre 14 geed. Remove for construct on, Ove oak Quarcus agrllolla Tr__Good atruCtuta; air a t With roadway. emov r"uIrea for Covered with ivy, construction. Live a auamus agrl IIs ifty, hues irum w th poor structure. WO-11 Wfiln roe way.RamovE requRd for construction. 25 a-hey Oak Quarorts lobus 12 suppressed,isanrng up W, Wag within roadway.Removal requ a ar construction. t Walnut Jugla»s nlgre 0+8418" Many dead bzenches Mti wh n roadway.itamoval requ ed for construction. 27-38 Blue gum_ Euratypfus globulus u various lRemoval to be considered for the future of the si Tree no.refMua to location an site map(Grading Pian). r Slu refers to trunk diameter measured four and one-half fent above grade unless otherwise specified.Multiple members indicate multiple trunk sizes. ,{�,• {..•��LIST OF TREES9{ y{ y7.Tt3•�*����y#3E,�REMOVED- 9,10,11,12,13# yE.N:�-�•,OVEI7^�/-�vwy 9,10,1 i.!12Y 13f 1.641 f / 18,19,2 ,22.113i24ffdi ,26 TOTAL TREES TO BE REMOVED: 15 r ...�' �. ,�.- C � � �� � � _, � '�, ,r � , .� *� *+ �#t �' ,� .> !� �� F � � � � �� �� �# �' , ���, - �• .,� r ,� .. � ' � �' � �� �- rt ,,r .�'' ` �� '' ��� .� .�'' ��j�+ j P � i4�� '� �� -�t � -� ... -.,.SMA � � � �� ���� � � �� ,�.� ,�' ,� ,���` � : fr f • i Symbol Quantity Recommended Species Size 10 Quercus agrifolia 15 gal. Quercus lobata 15, gal. mbellularia californica 1 gal. ,Acer macrophylla 1 gal. Aesculus californica 1 gal. 10 Salix arryo Vole cuttings TOTAL All landscape areas disturbed during construction shall be hydroseeded with: /o Zorro Fescue (nurse crop) 2(r/o California Bronze 20% Meadow Barley 2-1/2% California Poppy 2,.1/2% ,Lgpz nes s cc ntus .. '% Cgllfbrnia blue:wo rye laucus) t Potential tree removal due to road construction per "Plant health Dia enogtic Renort" dated A.uzust 10. 1999 = total 38 TlktESSURVEYED, 1" REMOVED Replacement mitigation trees at 3: 1 ratio —; trees min.irrium All planting shall be monitored for a period of 5 years to insure a,survival rate of 70% minimum a ' PLANT HEALTH DIA NOSZ iCS Fancy Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94528-2 O ice:(925) 825-87935 FAX:(925) 825-8795 E-mail to: PHDAbeyta@juno.com August 10, 1999 Mr. Jim Johnson Sierra Building Company P. O. Box Danville, CA 94526 Re; Inventory= of trees around proposed road construction .zone DP 3007 - 88 Contra Costa County Summary Using the survey markers and site map provided I located twenty-six trees that are within or near to the proposed access road for this site. The majority of the trees are blue gum(Eucalyptus globulus) trees that have been damaged by frost and neglect. A few are nonnative trees that are in poor condition. The remaining trees are native trees in varying stages of decline. None of the trees are considered exceptional specimens. Spreadsheet and site map information Each tree was located in the field and the approximate location marked on a copy of the site plan. A number was assigned to each tree. This number is found in the spreadsheet inventory and corresponds to the location on the site map and a numbered metal tag affixed to the trunk of each tree. Each tree is identified by species, size and approximate location in relation to the survey markers and proposed construction. Comments on the health and structural characteristics of individual trees are contained in the spreadsheet inventory also. Report content This report provides general information on the quality of the trees affected by construction of the proposed access road and the impact of the proposed construction on these trees. Comments are provided for each group of trees by common name and in alphabetical order. Blue gum trees Each of the ten blue gum trees have been damaged by frost, neglect and vandalism, in some cases. The structure of each tree ranges from potentially l�aza.rdous to poor, None of these trees are in good condition. Buckeye There are two buckeye in the construction zone. One buckeye tree at the bottom of the creek is in poor condition, The other buckeye is small and rangy. but in fair condition. Serra Building Company. I). j007-88 Contra Costa County inventory of trees aroune aposed road construction zone Page 2 of 2 Deodareedar These three trees were planted in a row near top of bank-, The trees have been vandalized and bark removed. Sapsucker damaged and neglect have also taken a toll on the health of these trees. Live oak Two of the th ee live oak trees are in fair condition, but smaller in trunk diameter than required for a heritage tree. The third live oak has a very poor structure with a high potential for failure. Lombardy poplar There is one poplar in the bottom of the creek which is dead. Chive This tree is near the bottom of the creek. The health of the tree is poor. Redwood T his one redwood shows fair health. The double trunk structure usually indicates high potential for Failure of one of the trunks. Watley oak This one tree was suppressed by growth of the trees around it. Its structure and health are poor as a result. Walnut The two native walnut trees are both in very poor condition. Willow The two willow trees are in very poor condition. toroth AA, 'eyta, M—S. Plan: llath'el 8ist Registered Consulting Arborist 4303 I'lcxw Health Diagnostics August 14, 1999 .1 _� Cy d11 f. C C '35 .d. z7 L c C • 4 a C d C w O Cs yy i} cry, Pd C7 0 = Cr 02 M ams a) rr, I-- � t� Cn tt Lar �' 1 I cs � E 0 C7 > �. r h .� > CL a� tv o m o CC M CN CN CL r 7, ata . C"7 U5 Cd 7 CD ?,- r- a) i ns m o � �- 0 a � � �' cc U c r ° cn c» vt cry �- cn cs ct is a , S3} C13 SW >, Qt C 6) a7 16 CSS tiS n C C ` y N m y� C CtS y CS •ae G7 d d SSS p C C7 m E ca � � � � vy ,� C7 ,C O C C7 � C � C� CS '� +o.. ,� � C.) •C d c ca tti c , CM s� g, c a> c pJ c m as c� c asc0 'C c � c`s r c Ut� � tm � m _ ON ID � LO) - o °' acs u� moLE dE a SLd v en u ( - ' L) -�d s Lia > >tt ncC 0 � -o � 'a was >� � � c � �- . c b ca cc c Cu a�a ` D > G C7 LLQ - til ii1 ° c e i c CL ss 'tsaa '0v ;� us L3 N d C4 C d 0 C 0C i✓0 C) O C C3 C C — CL S= d E Q UL S� S� t� {Cj EJ G Cl C. =j O t` „N C CS - d d tS d L: C3 CC d C w^S E "J CCS O .. C Ck C6 v C7 C Co C d C O C d 0 1L M El m CL CSS 6- CTS C. CLF 6 o t'""'n n 17 IL T U) CJ7 0 41- i Co Cl7 r r c7 j' C d CJ i CC7 CS ate- {� � w Cry C�`,-�.Yr '✓i r✓J C+7 C/? try � � L L2 CZ -Q t C2 ZZ S Cll C7 D J O 0 rG? Ca O i CA to t» Ctt L7a 0 tn'j d C2 C3 QL C l Ct C2 CL S� LO to CCS co co tf3 SSS U Ce u Cil ' ZZ Z LO / W LU L!] uj Lu Lw ull D C77 ata �; j Gt i ti-- tit � � us ci;+ � o� a7 � � ,�-. �•- c`G cn 0 C6 4J > 0 0 c 2 � Cca) Es w cuU vi 0 2Fn ,2— CL w a) - c CD as cu _ �cu �- t n > i eo CLcv ar co `m n o c ro cs iv p E qa a� cis va ° .Q) � �E E 9 t y � C icy t ct ED 0 ro cu m cisa} � m r ro �m r. tll . ca S '— ire 0 a Ci to ca ca rs ccs > C3 cc c co sem' r cu C *+ q ? q C p C7 D C i-3 -3= D t C L7 C C G 2 1 4i — C 03 E E CS5 C yQJ C CU N C a 3: 8 'J D E 5 � 3: i>> Q? C1. LJ C = C N 3: J Ct3 rte- 2 CL >, F s-0 m t 0C){) � � � 'J = 2 7 m E DC7 ch LO w tm a) 0CL 0 6. CO o 0 CD C5 C •> CCs O tS) t"S per} C1 G1 g Cttl U' > Q C3 CL ro k u CL L� LL C� rz {— u Il C m Gt C t !-- G7 Li M, J co m tom.. co u cc -X Cri U3 LAS C t— co ( to N © + l`'1 M CC3 GD CrS -to cc -C) m j 14 � f w ! ;>, cc 75) ro f, r w as ria m E `0 p � � �, � � �a � t� � �C� j� U v E ° tet,.,' CZ cn U is a 5 CZ ro a o = cz ro CO z eta r cxa u� c� ra m o f V• +1'! � �' t3�, � 47► +� `? 1 Y �'� it i 00 ts ►.+ To e' to � o 4t ask iii ^ DARWIN MYERs AssOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL�AESEARCH ■ 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 I Condition of Approval I Further Comments Proposed Countywood Congregate Care APN 91.69-090-001 (6.39 Acres) Lafayette Area., Contra Costa County DMA Project 4 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: Kt6nfelder DeBolt Civil Engineerinu 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 eon-iments on the Kleinfelder letter, followed by cornments on the DeBolt letter and exhibits. Finally,we provide recommendations. Kleinfelder Letter The Kleinfelder letter did 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 "general notes" be added to the grading plan so that the grading contractor and geotechnical 1300 PINES STS;_` 11 MARTINEZ. `Ch 94553 11 925.%3x5-9330 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 tine senior housing facility. The concern:we had in October is that if weathered rock beneath/imnnediately 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 Civil 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: I. Design. 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. Tine 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 tine 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. Tavlor 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. Tine batter on these walls is shown to be about I:6 (horizontal to vertical)on the cross-sections provided by DeBolt Civil Engineering, but the literature provided on this wall system indicates that the hatter 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 Slope. The letter indicates that the developer desires to provide a screen 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. Wage 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. 2. General dotes 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 (maximum). 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; snap 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. 4The 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. Page 4 We trust this tetter provides the evaluation and comments that you requested. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, J,,.,,""ED � D ARWNI l' PERS ASSOCIATES ���G�' W. DARWIN ' MYERS y a Darwin Myers. CEG a4 NO. 946 Principal * CERTIFIED ENGINEERING cc: Ron Killough, Building Inspection Department GEOLOGIST Steve Wright, Public Works Department Fernando J. Silval, Kleinfelder Inc. OF CA Jima Johnson, Sierra.Building Company Gene DeBolt,DeBolt Civil Engineering 30I41tr(?).wpd �011 _� 11/17199 10113 Ml 47Juu;: 737 KLE1' NFELDER Ar�ni�7ioyrr nwrted CCrm�runy November 17, 1999 File No.: .