Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06051990 - 2.7 a. 7 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 5, 1990 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Fanden NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Pacheco Properties, MS 108-89, Fee Waiver Request The Board received the attached report dated June 5, 1990 from J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director, recommending that the fee waiver requested by Pacheco Properties on Minor Subdivision 108-89 be denied. Mr. Ray Bickerstaff, General Partner, Pacheco Properties, submitted the attached information relative to his objection to the fees. Maurice Huguet, attorney for Pacheco Properties, stated that one major issue of concern for his client was the matter of the 54" drainage pipes that had been required by the County. Mr. Walford advised that the drainage pipes in question had been installed by the developer to improve the property and not as a requirement of Drainage Area 57. After discussion by Board members, IT IS ORDERED that the decision on drainage area and road improvement fees for MS 108-89 is DEFERRED to June 26 , 1990. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Public Works Director and County Counsel are REQUESTED to review the history of Drainage Area 57 to determine responsibility for the installation of the two 54" drainage pipes. cc: Public Works Director County Counsel I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of County Administrator an action taken end entered on the minutes of the Board of Sup7IBCHELOR.. on the date shown, ATTESTED: X /91x'0 PHIL ":!ork of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator 13Y .Deputy TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: June 5, 1990 SUBJECT: REPORT from the Public Works Director in response to Board referral of April 10, 1990, regarding Mr. R. M. Bickerstaff and fees in connection with Minor Subdivision 108-89. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S) &BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. Recommended Action: ACCEPT report and RECOMMEND Pacheco Properties be required.to pay the Drainage Area 57 fee of $0.35 per square foot of new impervious surface generated by any development in conjunction with Minor Subdivision 108-89 and sustain the requirement to pay the Countywide Area of Benefit fee for future road improvements for the development of the property at the industrial rate at the time the building permit is issued for the new facilities. IL Financial Impact: Drainage The subject property is located within the boundary of Drainage Area 57 and is required by ordinance to pay the drainage area fee (approximately $70,000). Fee payment is essential to insure construction of the Drainage Area's plan of improvements and for equitable application to all land developments. Roads The subject property is within the Countywide Area of Benefit, for which a fee of$1.60 per gross square foot for industrial development has been established. The amount of impact .is dependent upon the size and number of buildings proposed to be constructed. The applicant has paid $66,355 to the County in fulfillment of this obligation, which if refunded, would result in a deficit in the accrual of funds for projects in the Central County Area. This could result in raising the unit fees to other developers in the area to co ensate for the shortage. Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE O PERVISORS UNAN US (ABSENT ) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JJO:dmw MS 108.BO Orig. Div: Public Works (FCE) cc: County Administrator Community Development Building inspection County Counsel County Assessor . County Treasurer - Tax Collector County Auditor - Controller Chief Engineer Accounting Engineering Services Road Engineering Board of Supervisors Minor Subdivision 108 June 5, 1990 Page 2 of 3 III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: Drainage In 1985 Pacheco Properties (Developer) was granted a land use permit (LUP 2014-85) to construct a 30,500 square foot office building on the subject property. The original conditions of approval for this permit include the following: 1) Conveyance to the County by Grant Deed, the future "development rights" over the portion of the subject property that is traversed by Pacheco Creek in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance Code (County Ordinance No. 89-28). 2) The construction of channel improvements to the portion of Pacheco Creek which traverses the subject property in accordance with County Ordinance No. 89-28. 