}0-3010-3$/GEU Mr. lim Johnson Sierra.Building Company 573 St. George Road Dgnviiie, California 94526 Subject: Response to Peer Review Letter by Darwin Myers Associates Pertaining to Geotechnical Investigation Report for Lafayette Woods Senior .Rousing Facility in Contra Costa.County,Caiifornia Dear Mr. Johnson: We have prepared this letter to respond to the pdcr review comments by Darwin Myers Associates {]SMA) in their October 7, 1999 letter pertaining to our geote6nical investigation report for the subject project. Our geotechnical report entitled "Gootechnicail investigation Report, Proposed Lafayette Woods Senior housing Facility, Contra Costa County, California,,, dated August 16, 1999 (File No. 10-3010-38/GPO),), presented geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed..development. We understand that LIMA reviewed our geotechnical report at the request of Contra. Costa Cowity Community 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 geotechnical analysis. However, they had some specific comments on the geotechnical report that they felt needed to be addressed prior to issuance of the grading permit. The following are our responses to those specific comments. Comm= - The Kleilnfelder report makes reference to removing 6 feet of compressible sail (minimum)for the road crossing, and reference is made to a crib lack wall, We did not see an estimate of the amount of settlement anticipated in this scenario for the road/wall if 6 feet of compressible soil is removed- The report does not indicate the basis for recommending a crib lock wall as apposed to other potential solutions (e.g., reinforced earth/I.-eystone wall). Also, it should be recognized that the test pit in the watercourse did not penetrate bedrock, and over- excavation of all compressible deposits should be encouraged at the road crossing. Re oa - 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 alluvial clays. 'These softer souls 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 on the results of laboratory tests and engineering analysis, we 101-3010-39/GEO(1019L674.doc)/fib Page 1 of 3 November 17, 1995 0 1499 Kleinfclder,Tnc. <L E f N F E LD E R 713 3 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 100, Pleasanton,CA 94.566-3101 (5251 484-1700 (925)4134-5838 fax __ _.. _ estimate that the soft alluvial soils could experience about 6 inches of consolidation settlement under the weight of the roadway embankrrlent, and possibly several inches more if the compressible soils extend substantially deeper than 12 feet. If the upper 6 feet of the soft alluvial sails are overexcavated and replaced with engineered fill consisting of the onsite residual soils and sandstone materials, we estimate that the amount of settlement remaining will be about 3 inches. Six feet is considered a practical depth of overexcavation and is near the groundwater table. As indicated in the"Project Description"section of our report; two crib lack type retaining walls are planned, one on each side of the proposed.roadway. This type of wall is what was shown on the project grading plans at the time our geotechnical report was prepared Therefore, the structural engineer or wall designer needs to evaluate whether this type of retairAng wall system can be designed to tolerate a minimum of 3 inches of settlement at this segment of the roadway- If not, then an alternative retaining wall system may have to be selected for this project. This estimated amount of settlement is based on the assumption that little more than 12 feet of soft alluvial soil is present within the swa.le area. Since our test pit in this area did not extend below adepth of 12 feet, the actual thickness of this compressible soil is not known at this time. Therefore, we recommend that after stripping and clearing operations have been completed in this area, the actual thickness of the soft soil should be verified in the field under our observation. This may be accomplished by baring or probing through the soil or possibly by potholing with a backhoe. Based an the actual thickness of the soft alluvial soils, the depth of overexcavation may have to be increased to more than 6 feet in order to limit the amount of settlement to 3 inches. Therefore, unit prices for overexcavation and replacement of the soft alluvial soil should be obtained during bidding. mme t--Kleinfelder has identified a landslide on the south-facing slope 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 slime debris wouldn't be totally removed. Alternatively, Kleinfelder should obtain additional data an the slide and present a global stability analysis. Response— 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 clip 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 sails in the scarp area will require overexcavation and removal prior to construction of the small 5.11 near the tops of the slope. Since the landslide debris further downslope will not impact the proposed improvements, it is out opinion that it is not necessary to remove this debris. However, the actual depth of overexcavation to remove landslide debris 10-3010.38/GBO(I 019L674.doc)Jjb Page 2 of 3 November 17, 1999 0 1999 K1einrelder,Inc. :<L E t n'F c d 0 E R 7133 Koil Cetiter Parkway, Suite 100, Pleasanton, CA 94506-3101 (925)48A-1 7[30 ;925)464-5638 far will be determined in the field duxing 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 this time. if you have any questions,please contact us. Sincerely, � aUp KLEPWELDEP.,INC. No.415 Fernando 3. Silva, Lawrence R. Houps, CE, GE Senior Geotcchnicat Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer FJS/LlIiJjb 10-3010.38/GEE(10 1 9L674.doc)/jb Pagc 3 of November 17, 1999 a 1999 Kleinfcldcr,Inc. K L E!N F-E L D E tt 7133 Kcall Center Parkway, Suite 100, Pleasanton, CA 94566-3101 (925,484-1700 (925)484-51138 fax Jun 16 oQ 11 : 48e DeBolt Civil EngineerinC (825) 837-4378 p. 3 DeBolt Civil Engineering June 16, 2000 811 San Ramon Valley Boulevard JobNo. 78101 Danville, California 94526 Tel: 925/837-3780 Fax; 925/837-4378 DRAFT Mr. Michael Laughlin Project Planner COMMA. COSTA, COUNTY Community Development Department 651 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 shows 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 best 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 Department). 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:sk Enclosures cc. Mr. Jim Johnson w/enol. FROM ROGER P. MA I NER T & RSSLIC I ATPS "HONE NO. 14156472077 Mar. 12 1995 12:55RM P1 ROGER P MAINERI CONSULTING ACOUSTMAL ENGINEER Sierras Construction March 24, 1999 Ptd Box 5£8 Danville, Ca. 94526 fax 925-831 1363 Atte: Jim Johnson Subject-. Country Woad Noise Survey, .lob 0399828 Gentlemen: As authorized by you,we have conducted a noise survey of the referenced project located adjacent to Taylor Blvd. on the West Nide and facing'Pleasant Hill Road on the East. The noise survey was conducted in conf'cirmance 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 berming, shall be shown and subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator", The Noise Survey was conducted on the Test Side of the land parcel. The recording microphone was placed ten feet front the existing barbed wire fence and five feet alcove ground level. The location is shown on the attached map Sheet 1. The data is shown on sheets 3 thru b. Sheet 2 explains the,graphics. The time and tirrie increment for each measurement period was dictated by those considerations that would conform to the CNEL measurement requirements. These considerations require that measurements be observed during three different time periods over a 2.4-hour period. Measurement periods were typically for one hour each, The time period for maximum traffic noise during commute hours(17:45:25)was less since it had started to rain (with thoroughly wet pavements, the noise character of tire noise changes completely), Also, maximum traffic flow .had just commenced when 1 had to step the Real Time Analyzer, A 2d$ correction has been applied to the Leq measurements for this time period to compensate for this. The instrumentation used for this project is part of our mobile field measuring system and consists of a Larson Davis Precision Real Time Analyzer,Madel 3 100 with a Diconix Madel 150 printer, Backup includes a Bruel &Kjaer Precision Sound Level Meter, Madel 2209. Calibration was performed utilizing a Larson Davis Calibrator,Madel CA 250, 3140 21 ST ST REET,SUITE 102-3•SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94110•415-647-2076 FAX416-647-2077 3885 HIGHWAY 30-LONEDELL. MO 63060-314-629-5120 PROM k ROG2R P. MAI NRR I a ASSOC I nTmS "'HONFE NO. 14155472077 Mar,. 12 1999 12:5GAM P2 ROGER P. MAINERI CONSUL-rING ACOUSTicair ENGIN1ECR 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. The 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 bath the L eq and specifies the time period for the L. eq to be observed. The CNEL of a locus coincident with the edge of'the property line is 73.5 dBThe increase in traffic to the year 2010 would only raise this level to CNEL 75 d'S. RECC31v NMNDATIONS r Construct an 8 foot high barrier fence on the West side of the property and on the top of the retaining walls r r 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 retaining wall (268.00 END "WALL). The extent of standard construction with normal thermal windows and that same construction with 30-32 STC windows(as described below) is shop vn on the existing grading plan entitled ISP 3007-88 dated October 1997. In all.cases, the first floor requires only standard construction. The 30-3Z STC,where indicated, applies only to the 2"a & P floors. It should be noted that if the elevation of the site could be lowered several feet and/or berming increased and/or fence heights raised from 8 feet so,as to break the line of sight from the centerline of the North bound lane of Taylor Blvd to the centerline of P floor windows, standard airtight construction with good quality thermal windows could be used throughout the project. It should be pointed out that to achieve an acoustically effective harrier or fence, it must be made reasonably airtight, i.e., without cracks, gaps or other opening. It should fit tightly to a concrete foundation and be adequately structured to resist wind forces. The barrier can be constructed of wood, masonry, concrete, earth bean or any combination thereof: The rmn rn.um 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 firm openings with age. However, high quality, tongue and groove, shiplap can be utilized. Alt joints, including connections with posts or pilasters, must be close fitting or seated. 