3) A contribution to the County Drainage Deficiency Fund (Fund No. 812100-0800) in the amount of$0.21 per square foot of new impervious surface area generated by the project in anticipation of forming Drainage Area 57. (Drainage Area 57 was eventually adopted on November 8, 1988, with a drainage fee of $0.35/sq.ft) The "development rights to the property adjacent to the creek were granted and the drainage deficiency fee was credited against the channel improvement costs. The Developer entered into a deferred improvement agreement to improve the channel at a later date. In 1989, as the Flood Control District was constructing channel improvements immediately upstream of the subject property, the Flood Control District agreed to also construct the necessary improvements on the subject property in exchange for using a portion of the subject property as a spoil site for excavated material. In doing so, the Flood Control District essentially broke even as it incurred an additional cost of excavation but a lower cost of disposal. The only cost incurred by the Developer was the cost of accepting the excavation spoils. In reference to the two (2) 54-inch RCP drainage pipes, General Conveyor, Inc. in 1974 requested permission to install a drainage pipe across the subject property and a drainage permit was issued by the County. As the pipes were not required by any County drainage plan and were installed by the Developer only to improve the usability of the subject property, no credit toward the present drainage area fee can be given for the cost of their installation. Presently, the Developer is proposing to subdivide (MS 108-89) the subject property and to create additional impervious surfaces in the process. He is therefore required by Ordinance No. 88-86 to pay a drainage area fee of $0.35 per square foot of new impervious surface area generated by this project. Based on the above, there is no basis for any credit for work previously accomplished to be applied to the required fees. Board of Supervisors Minor Subdivision June 5, 1990 Page 3 of 3 lli. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: (cont.) Roads The Countywide Area of Benefit was formed to provide a basis for the mitigation of cumulative traffic impacts due to new growth in specific areas. The mitigation is in the form of the payment of a fee, which has been calculated using the cost of planned major road and bridge projects and the pro rata share of impact based upon peak hour traffic generation. The Area of Benefit was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 15, 1988 and has been uniformly applied since. Pacheco Boulevard near the frontage of this development will eventually be realigned and straightened, with a new undercrossing of the ATSF Railroad constructed. The new undercrossing is one of the projects being funded by fees collected for the Area of Benefit. The frontage improvements, which were required with a previous land use permit application, are normal and required by the County ordinance. The improvements were deferred by agreement because they cannot be constructed at this time due of the proximity of the major realignment project at the railroad. The minor.improvements and traffic report required as a condition of approval of the Minor Subdivision is to investigate and relieve a traffic operational problem, due to conflicts between high traffic volumes on Pacheco Boulevard and increasing driveway access needs, exacerbated by narrow curving pavements and limited sight distance through the existing undercrossing. The conditions of approval relating to roadway improvement and fee payments stand on their own and should not be considered in light of other fees or encumbrances placed for other purposes. There is nothing unusual regarding any of these conditions, and there is no basis for reconsideration or relief. March 26 , 1990 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Room 106 Martinez, CA. 94553 Subject: MS 103-39 Gentlemen: On Parch 19 , 1990 MS 108-89 was approved by the Community Development Zoning Administratio Karl L. Wandry. At this hearing I presented, and discussed, the attached let- ter dated March 19 , 1990 , objecting to the fees required under Advisory Notes Item C and Item D of the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Wandry recommended that I appeal these conditions to the Board of Supervisors for resolution. Attached are the following letters stating my reasons for ob- ]ectink to the fees : 1. Letter dated 3/19/90. 2 . Exhibit A (Deferred Improve-nent Agreements) . 3 . Letter dated 1/*25/90 . 4. Letter dated 1/26/90 . This letter is to respectfully request a haaring. on this matter. Very truly yours , R. M. Bickerstaff General Partner PACHECO PROPERTIES RMB:mkb Attachs. 4 PACHtCO ' ( 605 Miner Road PROPERTIES Orinda, CA 94563 (415) 254-4694 March 19 , 1990 Community Development Department County Administration Bldg. 651 Pine Street - 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Attention: Harvey E. Bragdon Director Subject : Minor Subdivision MS 108-89 Hearing on Monday, March 19., 1990 Gentlemen: This letter will be presented at subject hearing and concerns the conditions of approval and specifically Advisory Notes C and D. ADVISORY NOTES ITEM C Requires a fee of $66 ,355 . 