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 ROGER P. MA I NER I & ASSOC I ATPq rDHONS NO. 14156472077 Mar. 12 1999 12:5GHM P3 f P. • � a{• 4 i?�Y 4 r A , of 4 41— U 1 .• ' ! fit, ,qT AAL. OPEN SPAS Sheet- i Of 6 Site plan showing Construction type FROM a ROGER P. MA I NER I & RSSOC I AT=S "HONE NO. 14156472077 Mar. 12 191313 12:5?RM P4 ROGER P. MAINERI CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL KNCINEVA EXPLANATION Of ENCLOSED GRAPHIC'S The results of our airborne noise measurements are shown on sheets-3 thru (o, These sheets are computer printout obtained with our Madel 3 IOU 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 the band is on the horizontal axis and go from 0 to 43 and cover a frequency range from one Hz to 20 K Hz. The summations, A,level and C level, on a standard sound level meter are shown immediately to the right of the frequency spectrum and the filter setting and its level and other data is indicated on the right together with the time and date:. The vertical columns in the tabulation are first, the frequency band number; second is the frequency; third is the displayed decibels; fourth is the EMS decibels; the fifth is not applicable but has a time constant included; the sixth and seventh columns are the maximum and minimum sound pressure levels which are used to obtain the RMS energy average. In the tabulation, the absolute values of the vertical bar marts appearing to the right of the frequency spectrum bars are shown below as S, A, C, U (U is not utilized in the presentation). Sweet 2 of 6 FROM ROGER P. MR I NER I & RSSCIC I RT"C; OHONE NO. 14156472077 Mar. 12 1999 12:57RM P5 ,r al McaR 21:39: 8 CRL 8WIDTH W1n� HTtai_ Y UHL 5 DETECTR #J H UR TO AST CHRRQE tppL� t3 .�. RR ,�YNt7 t�t�.ET 7:t a aea eta'e r , 21 MAR 21*3?'*2r3 t.Ct �� RL 40, �r--�OkHzv i 0, C C t F2 $!3� m. U MODE LOW-Hz HI-Hz # FREQUENCY AIBP dB EMS dB ;BEL dB MAX dB MIN dB 0 1.00 Hz 27.4 27.4 54.9 27.4 27.4 1 1.25 Hz 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 64,9 28.0 27.4 S $, 15 Hz 27.5 27.9 55.0 34.0 27.4 6 4.04 Hz 27.8 27.8 55.3 37.9 27.4 7 5.00 Hz 29.0 29.0 55.6 43.4 27.4 8 6.30 Hz 31.2 9112 S8.8 49.0 27.4 9 6,00 Hz 3S.S 35.S 83.1 60.i 27.4 10 10.0 Hz 39.8 $9.6 57.1 53.2 27.4 11 12.S Hz 44.6 44.6 ?2.2 68.7 27.4 12' 16.0 Hz 47.8 47.8 7S.4 67.7 2.7.5 13 20.0 Hz 52.0 S2.0 179,5 7S.6 91.4 14 2S.0 Hz 54.7 $4.7 82.2 79.7 33.9 1S 31.5 Hz SS.3 5S.3 82.9 78.4 88.0 16 40.0 Ht 56.S Sa.S 84.0 76-S 37.4 17 $0.0 Hz 57.4 57.4 84.9 74,0 40.2 18 63.0 Hz 50.1 60.1 87.7 78.6 40.8 19 80.0 Hz B2.S 62.5 90.0 76.2 48.6 20 100 Hz 184.6 64.6 92.1 84.4 41.8 21 12S Hz 61 .2 61.2 88.7 75.4 40.0 22 160 Hz 58,4 58.4 8S.9 74.3 36.4 23 200 Hz 57.6 S7.0 8S. 1 72.0 34.5 24 250 Hz 56.9 56.9 WS 70.1 32.6 2S 315 Hz S4.7 S4.7 82.3 69.9 29.3 26 400 Hz 52,9 52.9 80.5 66.7 29.8 27 5011 Hz S4.0 S4.0 81.5 66.7 93.3 28 630 H2 SS.9 55.9 83.5 67.7 33.4 29 800 Hz SSA S9.4 8.7.0 70,0 35.8 20 1.00k4z 60.3 60.3 87.9 70.5 35.7 31 1.2SkHz 58.8 S6.3 BS.S 67.8 3S.6 32 1 .SOkHz S4.8 54.8 82.3 64.7 32. 1 33 2,00kHz S1.7 51.7 7S.3 61 .8 28.7 34 2.SOkHt 47.8 47.8 75.3 SS.4 27.4 3S 3. 1SWi 44.7 44,7 72.2 S5.6 27.4 36 4.00kHz 43.1 43.1 70.7 53.3 27.4 37 5,OOkHz 41.4 41.4 68.9 53.9 27.4 38 6.8C+kHt 38.8 28.9 86.4 51.1 27.4 39 8.00kF#t 36.3 36.3 63.5 50.6 27.4 40 1O.OkHz 32.7 322.7 50.3 47.4 27.4 41 12.5kHz 29.2 29.2 SS-7 42.8 27.4 42 15.OMz 27.7 27.7 55.3 38.2 27.4 43 20.OkHz 27.S 27.S 55.2 27.9 27.4 s 59.0 S9.0 86.S 86.1 S6.3 A/�• 5(2.0 S2.0 7 y, Qp.9. , ¢5 77.1. 4 y 4} , 1 .:U S8.7 1 S8.7 BS a 86A S6.0 Sheet 3 of 6 Noise during yl'la-Le night traffic - very light traffic PROM ROGGER P. MR I NER I & ASSOC I ATPS PHONEE NO. 141566472077 Mar. 12 1999 12:5SAM P6 w. 22 MAR 14.e4s23 CAL BWIDTH WEIGHT PI5PLAY UNITS PETECTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . $gr . . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < . . . . .i. . . dQ SPL. AR 60- 0C��W,,SGT , . , . , . . {�ET6R #A- XGHT I> 9W Sgt y■■ LLtEL� 67. 56L.- 15. }}g.,yj 'yyI'fi+-;VaM� - GV'i j■{■ ' '. ' l54� {.�i�.. 4'^.G1Qk ll.Z. t1i C t'1 M HU r4cDE LOW-H4 Hl--Hz r> fi E L R . # FREQUENCY DISP d8 RMS d9 SEL dB MAX did MIN dB 0 1.00 fez 27.4 27.4 46.6 27.4 27.4 1 1.25 Hz. 27.4 27.4 46.5 27.9 27.4 2 1.60 Hz 27.4 27.4 46.6 27.4 27.4 3 2.00 Hz 27.4 27.4 46.6 27.9 27.4 4 2.50 Hz 27.4 27.4 46.6 27.4 27.4 3. 15 Ha 27.4 27.4 46.6 26.0 27.4 4.00 Hz 27.4 27.4 46.G 27.8 27.4 7 5.00 Hz 27.5 27.5 46.7 31.5 27.4 6.30 Hz 27.6 27.8 46.9 $5.9 27.4 9 0.00 Hz 28.9 29.3 48.0 39.6 27.4 10 10.0 Hz 34,1 34.1 53.3 41..7 27.4 11 12.5 Hz 42.S 42.5 61.7 50.9 27.5 12 T$.O Hz 47.5 47.5 66.7 57.9 33..1 13 20.0 Hz $1 .3 51 .3 ?4.5 60.3 37. 3 14 2S.0 Hz. 54.6 54.6 73.8 63.2 39.5 16 31.5 Hz 55;4 55.4 74.6 64.2 42.0 16 40.0 Hz 57.8 57.8 76.9 67.5 42.6 17 50.0 Hz 58.7 68.7 77.9 68.3 45.5 18 63.0 Hz 60. 1 6o.;. 79.3 68.7 47.3 19 80.0 Hz 62.5 62.5 81.7 59.5 48.2 20 100 Hz 64. 1 64. 1 $3.2 74.8 49.3 21 125 Hz 61.5 S2.S 31.7 74.2 47.7 22 160 Hz 59.8 59.8 79.0 68.7 47.2 23 200 Hz 59.1 59. 1 78.2 68.9 45.6 24 250 Hz 'S8.6 53.6 77.8 68.6 43.6 2S 316 Hz 55.8 SS.8 74.9 64.6 41.3 26 400 Hz 54.3 54.3 73.4 63.6 41.0 27 500 fix 55.8 55.8 75.0 66.0 43.3 28 530 Hz 57.8 57.8 77.0 65.6 44.1 29 800 Ha so.s 60.5 80.2 67.5 47.2 $0 1.QOkHz 61 .9 61.9 81.0 68.2 49.9 31 1 .25kHz S0.4 60.4 79.S 67.2. 48. 1 32 1.60kHz 56.6 S6.6 75.7 52.6 44.7 33 2.QOkHz 59.4 S3.4 72.6 60.4 39.2 34 2.SD)<Hz 49.3 49.3 58.4 56.4 34.8 35 3.iSkHx 4S.9 4S.9 65. 1 53.7 28.8 36 4.4OkHx 44.3 444.3 63.1 52.2 27.4 37 5.00kHz 42.4 42.4 61.6 $0.7 27.4 38 5.30kHz 40.0 40.0 59.1 48.2 27.4 35 8.00kHz 37.0 37.0 S6.2 4S.5 27.4 40 10-OkHz 33.0 33.0 52.2 41.6 27.4 41 12.5kH% 28.7 28.7 47.9 36.3 27,4 42 16.OkHz 27.6 27.6 46.8 29.3 27.4 43 2O.OkHx 27.6 27.6 46.8 27.9 27.4 S 72.6 72.5 S1.7 80.0 61.2 A 67.7 67.7 86.9 74.2 56.1 C 72.2 72.2 91..3 79.7 80.6 72.2 72.2 81.4 79.8 60.5 Sheet 4 of 6 noise during early afternoon moderate traffic FROM ROGER P. MAINERI ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. 14156472377 Mir. 12 1999 12:58AM P7 2':2 MAR CRL $WIDTH iJf 1GHT DISPLOY UNITS OFTECTR 93 . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 70- t ' w331�AR 11IT436 SIB- . , . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . E Lw 66.1YCH t r 7 � RtLL t� GER hi. EMU MODE LOW-Hz HI-Hz # FREQUENCY DISP dB RMS dB BEL dB MAIC dB MIN d8 0 1 .00 Hz 27.4 27.4 5S.9 27.8 27.4 1 1 .25 Hz 27.4 27.4 55.9 27.8 27.4 2 1 .60 Hz 27.4 27.4 55.5 27.4 27.4 3 2,00 Hz 27.4 27.4 55.9 27.9 27.4 4 2.50 Hz 27.4 27.4 55.9 27.9 27.4 5 3. 15 Hz 27.4 27.4 5519 30.2 27.4 6 4.00 Hz 27.5 27.5 56.0 40,8 27.4 7 5.00 Hz 27.7 27.7 56.2 42. 1 27.4 8 6.30 Hz 26.3 .28.3 56.8 45.5 27.4 9 8,00 Hz 30.2 30.2 S8.7 46.2 27.4 10 10.0 Hz 34.5 34.S 63.0 S0.2 27.4 !I 12.S Hz 41 .0 41.4 69.5 65.7 27.4 12 16.0 Hz 46.3 46.3 74.8 54. 1 27.4 13 20.0 Hz 49.8 48.8 78.3 $4. 1 30.9 14 2S.0 Hz $3.0 S3.0 81.4 67.6 33,7 1S 31.5 Hz 54.2 54.2 82.7 6619 35.4 16 40,0 Hz S6.3 S6.3 84.8 68.6 36.4 17 50.0 Hz S715 S7.S 86.0 74.4 38.7 i9 63.0 1112, $0.0 60.0 88.5 75.6 39.S 19 $0.0 Hz 63.S 63.5 92.0 83.2 43.5 20 100 Hz 63.3 63.S 92.4 83.0 40.3 2.1 12S Hz 62.0 62.0 90.5 83.4 37.7 22 160 Hz 60.6 60.6 99.1 82.0 35.4 23 2003 Hz 58.0 S8.0 86.5 73.6 32.8 24 ZSO Hz S7.4 57.4 85.9 72.9 31..0 25 315 Hz SS.S 55.5 . 84.0 75.6 29.8 26 400 Hz S3.3 53.3 81.8 67.8 28.9 27 500 Hz 54, 1 54. 1 82.6 65.9 28.9 28 630 H% 55.9 55.9 84.4 66.4 30.6 29 800 Hz 58.3 S9.3 87.8 69.7 31.7 30 1 .OQkHz 50.3 60.8 88.8 70.1 31.6 31 1.25kHz S8.5 WS 87.0 69,8 31.4 32 1 .60kkz S4.8 S4.8 83.2 69.8 28.3 39 2.00kHz 51 .7 S1 .7 90.2 61 .0 27.4 34 2.50kKz 47.7 47.7 76.2 S7.1 27.4 355 3. 1SkHz 44.7 44.7 73.2 55,4 27.4 36 4,00kHz 43.2 43.2 71.7 55.5 27.4 37 5,00k14z 41 .4. 41 .4 69.9 S4.9 27.4 38 6.30kHz 38.5 38.9 67.4 51.5 27.4 39 8.00kHz 36.2 36.2 64.7 54.9 27.4 40 10.OkRz 32.3 32.3 60.8 46. 1 27.4 41 12.5kHz 28.7 28.7 57.2 41.4 27.4 42 16.0kHz 27.7 27.7 56. 1 $4.0 27.4 43 20.OkHz 27.6 27,6 56. 1 27.9 27.4 8 7119 71.9 100.4 73.1 62.7 A 66.1 6611 94.6 68.8 57.6 G 71 .5 71.5 100.0 72.6 62.1 U 71.7 71.7 100. 1 72.6 62,4 Sheet 5 of 6 Noise during Late afternoon moderate traffic FRIM : ROGER P. MAINERI & ASSOC IRTES PHONE NO. 14156472077 Mar. 12 1999 12:59RM P5 229g?5R 1s45.` .5, CfrL OLtZtTF4 WE,X7H,' DZSPLRY UNITS DETECTR D �!SdT99 1 -4z� LC3 0~ , . . . _ . gig mom 1 w �J k7�L g tr li!T I.C. R Q{ 1 M. U MODE L13W-H= HI-HZ # FREQUENCY DISP dB RMS dB BEL d8 MAX dB MIN dB 0 1.00 Hz 27.4 27.4 50.0 27.4 27.4 1 1 .25 Ha 27.4 27.4 SO.0 27.9 27,4 2 1 .60 Rz 27.4 27.4 5'0.0 27.4 27.4 3 2.00 Hz 27.4 27.4 84.0 20.0 27.4 4 2.50 Hz 27.4 27.4 50.0 27.9 27.4 5 3.15 Hz 27.4 27.4 50.0 28.1 27.4 6 4.00 Hz 27.4 27.4 .50.0 33.0 27.4 7 S.00 Hz 27,9 27.3 Sd.4 38.9 27.4 8 6.30 Hz 29.8 28.9 51.3 43.6 27.4 9 8.00 Ha 31 . 1 31. .1 53,6 45.2 27.4 10 10.0 Na 35.4 35.4 59.0 48.3 27.4 11 '12's Hz 42.0 42.0 64.S 54.4 27.4 12 16.0 Hz 47. 1 47.1 59.7 5712 29.4 18 20.0 Hz S1 .2 S1.2 `73.8 62.6 33.5 14 2S.0 Hz S4.3 54,3 76.9 64.2 37.4 16 31.S Hz 56.5 55.5 78.0 64.3 39.2 16 40.0 Hz 57.0 57.0 79.5 66.7 4.0.9 17 50.0 Hz 58.6 so.6 81. 1 71.7 43.S 18 53.0 Hz 60.4 60.4 83.0 73.0 47.6 1S 60.0 Hz 63.8 63.8 86.3 75.5 4S.9 20 100 Hz 51.6 61.6 84.2 72.4 46.S 21 12S Hz 63.1 6$.1 85.5 74.4 4S.0 22 150 Hz 60.8 60.8 83.3 74.7 41.6 3 200 Hz S9. 1 59.1 81.7 68.6 38.8 24 250 Hz 58.4 S6.4 81.0 67.7 37.0 25 315 Hz 56.1 S6. 1 78.6 66.8 36.7 26 400 Hz 55.1 55.1 77.6 65.4 36.3 27 SOO Hz 55.8 55.8 7.8.3 64.9 33,S 28 630 Hz S7.6 57,6 80.1 C5. 1 34.6 29 800 fix G1 .1 61, 1 83.7 69.6 37.1 30 1 .00kHz S2.3 82.3 84.8 69.5 36.2 31 1.2SkHz 60.5 60,5 83.1 69.8 34.0 32 1.601cHz S6.8 56.8 79.4 64.9 35.1 93 2.00kHz 53.8 S3.8 76.3 60.9 30.3 34 2.SOkHz 49.8 49.8 72.3 S6.8 2.7.4 3S 3.15kHz 46.8 46.8 59.3 55,6 27.4 36 4.00kHz 4S.4 45.4 67.9 54.4 27.4 97 S.DOkHz 43.6 43.6 66.1 53.5 27.4 3$ 6.30kRz 41.3 41 .3 63.9 S2.2 27.4 39 8.00kHz 38.1 38. 1 60.7 49.5 27.4 40 1O.OkHz 34.2 34.2 S6.@ 48.7 27.4 41 12.SkHz 29.8 29.8 52.4 44.5 27.4 42 16.OkHz 2718 27.8 50.4 37.6 27.4 43 20.OkHz 27.6 27.6 50,2 28.1 27.4 6 72.6 72.6 95.2 75.9 71.S A 68.0 68.0 s0.5 • 71.9 68.6 "o 72.2 72.2 94.8 7S.S 70.$ u 72.3 72.3 S4.9 7S.5 71, 1 Sheet 6 of 6 11oise durirg early evening heavy traffic 4 � i ` . . Irl 4pth the I j wt od'sture traps. Equally random in their effect, outstandingly stable. It corresponds to the plants, too, find it the ideal base, that of an interconnected masonry because a green retaining wall built structure although the retaining wall is dry from Loffelstein blocks is of course built from individual blocks laid «drys. not so dry. The troughshape of the The Loffelstein retaining wall can Loffelstein block prevents the water slope at any angle, therefore,the slope ` s.from draining off straight away. can vary from the top to the bottom < i t1t Therefore, the earth is able to absorb of the wall. The transition into the ,' . y 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 , ' Thus, plants have the ideal growing Loffelstein blocks grow together into conditions.The particular advantage one natural unit. r ` lies in the harmonious blending of ,✓' Loffelste€n block,soil,water and vegetation.The Loffelstein block can 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 t` - alternating blocks and earth interf€Il. The shape of the Loffelstein blocks gives the finished retaining wall an interlinked chain structure which is i 7. a Lfflelstei» r4.: J r r r .r`✓ ra JL x 41 s`� Vk \ �*-- � "it• s; �1 ,4.� -.Q ,.^ hyo, � 4 � R p 4 MMM '7F ° f•xF �*aa �*:a .�'w ,� � #.,..'"�, 9° �, �1 "` .. i e .� f ,1. It •� '.x.. t <. sit Y. � s Q f v •• i ! T SIR— y ! 02832NER MIN BuyLine 6274 Retaining - sAl - i { £7 Y�.� � ✓ ,:3.i: v.«.ri3f�r �3�r .'�r�t^ ) '3r"=KATI ��.+-��sa' '-�"' xy.S.s �a¢T{x. ,fes - ,..... ao .nr.'a' 'r '.' t* a .,R •n"e''`�'v ,.a'F'sy _ air •�', "^r'""{ t., "F Aay ^ft£M�•�y`,y S' 4_rJM".g'E'S'-hTz"` "`. " �R' -�^ay{r,,^"..KT,r-"�,.r1..,-.f .. t77w, M__ _ 77777 ,11, 05 . .' �;� ""��'r rt'1t'�`'�z.��r �.�,e��k+t�;�� 6��� '} "'sem• ����^*�;f,+.;.. . - .y. sl{Y /� ■■ Mortarless 4" f D �'T� �M�f�,k�4 �t`h{,�y�al�� �6"-•e, d�k k1N;:�1 RN i!x'Y h :} pq� F -Unit Durability Economical Unlimited Design Freedom Environmentally Safe Virtually Maintenance Free V E R A L 0 K Retaining Wall Systems VERSA—LOO ' System Overview VERSA-LOK segmental On many pro ects,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 pro Iects,and are conditions. Generally,with level routinely specified by state backfill and no excessive loading, transportation departments VERSA-LOK gravity walls may and the U.S.Arley Corps be built to heights of four feet. of Engineers. VVhen 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 comonents of a *1 i Y �.�- - "' VERSA-LOK segmental retaining u=alf y s stem. -w-- 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-'OK solid retaining wall units are made VERSA-unn from high-strength,low-absorption concrete to VERSA-LOK create a consistently durable product that exceeds Retaining wan Unit industry standards. Solid Impervious fill characteristics provide Drainage Aggregate superior resistance Soil Reinforcement to damage before, Compacted Backfill during,and after Drain Pipe construction in Leveling Pad all climates. Undisturbed Soil VERSA-LOK solid units are integrally colored. and may be easily modified to create an unlimited variety of design elements. NValls display a natural split-face texture to complement any environment and,because they are made of concrete,are environmentally safe. VERSA-LOiKII iinit Specif+ca dens Height: 61niches (152.4 mm) Width(face): 16 inches (406.4 mm) Width(rear): 14 inches (855.6 mm) Depth: 12 inches (304:8 mm) Face Area: 2/3 foot, (0.062 m� # Volume: 0.63 foots (0.018 reg) I Weight: 82 lbs. (87.19 kg) Weight/Face,area: 123 tbs./foots (599.84 kg/mr) d Design Flexibility Premium i§o77MMMMs t and Desigr Flexibility Premium: OZt332NER i s ine 6274 industry Approved %� �Ar The y'ERSA-LOKsystem 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-TUFFI non-corrosive, .a nvlon/fiberglass pins. This unique �ole-to-slot pinning system permits easy variable-bond construction.-keeping vertical joints ti ht. As wall courses are installe ,pins are inserted through holes in uppermost course units and are received to 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 hermits construction of concave and convex curves. An unlimited variety,of inside corners,outside corners,and 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 •ca abilities; lease request a VERSA-LOK Design installation Guide from your local supplier or by calling VERSA-LOK toll-free at(800)770-4525. ill I nmatched i .. y lex#bi#ity Premium solid Units Unmatched in Durability and Design Flexibility Premia i w. urabi#ity VERSA-LOK provides premium retaining walls for '►, , governmental,commercial,and residential applications. 4 i • Engineers value the structural integrity and durability of walls constructed using VERSA-LOK 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 800)770-4525 with questions or to request any of the following: •Design&Installation Guidelines •Technical Bulletin 1#1 Shoreline&Retention Ponds •Technical Bulletin#2 Building Steps •Technical Bulletin#3 Curves&Corners { 4YIfIR •Technical Bulletin#4 Capping 1 a •Technical Bulletin#5 Base Installation •Technical Bulletin#6 Vertical& Freestanding Walls AMMA •Technical Bulletin#7 Tiered Walls •Construction Details on CD-ROM containing technical drawings and F standard specifications •Scale Model VERSA-LOK Units "$ •Drafting Templates •Specifier's Reference Binders and more... VERS OK'Retaining Wall 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 worldwride under license from VERSA-LDK Retaining Wail Systems.J.S.Patent D319,885,U.S.Patent D321,060,US.Patent D341,215,US.Patent D346,667,U.S.Paten.:D378,702, U.S.Patent D391,376,and other U.S.patents pending-,Canadian Industrial Design Registration No.63929,No.71472,No.73910,No.73911,No.73912,No.77816,No.79058,and No.82288. LG5.0. No.4625 • O 1998 Kiltie Corporation -Printed in U.S.A. i .1 i 1 �„�-�' Community Contra. Dennis M. Sorry, gimp Community Development Director Development Costa Department County Pt' 0 0 County Administration Building t�� 651 Fine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez California 94553-0095 (925)335-1210 Date: ..- Phone. rrq`cd K� AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST We re nest our comments regarding the attached application currently under review. DISTRIBUTION Please submit,your comments as follows: -6uilding InspectionC � hirl'�, _HSD,Environmental Health, Concord Project Planner WcWttl t °� �D,Hazardous Materials P/W-Flood Control(Full Size) County File AW-Engineering Svcs(Full Size)W9 h Number: OPS te` Pate Forwarded �� , P/W Traffic(Reduced) Prior To: A P63 PAN Special Districts(Reduced) —Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs —Redevelopment Agency apply to this application. Historical Resources Information System 4 A Native Amer. Her. Comm. Redevelopment Area CA Fish &Game,Region US Fish &Wildlife Service �0 Active Fault Zone Z1 ire District ►''- �'k 'C35K .9v+ unitary Districts t ' Atyki __C_Flood Hazard Area,Panel# yYater District too ty .s ,+ - °i `eS 60 dBA Noise Control kJ tW-i?J- _ School District ' !, Sheriff Office-Admin. & Comm. Svcs.A� CA EPA hazardous Waste Site Alamo Improvement Association _El Sobrante Pig.& Zoning Committee Traffic Zone MAC DMT- Dep.Director,Communications V"CEQA F!,*� 5tF- �' _CAC R-7A Alamo Community Organizations -\AJ A � RECEIV�#� Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are req ed y 1*&orc�nnam P ase s nd j�qpies of your response to the Applicant& Owner. No comments on this application. Our Comments are attached CITY©F WA NU C EEK Comments: Si tatur 0 Ageu.c i �C S:current planning/temptates/formslagency comment request Date Office Hours Mondav - Fridaw 8:00 a.m. -5;00 n-m. ' REVIEW OF AGENCY PLANNING APPLICATION ZIUMUD fi�k� ski s`Yr, --aim a. ceu M ...., a.. ^. a.°xxner�,_ 2'..,smc.,.,• Mw� ;moi". `, �`+ e.u�ru.na. EThe technical data supplied herein is based on preliminary information,is subject to revision and is to be used for planning purposes ONLY.NEW p , 1 �. V-41 , i MIN �,U 1 111-1 MA`l i -T DATE 412102 EBMUD MAP(S) 153913522 EBMUD FILE: S•7212 AGENCY. Contra Costa County AGENCY FILE: DP-883007 ❑ TENT A F MAP County Administration Building E DEVELO NT PLAN 651 Pine Street ❑ REZONING,. PA 4i"Floor,North Wing ❑ OTHER Martinez, CA 94553 Attention:Michael Laughlin,Project PlannerA. APPLICANT: Hasseltine Best OWNER: County Wood Congregate Care 2380 Salvia Street#303 1911 San Miguel Drive Concord, CA 94520 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 LOCATION: Project located on Pleasant Hilt Road. Lafayette,CA 94549 Apptication to build an 101 unit senior care facility in a 3 story building that takes access from a TOTAL ACREAGE 6.2 ac bridge that will be built form Pleasant Hilt Road. NO. OF UNITS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT 101 ❑Single Family E Mutti•Family ❑Commercial []industrial ❑other Residential PROPERTY ® In EBMUD ❑Requires Annexation ELEVATION RANGE OF STREETS ELEVATION RANGE OF PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED 270'-280° 220'-275' PART) ❑ ( ALL, PART) of development may be served from of development may be served by EXISTING MAIN(S) MAIN EXTENSION(S) LOCATION OF MAIN(S): Taylor Boulevard. LOCATION OF EXIST. MAIN (S): PRESSURE ZONE SERVICE ELEVATION RANGE PRESSURE ZONE SERVICE ELEVATION RANGE Cotorados1,E3A) 250-450 B 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 it OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE Contact The EBMUD Water Service Planning Section (510)287.1084 Contact The EBMUD New Business Office(510)287.1008 ZWater Service Planning E City/Town/County = o E New Business Office E Applicant ® RC E Owner ❑ Aqueduct MAALMORES, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER f*WATER SERVICE PLANNING SECTION l Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Fire chief KEITH RICHTER March 25, 2002 Contra Costa County Community Development Department 551 Pine Street, 4t" Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94558 Attention: Michael Laughlin Subject: DP 88-3007 1545 Pleasant Hill Road, Lafayette CCCFPD No.: 00753 Gentlemen: We have reviewed the development plan application to establish a 101-unit congregate care facility at the subject location. This project is regulated by codes, regulations, and ordinances administered by this Fire District and the state Fire Marshal's Office. If approved by your office, the following shall be included as conditions of approval: 1. The developer shall submit two (2) complete sets of plans and specifications of the subject project, including required fire protection systems, for review and approval prior to construction to insure compliance with minimum requirements related to fire and life safety. Plan review fees will be assessed at that time. (2.206)CCC Ord 99-45 2. The developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum fire flow of 3000 GPM. Required flow shall be delivered from not more than three (8) hydrants flowing simultaneously while maintaining 20 pounds residual pressure in the main. (903.2)UFC 3. The developer shall provide four (4) hydrants of the East gay type. Hydrant locations will be determined by this office upon submittal of three copies of a tentative map or site plan. (903.2)UFC 4. Provide access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20 feet unobstructed width, and not less than 13 feet six inches of vertical clearance, to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every building. Access roads shall not exceed 16% grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 42 feet, and must be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus i.e., 37 tons. (902.2)UFC ❑ 2010 CEARY ROAD ► PLEASANT HILL, CALIFORNIA 9$523-4694 a TELEPHONE (925) 930-5500 r FAX 930-5592 4527 DEERFIELD DRIVE • ANTIOCH, CALIFORNIA 94509 c TELEPHONE (925) 757-1303 a FAx 754-$$52 WEST COUNTY AREA a TELEPHONE (5 10) 374-7070 GCC Community Development Dept. ®2- March 25, 2002 Note: Access roads of 20 feet unobstructed width shall have NO PARKING signs posted and curbs painted red. The grading plan, dated September 18, 2441, does not comply with the requirement of providing roadways to within 154 feet of all exterior portions of the complex, The grading plan shall show the connection from Diablo View Road into the complex. It shall conform to the above-listed requirements. 5. Access roads and hydrants shall be installed and in service prior to construction. (8704.1)UFC 6. Approved premises identification shall be provided. Such numbers shall contrast with their background and be readily visible from the street. 7. The building as proposed shall be protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Submit two sets of plans to the Fire District for review and approval prior to installation. (1003.1)UFC 8. Submit plans to: Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 2010 Geary Road Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 It is requested that a copy of the conditions of approval for the subject project be forwarded to this office when compiled by the planning agency. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office. rely, r►ny . Yo g Fire Inspec r JCHY/snb FILE PROJECT 00753.1tr c: Debolt Civil Engineering 811 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Danville, CA 94526 June 14, 2002 Mr. Michael Laughlin, Project Planner CCC Community development Dept. `'4 ', l 7 "' g,� l 6 5�t 41' 651 Pine Street, N. Wing - 2" 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 (31.95 Diablo View Road) is directly impacted by this development. We question whether we will have the opportunity to discuss these important issues at the Town Wali 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 & Jane►ie Kimball 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 2/2$/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 faces the facility. • 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 fairly good sued 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 gny off-street parking during construction. Parking on the side of Nablo 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. 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 bath 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 benef it in some small way from having to accept this unwanted development. Thank you for your time and efforts. Sincerely, Mark and J elle Kimball 3155 Diablo View Road Lafayette 94545 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 Pine Street; Room 108A Martinez, CA 94553-1293 169 070 051 169 070 051 169 071 001 Terry&Peggy Holcomb Terry&Peggy Holcomb Rene Conroy John&Louis Nielsen John&Louis Nielsen 1 Wildwood PI 3127 Diablo View Rd#A 3127 Diablo View Rd#A Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Lafayette,CA 94549 LafU tte, CA 94549 169 071 007 169 071 008 169071009 Carroll Proffitt Kathleen Ann.K?ipera Roger&Jeannine Miller 4 Limewood Pl 3093 Diablo View Rd 2764 Pontiac Dr Pleasant Hill,CA 94523 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Walnut Creek,CA 94598 169 090 005 169 080 406 169 080 016 Michel&Eleanor Thomet Carol Lind Lavery Gonzales &Janice Williams 3169 Diablo View Rd 3165 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 Haber Albert&Diana Jacobs 1555 Pleasant Hill Rd 1561 Pleasant Hill Rd 3151 Diablo View Rd Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 169 080 020 169 080 022 169 080 024 Michael&C N Marsh John Gregory Mar;'Tague 3157 Diablo View,Rd 1563 Geary Rd 3131 Diablo View Rd Lafayette,CA 94549 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Lafayette,CA 94549 169 080 025 169 080 026 169 080 027 Armen&Betty Manis Daniel&Susan Wagner Lawrence Gl'irardo &Valerie GIL-ardo 3141 Diablo View Rd 3187 Diablo View Rd 3189 Diablo View Rd Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette;CA 94549 169 080 028 169 080 029 169 080 030 Mark&Janelle Kimball Warren&:Marg Gutzwiller Warren&Peggy Gutzvdller 3195 Diablo View Rd 1567 Pleasant Hill Rd 1567 Pleasant Hill Rd Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette,CA 94549 169 080 031 169 080 032 169 080 033 Shantagonda Patil&Aruna Patil Khaled&,Randa Nawawi John&Jodelle Russi 15 Grove Cree:x Ct 25 Grove Creek Ct 35 Gro-,-e Creek Ct Lafayette; CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette,CA 94549 169 080 034 169 090 001 169 100 018 Kenneth&Wendy Miller F Greg&Bev-,Yl3,Kent Jasbir&Nisla Singh 3173 Diablo View=Rd J A JOHNSON INC 955 Pleasant Bill Rd Lafayette, CA 94549 PO Box 568 Lafayette,CA 94549 Danville, CA 94526 169 100 019 169 100 020 169 100 022 Alan &Sandra Kstuscher Johr.Rochios&-Conitha Concannon Leo & Christina Schiavello 1649 Taylor Blvd 167: Taylor Blvd '60&Rancho View Rd Lafayette; CA 44.549 Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette; CA 94549 !69010010 169 040 003 169 040 031 Contra Costa County Robert&Susan Graham Sang Tsoi&F Chang tVong 255 Glacier Dr 3094 Hedaro Ct Sang Tsoi IVonb Martinez, CA 94553 Lafayette,CA 94549 803 Ironbark PI Qrinda,CA 94563 169 040 034 169 040 037 169 040 038 Maureen Van Westrop Earl&Patricia Prosek Mona Sorrell 3078 Diablo View Rd 4000 Wellington PI 4015 Wellington PI Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette,CA 94549 169 051 001 169 051 017 169 051 018 Adrianus &1%,Tancy Stenzen William&Thelma Walter William Stice 3102 Diablo View Rd 3110 Diablo View Rd 3116 Diablo View Rd l,afayttte, CA 94549 Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 169 051 024 169 051 025 169 051 034 Mark Ferro Leonard John Vannoord Mary Bloxharn&.Jacques &Th Bloxha 3138 Diablo View Rd Frances S Vannoord 346 NT 8Th Ave Lafayette,CA 94549 3134 Diablo View Rd Des Plaines,IL 60016 Lafayette,CA 94549 169 060 009 169 060 014 169 060 022 Therese Hill &HILL 1997 Rena Bugnatto James&.Cathryn field 3196 Diablo View Rd 3168 Diablo View Rd 3163 Ramada Ct Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 169 060 045 169 060 046 169 060 046 Thomas & C�mth'-a.Leathers Feli;, &Flora Valenzano Felin&.Flora Valenzano 3146 Diablo View Rd 3156 Diablo View Rd 3156 Diablo View Rd Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 169 060 047 169 060 048 169 060 049 Timothy&Karen Murphy K G Walker&David Millstein Roger&Lor Sherman Benjamin,Murphy 3178 Diablo View Rd 3184 Diablo View fid 3172 Diablo View Rd Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 169 060 050 169 061 007 169 061 008 Ralph&Janet Mason Henry&Grace Kay Tsai Mark.Ferro 3190 Diablo View Rd 1748 La Playa Dr 3138 Diablo View Rd Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette,CA 94549 169 070 002 169 070 005 169 070 019 James &Lesley Rosselli Harley&Jacqueline Evitttner Sheila Horton 3123 Diablo View Rd 672 Huntington Way 3111 Diablo Vie«;Rd Lafa;rette, CA 94549 Livermore,CA 94550 Lafayette,CA 94549 169 070 044 169 01,0047 169 070 048 Chris&Lisa Ransom Garrett&Frances Kyle Barton &Marilyn Hosman 2 ldwood Pl 3099 Diablo View Rd a09 7 Diablo View Rd Pleasant Bill, CA 94523 Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 169 171 '002 169 171 003 169 171 004 Roger&Virginia Regier Bryan Mclane Walter& Christine Lang 1546 Pleasant Ln 1544 Pleasant Ln 1547 Palos Verdes Mall#317 Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 169 171 005 169 171 006 169 171 016 Richard &Janice.Mark Harry Yanellas Robert&Barbara Zimmie--mann— PCS Box 863 1532 Pleasant Hill Rd 1536 Pleasant Hill Rd Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 169 171 019 169 171 022 169 171 024 Blaise&Pearl Russo Ruben Rangel Blaise&.Pearl Russo 1552 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 Antonio &Bonnie Montoya Elleari Winegar 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 Brace &Marilyn lvIacdougall 1535 Pleasant Hill Rd 1667 Foothill Park Cir 1571 Sharon Cir Lafayette,CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 169 231 019 169 400 002 Joan Kasici&Donald She idan Victor John&Nina Lee Gianunzio � /r.� %C;m a�? 1562 Pleasant Hill Rd Victo Gianunzio / Lafayette,CA 94549 60 Ridaecrest Ct .3 f j"q t f'1:-jlt'LIa Lafayette' CA 9454.9 r �' SYS�{ f Clancy Becker, President Mr. Jinn Diggins Applicants; Sun Care Communities DeBolt Civil Engineering 3021 Citrus Circle, Ste. 2.50 811 San Ramon Valley Blvd. Wahiut Creek, C.A. 94598 Danville, CA 94526 Alan Pomeroy Eric Hasseltine Elder Care Alliance 3182 Old Tunnel Rd., ste. E 2361 E. 29th St. Lafayette, CA 94549 Oakland, CA 94606 3o13n and Jodelle Russi 35 Grove Creek Ct. Lyrm Van Nord Tim and Daren Murphy Lafayette, CA 94549 3134 Diablo View Rd. 118 Allen Ct. Lafayette, CA. 94549 Moraga, CA 94556 Mick Montana Jim and Loretta Vranesh 1662 Glen Oak Court 3128 Diabl© View P.d. Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 f y6Q 3784 Juniper Dr. Concord, CA 94519 November 24,2002 Mr. Leonard Van N'oord 3134 Diablo View Road Lafayette,CA 94549 Dear Mr. Van Noord: I enclose a copy of the 2001-02 Contra Costa Grand Jury Report 0207. This report is available in all County Libraries,and is posted on the County Web,Site. You may find the subject matter of interest For unknown reasons,the local newspapers did not publish the report,so you may not be aware that it exists. I do not know what action the County took concerning this report, but you could find out if you have an interest. I was a member of the previous Grand Jury,and cannot comment on any proceedings beyond published reports. Vera,truly yo 3 � Richard Soderholm a�,t� ��. z..,` "tea-�.,..� --,�.�,�,'�,� •1.������, , CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REPORT NO.0207 Unresolved Drainage Problems BACKGROUND Since the development of Contra.Costa County Subdivision#3987,Lafayette,a downhill property on Diablo View Road,has suffered repeated flood damage even during normal seasonal rainfall. FINDINGS 1. In 1972 the County approved Subdivision#3987 located at La Playa Dave and Diablo View Road in Lafayette. 2. Subdivision#3987 is located uphill from a property(subject property)on Diablo View Road in Lafayette. 3. The County did not inspect the site before issuing approval for Subdivision#3987 although they,admitted they should have and had intended to do so. 4. The subdivision application stated that surface storm water would be discharged mato an emoting creek bed for conveyance to an existing creek.A subsequent cursory inspection by the County and a detailed inspection by a professional engineering organizatims6ted the existing drainage path was not a natural watercourse. 5. 'County Sum' "on Ordinance 914-2 requires that surface water runoff be collected and conveyed to the nearest natural watercourse as a condition of subdivision approval. 6. County Engineering has repeatedly agreed that the subdivision approval should not have been granted without assuring adequate water drainage. 7. The runoff from most of Subdivision#3987 enters the subject property where it ponds as there is no natural outlet. 8. The first property downhill from the subject property appears to have been filled to a higher elevation a long time ago,and has an old 24-inch drain pipe installed with the intake somewhat higher than the lowest grade level of subject property.This high intake on the downhill property is the only water runoff from the subject property,and since it is higher than the ditch coming from the upstream property, water is forced to pond in this area until the level reaches the higher level of the elevated outlet. 9. At the neat property line downhill.,the 24-inch drain: pipe reduces to an approximately 15-inch drain,then continues to an open ditch that runs past several more properties to an identiftcd creek bed. 10.The downhill drainage pipe was referenced in a June 14, 1972 letter from the County to the two adjacent properties discussing a ditch to resolve the drainage problem.The mismatch in elevations was not mentioned. 11. Since 1972,the County has approved several additional minor subdivisions uphill of the subject property.All of these drain into the 1972 vintage storm sewer system which compound the storm water runoff to the subject property. 12.County Department of Public`Forks has advised owner of subject property that he is not responsible for this ponding problem,and that future uphill developers will be required to resolve this problem. 13.Various correspondence between County Planning Department,County Flood Control District,Subdivision#3987 applicant,the then resident of the subject property,and the theca resident of the upstream property,discuss inadequacy of drainage,including easement for a new drainage pipe and signed releases for surface drainage over the upstream property.Subsequently,.applicant wrote that he would not provide the discussed underground pipe.Both residents,and some neighbors,had written the County that they had experienced severe flood damage to their orchards. 14.The upstream neighbor to the subject,property refused to sign a drainage release, but did later grant a drainage easement for some consideration from the applicant. Subject property owner offered to sign an easement for an underground pipe.The County Planning Department referred the offer for easement to the County Flood Control District.No agreement was met and no action was taken. 15.During the subdivision application process County nutations on drainage drawings indicate that applicant of Subdivision#3987 statements,"water is conveyed to an existing creek bed," must be verified(by the County).There is no record this was ever done.Subsequent reviews by County Engineers in 1990 and a private engineering firm in 1996 state subject property was not an existing creek bed. 16.Various 1990 County Flood Control memos indicate that subject property drainage is inadequate and that future subdivisions will be required to "collect and convey" to a natural watercourse.Neither Flood Control or Public Works would remedy the current inadequate drainage problem. 17.During 1992 and 1993,letters from the County informed the subject property owner that future uphill developments will be required to replace the ditch on his property with an underground system. 18.In January 1994,County Public Works Department described subject property's drainage problem to District 2 Supervisor,including description of many assumptions by Public Works Department about existing drainage that were either inaccurate or totally incorrect.The statement of Public Works Department was that drainage may or may not be adequate, but there was nothing the County could do. 19.The County Mosquito Abatement District has cited the owner of subject'property for having standing water on this property. 20.In July 1995,the County Mosquito and Vector Control District sent a letter to County Public Works Department asking them to correct the drainage from the County street to the subject property to estimate the health risk posed by standing water on this property. 21.A July 30, 1996 letter from Public Works to Mosquito and Vector Control District indicated that subject property's drainage problem was overlooked when the last development was approved and that it is the County's intent to recommend that the next development in the area install an underground pipe. 22.In September 19%a civil engineering firm,D.F.Flett,of 1655 North Main Street, Walnut Creek,CA, hired by the owner of the subject property,assessed the drainage on this property.Their report stated the following: that although the County maps indicated a drainage path for the affected property,it had no definable bed or banks; runoff from uphill developments was diverted to flow across the subject property,although that development carried the requirement to take all runoff to a watercourse having definable bed and banks.The adequacy of the watercourse should have been verified by the County Planning Department but this was never done. The same engineering firm noted that a County Flood District engineer prepared a drainage deficiency design and cost estimate on May 15, 1990.The design indicates the installation of 100 feet of 42 inch pipe and 275 feet of 24-ineh pipe is neeessary to correct the drainage problem,and the cost was estimated to be$58,000. CONCLUSIONS 1. County Public Warks Department and County Flood Control District have committed repeated errors of engineering judgment,or have made decisions or approved developments without conducting required inspections of the existing watershed. County officials have told aggrieved property owners that they would require subsequent developers to improve the drainage and then neglected to carry out these stated intentions.The consequences of inadequate County performance are all borne by the unfortunate property owners. RECOMMENDATIONS The 2001-2002 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the.Board of Supervisors: 1. Require that appropriate County engineering staff inspect every site for which an application for a drainage permit is approved,to assure that maps submitted and the statements made,related to the project,are in fact true and correct. 2. Direct the Public Works Department/Flood Control District to establish procedures to ensure that commitments to link a drainage change to a future development are actually known and reviewed when the anticipated development does occur. DEC.17.2002 11:04AM SUPERIOR COURT NO.101 P.6/14 f- y fri���i TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Co ��� FROM: JOHN SWEETEN, County Administrator Costa DATE: AUGUtT '13, 2002 County SUBJECT- RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT N0, 0207 ENTITLED "UNRESOLVED DRAINAGE PROBLEMS" SPECIFIC RftUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATIONS)d BACKGROUND AND JUS'T'IFICATION ADOPT report as the Board of Supervisors' response to Brand Jury Report No. 0207 entitled, "Unresolved Drainage Problems". SACKGRCQIJi : The 2001-2002 Grand .fury filed the above-referenced report on May 30, 2002, which was reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and subsequently referred to the County Administrator, Public Works Department, and Community Development Department, who jointly prepared the attached response that clearly specifies: A. 'Whether the finding or recommendation is accepted or will be implemented; B. If a recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will be responsible for implementation and a definite target date; C. A delineation of the constraints if a recommendation is accepted but cannot be Implemented within a six-month period; and D. The reason for not accepting or adopting a finding or recommendation. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: r reRI COMMENDATION 0 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR — RECO ATiON OF BOARD COMMITTEE CPPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ` ACTION OF aO&6D ROVE AS RECOMMENOED � OTHER r VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HCRESY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUI` /1. a AND nORRPCT COPY 6V AN ACTinN TAKFN DEC. 17.2002 11:04RM SUPERIOR COURT N0.101 P.7/14 Unresolved Drainage problems August 13, 2002 County Response to Grand jury Report No. O207 Page t RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT NO. O207 UNRESOLVED DRAINAGE PROBLEMS FINDINGS 1. in 1972 the County approved Subdivision #3967 located at La Playa Drive and Diablo View !`toad in Lafayette. Response: Agree 2. Subdivision #3987 is located uphill from a property (subject property) on Diablo View Road in Lafayette. Response: Agree, 3. The County did not inspect the site before issuing approval for Subdivision#3987 although they admitted they should have and had intended to do so. Response: Disagree. The Board ofSupervlsors approved the SubdMslon Map of Tract 3987 on April 24, 9972 and there is evidence in the file that County Staff inspected the site on June 5, 1972. Since only the pertinent information from the paper files was microfilmed, the County has no documentation that a field review was conducted prior to submission of the conditions of approval. However, since it was standard practice when this-subdivision was being processed in 9972 for County staff to ,held review each dpvelopment prior to drafting the conditions of approve/, and for Project Planners to make site visits as part of the analysis for providing recommendations to the hearing body, in the absence of documentation to the contrary it is reasonable to conclude that the site visits occurred. 4. The subdivision application stated that surface storm waiter would be discharged into an existing creek bed for conveyance to an existing creek. A subsequent cursory inspection by the County and a detailed Inspection by a professional engineering organization stated the existing drainage path was not a natural watercourse. Response: Partially disagree. There is no evidence that the County performed only a cursory inspection. 5. County Subdivision Ordinance 914«2 requires that surface water runoff be collected and conveyed to the nearest natural watercourse as a condition of subdivision approval Response: Agree, with the cledficafion that County Subdivision Ordinance 994.2 spec hiss a number of requirements regarding drainage, including the requirement that surface waters flowing from a subdivision be collected and conveyed to a natural watemourse or to an existing public storm drainage faoliiiy having adequate capacity. 6. County Engineering has repeatedly agreed that the subdivision approval should not k a%,r, he,an mrantad withnitt aactirinn adenuate water drainage. DEC-17-2002 11a04AM SUPERIOR COURT N0.101 P.e/14 Unresolved Drainage Problems August 43,2002 County Response to Grand Jury Report No.0207 Page 2 Response. Disagree. Topographic maps predating Subdivision 3987 clearty show a hisforfc drainage way across the subject property. County staff would have relied upon these topographic maps in determining#ire adequacy of drainage on the subject iroperty. The ponding that now occurs resins from grading on neighboring pmper*s downstream of the subject property. ; 8. The first property downhill from the subject property appears to have been filled to a higher elevation a long time ago, and has an old 24-Inch drainpipe installed with the intake somewhat higher than the lowest grade level of subject property. This high intake on the downhill property is the only water runoff from the strb]ect property, and since it is higher than the ditch corning from the upstream properly,water is forced to pond in this area until the level reaches the higher level of the elevated outlet. Response: Agree. 9. At the next property line downhill,the 24-inch drainpipe reduces to an approximately 15-Inch drain,than continues to an ripen ditch that runs past several more properties to an identified creek bend. Response: Agree. 10. The downhill drainage pipe was referenced In a June 14, 1972 letter from the County to the two adjacent properties discussing a ditch to resolve the drainage problem. The mismatch in elevations was not mentioned. Response: Agree. 11. Since 1972,the County has approved several additional minor subdivisions uphill of the subject property. All of these drain into the 1972 vintage storm sewer system, which compound the storm water runoff to the subject property. Response: partially disagree. Upstream of the subject property, thres'Minor SubdA4sions were approved(MS 1.88, MS 32-88, and MS 72-88). Aurfng the plan review process, data provided by the developer's engineers indicated the downstream systems were adequate and compiled with County S'ubdAdsicn ordinance requirerments. County staff reviewed the data submitted by the deveeloper's engineers and agreed wfth their analysis. 12. County Department of Public Works has advised owner of subject property that he is not responsible for this ponding problem, and that future uphill developers will be required to resolve this problem. Response. Pertialty disagree. California taw requires properties to accept drainage from upstream properties. .Howevar, now development is required to mltigate lis runoff to pre. existing levels. Oft`eritimes, this includes onsila detention and/or bypass of an existing inadequate drainage system rather then repsh ing it Tho subJect property owMer was advised that his drainage condition could possibly be relieved by improvements made by new development. 13, Various correspondence between County Planning Department,County Flood Control District,Subdivision#3987 applicant,the then resident of the subject Property, and the then resident of the upstream property,discuss inadequacy of drainage, Including easement for a new drainage pipe and signed releases for surface drainage over the upstream property. Subsequently, applicant wrote that he would not provide the discussed underground pipe. Roth residents,and some neighbors, had written the County that they had experienced severe flood damage to their orchards, Response: Agree. DEC.17.auz 11:05AM SUPERIOR COURT N0.101 P.9/14 Unrasotm omlrwV Probloms August 13t 2002 County Rssponaee to Grand Jury Report No.0207 Page 3 14. The upstream neighbor to the subject property refused to sign a drainage release, but did tater grant a drainage easement for some oonsideretlon from the applicant. Subject property owner offered to sign an easement for an underground pipe. The County Planning Department referred the offer for easement to the County Flood Control District. No agreement was met and no action was taken. l�t,� Rosponss Partially disagree. The owner of the subject pmperty submitted a letter indcadng a preference for granting an easement for a dt mage,pipe, Xne weary; The public Works Department(Flood Control DiAhn) contacted the subject property owner on Apr#18, 1972 regarding a drainages easement for SubdMsbn 3987 The upstream neighbor, the developer, and the subject properly owner were unable to reach agreement and, consequently, an easement was never granted. 15. During the subdivision application process County notations on drainage drawings indicate that applicant of Subdivision#3987 statements,"water Is conveyed to an existing creek bed,"must be verified (by the County). There is no record this was ever done. Subsequent reviews by County Engineers in 1990 and a private engineering firm in 1998 state subject property was not an eAsfing creek bed. Response: Partially disagree. (Wdh regard to documentation, please see the County's response to Finding No. 3) D. S. p'kett and Associates completed a preliminary review of the drainage problem on the subject property and Issued a report dated September 24, 1998. In this report, pleat Ideentlfles two historic drainage paths across the subject property. One drainage path Is a creek which crosses the southeast corner of the property, and the other is a drainage swele without definable bed and banks, which crosses the width of the property Subdivision 3987 drains to the drainage swale across the wrath of the subject property, 18. Various 1990 County Flood Control memos indicate that subject property drainage is inadequate and that future subdivisions will be required to"collect and convey"to a natural watercourse. Neither Flood Control nor Public Works would remedy the current inadequate drainage problem. Response; Agrees. 17. Curing 1992 and 1953, letters from the County informed the subject property owner that future uphill developments would be required to replace the ditch on his property with an underground system., Response. Agree, 18, In January 1994, County Public Works Department described subject property's drainage problem to District 2 Supervisor,including description of many assumptions by Public Works Department about existing drainage that were either Inaccurate or totally Incorrect. The statement of public Works Department was that drainage may or may not be adequate, but there was nothing the County could do. Response., Partlally disagree. The Public Works Director sent the attached memorandum dated January 18, 1994 to the DisfM 11 Supervisor summarizing the drainages issues regarding the subject property. The memorandum Included a topographic map clearly showing the Mato drainage way on the subject property. The Public Works Department believes the statements matte In this memorandum regarding the existing drainage were accurate and correct. 19. The County Mosquito Abatement District has cited the owner of subject property for having standing water on this property. Reaponse. Disagree. Accotift to the Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District(MVC District), they have not pursued any abatement or enforcement action an DEC.17.2002 11-*05AM SUPERIOR COURT PIU.101 P.10i14 3 ,r Unrs olvod Drainage Problsms August 13,2002 County Response to Grand Jury Report No.0207 Page 4 the suW)ect property: Incidentally, the MVC DIstdct has no autho*to leave cbtbns for having standing water. 20In July 1996,the County Mosquito and Vector Control district sent a letter to County Public Works Department asking them to correct the drainage from the County ! street to the subject property to eliminate the health risk posed by standing water on { this property. Response: Agree. { 21. A July 30, 1996 letter from Publics Works to Mosquito and Vector Control District Indicated that subject property's drainage problem was overlooked when the hast development was approved and that it Is the County's intent to recommend that the next development in the area install an underground pipe. Response. Agree. 22. In September 1996 a civil engineering firm, D. F. Fl+ett, of 1666 North Main Street, Walnut Creek, CA, hired by the owner of the subject property,assessed the drainage on this property. Their report stated the following:that although the County maps indicated a drainage path for the affected property, it had no definable bed or banks; runoff from uphill developments was diverted to flow across the subject property, although that development carried the requirement to take all runoff to a watercourse having definable bed and hanks. The adequacy of the watercourse should have been verified by the County Planning Department but this was never done. The same engineering firm noted that a County Flood District engineer prepared a drainage deficiency design and cost estimate on May 15, 1950. The design indicates the installation of 100 feet of 42-Inch pipe and 275 feet of 244nch pipe is necessary to correct the drainage problem,and the cost was estimated to be $58,000. • , Response: Partially disagree. D.B. Nett and Associates completed a preliminary review of the drainage problem on the subject property and Issued a letter report dated September 24, 1998. In this report,Flea stated one of the two histodo drainage paths had no definable bed and banks, The report also stated a portion of the runoff from MS I M8(actually MS 101-88, an upstream Minor SubdAdsr`on) was dilrerfed to flow across the au4ject property. During the plan review process, the developer's engineers provided data and an analysis indicating the downstream systems were adequate,to convey this small dllrersion. Based upon this submittal,Public Works did not determina a need to take any further action to verlll the adequacy of the watercourse. The County Planning Department Is not charged with verifying the adequacy of drainage fecilitl+es, but normally Includes proposed conditions of approval provided by Public Works In the staff report prepared for the hearfng body. The County Public Warks Department prepared a cost estimate on May 15, 1990 for a storm drain system between La Plays Drive and f=oothill Park Circle. The total estimated cost was$58,900. RECOMMENDATIONS The Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors implement the following: 1. Require that appropriate County engineering staff Inspect every site for which an application for a drainage permit is approved,to assure that maps submitted and the statements made, related to the project,are in fact true and correct. ITEC.17. 0 11:06AM SUPERIOR COURT NO.101 P.11/'14 Unresolved Drainage Problem August 43,2002 Cou m*y Response to grand.fury Report No.0207 Page s Response: Nes been implemented. For future drainage permits the County will examine available documenfation regarding drainage condNons In the area end wifl augment that information, as necessary, by conducting field reviews of the site and the surrounding,area. VWM regard to new development applications with drainage requirements, the Caff mie Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) requires that an analysis of the kVact of a development on surrounding properties be made and that any mitigati %P x i &DEC.17.2002x.*11 y 06AM*&v GLFERIOR COLRT v- •w-aw ,w*,A%-# NO.101 P.12/'14*` %., Hi PusUe WORKS OtPARTMSNT ' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: January 18, 1994 TO: Supervisor Jeff Smith, District II FROM: J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director �e SU13JECT: Drainage Problem, Leonard 3134 Diablo View Road, Lafayette FILE: 3046-06 APN 189-051-025 This memo Is in follow up to Milton Kubicek`s conversation with Mark Hughes regarding the drainage problem on Mr. Leonard Van Nord's property at 3134 Diablo 'thew Road, Lafayette. This is a long standing problem that first surfaced in 1972 with the development of Subdivislon No. 3937, see enclosed map. At that time, Mr. Hell (Mr. Van Nords neighbor to the west) filed a 4aawsuit against the subdivision developer, Lockwood Corporation, The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudices on December 16, 1974. We have no knowledge on the settlement between the parties. Since then, several other developments have occurred within the area. Downstream, Minor Subdivision No. 81-79 was approved without any Improvements to the marc-made ditch. We can only,,assume, in 1979, the ditch was considered to be adequate. Upstream of Mr, Van Nores property, three Manor Subdivision have occurred (MS 1-88, M$ 32-88, and MS 72-88). During the plan review process It was determined, based on data provided by the developer's engineers,that the downstream systems were adequate and complied with the County Subdivision Ordinance. The Ordinance requires developments to "collect and convey" storm waters to an adequate man-made'facility or natural water course, This requirement requires careful evaluation In each Instance. The above Minor Subdivisions discharged th+ frstorm wagers into the adequate man-made drainage system constructed by Subdivision 3937 which is upstream of the Mari-made ditch moss qtr. Bell and Mr. Van Nord's properties. Does the Cade require the man-made system be adequate along its entire length to the natural water course? Our interpr+etion of the rode is that it does. However, we still must answer the question, Is the main-made ditch across the Bell and Vann Nord properties adequate? Some would say yes and others would say no. The issue is further complicated by the fact that the downstream properties have the obligation to accept draainaage from upstream properties. What are the responsibilities of Mr. Hell and Mr. Van Nord to solve their yawn drainage problem? The enclosed topographic map that.predates Subdivision 3937 clearly shows a drainage way on their properties. If they were to subdivide today, they would be required to Improve the earth ditch to a pipo'or concrete llned ditch. .,. —DEC.17.c 002'�`11:O5Att--- 'SUPERIOR COURT �»w . .....� _..._ NO.101 P.13/14 `Supervisor Jeff Smith January 18, 1994 Page Two There is some question as to our ability to force upstream properties to Improve the ditch on Mr, Van Nord`s property solely based on the Subdivision Ordinance Code. Viten the next parcel upstream develops, It Is our intent to address this issue In the EIR process and the development conditions of approval, We will recommend to the Planning Commission that a storm drain be installed to replace the man-made ditch and that the requirement be addressed in the 'EIR as a mitigation measure and spetffied as a condition of approval. Until the above property develops, there is nothing we can do with regard to the Van Nord drainage problem. We have enclosed.some of the past correspondence on this Issue, If you have any further questions, please contact Milton Kubicek at 313-22034 JMW.t►. a:VanNord t1 enclosures oc; MerMbers-Rdoed of Supervisors V. .4tsxe##, GMEDA Weector tit �ublc�k DEC.17.2002 11=07AM SUPERIOR COURT NO.101 P.14/14 17+ pages of enclosures not included for brevity's sake. t PROOF OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF A PUBLIC (2015.5 C.C.P.) HEARI BEFORE THE Cfl�i0STA COU OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUPSRNB+� 40N County of Contra Costa PLANfNNQMATrERs `The location of the subject PLEAeAhrr HILL AREA site is at the ln'Ww'__tion of Byior i3ou#evard and I am a citizen of the united States and a resident of the Is Fill Road, and County aforesaid; I am over that age of eighteen years, and NOTICE Is hereby g#yen �Rloadounded by Diablo View T to the north. not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. that on cec% nth o 2002 at 9;30 a.m. n the roc`turrtyr you challenge this matter Adminiatratton 8u#idin0 (n court maybe I"- I am the Principal Legai Clerk of the Contra Costa Times, a 651 gine street,{comer of }ad to rasa o only those IS- newspaper s- news a er of general circulation, printed and published at Pine and Escobar streets), sues you or someone else p f� g p p Martinez, Callfomla, the raised at the pubiic hearing 2640 Shadelands drive in the City of Walnut Creek, County Contra Costa Count described at,the public of Contra Costa,94598. of Supervisors will hold a notichearie, described In this ublic hearing to consider notice, o delivered cone- 7a following planning met- s dat, or prim o the And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of r: County hearing.p`ior to,tete general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, under the date of October AppeaFby John and Jodeke Prior to the hearing,.Com- 22, 1934.Case Number 19764. Russi, at ell,of the Contra munity, Development Ce- � county Planning partment staff wilt be avatl- rnlaslort's approval o able on Tuesday The notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in required planning oomrrls� December.1t�, 2002, s- type not smaller than nonpareil),has been published in each sion review of revised pro- s:�p rn.In Room tris,651 p ministration Building, 651 regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any sect plans, landscapk#(t Pine street, marttnaz, to g pian and gradin pians tat meet with any interested supplement thereof on the following dates,to-wit: constructlon o an ap- panes In order to(1) an- proved congregate care - swer questions;(2) r*Aaw of#i of not more Asn 101. the he procedures November 29 used I the ;C)clari- ty res dantiai units for pparsons the eauea haing oWdW(d 60 years or older.foredo Bred by the board'and(4) all in the year of 2002 of approximatey, 15,50 pmvlde an opportunity to oub)C rd6 of aarth is pro- den resolve,or narrow posed (balanced on sit%). any amerances which re- . Cianoy %ck%r for Sun,Cara main In dispute.If wish Communities (Applicant) his I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the ��"Gj�aise�'c�li Cswik� foregoing is true and correct. and Jim Johnson(Cwnerj, . Hann, Community Dove!- County Elie OP883 07 W275135- artment, at 04 by 3:00 Executed at Walnut Cree California. The location of the subject m. on Monday,Decem- C)rt this r day of None a 2002 property!mss with ftrYa unin- ger 9,2002,to confirm your 1 n, counttyy,S te�oof aC i#ra f Costa the participation. November 22,2002 ........ ..... .................... generally fdanftfled below i pp lly John Sweeten,clerk of the i Signatu a to rrwra praclee desoriptbn . Board of SupenAsors and mbe examined ors the County Administrator We of th@ L7ireator of ' Contra Costa Times mmunity L3%v%#opmant, gy/s/Gina Martin, P C) oX 4147 un ty Administration I 800cleric Ilding.Martinez, Cal#for- i e a#CCT 6470 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 niaY P ish November29,200 (925)935-2525 Proof of Publication of: (attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that published)