00 for the Central County Area of Benefit-. 2 .. This fee was ,naid on 2/12/90 , but protested by my letter of 1/25/90 (copy attached) . 3. Deferred Improvement Agreements have been executed and are listed on attached Exhibit A. 4. It does not appear to be fair or equitable that I should be required to pay three (3) times for road work on Pacheco Blvd. The three times would be : a) The $66 ,355. 00 paid for the Central. County Area of Benefit. b) Roadwork when Pacheco Blvd. is realigned per the Deferred Agreement already executed. c) Roadwork that may be requested .from the Traffic Study, Item C of the conditions . Conclusion: Any work on Pacheco Blvd. requested by the County should be paid from the $66 ,355 . 00 fee already paid, or this fee refunded to Pacheco Properties to cover improvements re- quested by the County. ADVISORY NOTES ITEM D . Requires a fee of approximately $70 , 000. 00 . Payment of this fee has been protested by my letter of 1/25/90 and 1/26/90 (copies attached) . 2 . Pacheco Creek runs through the property from the Pacheco Blvd . /Arthur Road intersection to the culvert at 1680. 3. The Drainage Deferred Improvement Agreement , executed on 10/7/85 , Book 12551 OR, Page 172 , was completed in 1989. Value of this improvement is approximately $450 ,000. 00 . Q Community Development Dept. Page Two 4. I have also paid for the installation of two (2) 54" RCP Drainage Pipes from the railroad to Pacheco Creek. The value of this improvement is approximately $150 ,000. 00. Conclusion: Pacheco Properties has already contributed approximately $600 ,000..00 for county drainage and flood control. Therefore , it does not seem fair or equitable for the County to require an additional drainage fee. Very truly yours , R. M. Bickerstaff General Partner PACHECO PROPERTIES . RMB :mkb Attachs . 4 C C PACHECO 605 Miner Road PROPERTIES Orinda, CA 94563 (415) 254-4694 EXHIBIT A DEFERRED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 1. Pacheco Blvd. Deferred Improvement Agreement 10/7/85 Book 12551 OR Page 167. Refers to the work required from Pacheco Properties for approximately 450 feet of Pacheco Blvd. realignment includ- ing sidewalk, curb , gutter, pavement , street lights , etc. 2. Drainage Deferred Improvement Agreement 10/7185 Book 12551 OR Page 172. Refers to Pacheco Creek improvements for increased drainage and flood control. 3. Grant Deed of Development Rights 1017/85 Book 12551 OR Page 182. Refers to Pacheco Creek. 4. Access Easement Dedication 1OJ7/85 Book 12551 OR Page 187. Refers to access from Pacheco Blvd. to Pacheco Creek. z January 25, 1990 CortnLna ty Development Department County Adr,inistration Building 651 pine Strcet -- 4th Floor North Wing MartinaZ , CA 94553 Atten.tio, Harvey Z. bragdon, Dir. Cor iunity Develop_aent Subject : Minor Subdivision AIS 103-39 Gan, tIem0,1: This letter is to request an appeal to the Board of Supervisors for. Advisory Noy; Iter; A. Arnrcval for the. `"i^or Subdivision MS 103-39 was granted on Monday, January 22 , 1990. I was present at the time and did not raise any objection since I had not received your lettrr with Staff report until I-Iondsy afternoon; January 22 , 1990 at. 1 :30 p.m. Since this was after the meatin!7; I was unawary of the Advisory Notc Iters A. All of the conditions of anaroval and Advisory dotes have been nlet , or will b except for my objection to Item A of the Advis- ory Notes . e4i� =l6" .0f Tile fee , -sncier ��`':: A; Would amount t0 $36 , 355 . 0 . This is the first timke I have been notified of this fee ever- thou-,h the Building Permit Fec has been paid and the clans havebeen annroved by the Building. Department. Reasons for my objection to this fee are as follow: 1. I have granted the County improva-ments to Pacheco Creel- under a deferred a-reement (File No. 3;516-35) which has now been cost?letee. Th,:� area of lanrl is 1. 70 acres with :a value of approximately $450 , 300. 00 . � . i havo granted easement and iasta.11ad '185 LeLL Of two 54' R.C.P. drainage pipes from the railroad to Pazhexo Creek. The, value of land and drainage pipes installed is approx- imately $150 ,000 . 00. 3. I haaa a deferred agreement MUP 2014-35) to perform and pay for certain road work on Pacheco Blvd. at the time that Pacheco Blvd. is irmnrov`d. The cost of ,this improve- ment is unknown at present , but will be substantial. 4. The access road to the proposed new building will be to County standards and wholly paid for by Pacheco Properties. • 3 Community Developtucnt Department Page Two Therefore I request the elimination of the fee under Advisory Notes Item A. Pacheco Properties has already contributed to the Central Area of Benefit in a substantial way in the approximate amount of 5600 ,000.00 with additional unknown sums already agreed upon. These benefits have been specifically for county roadwork and flood control. Very truly yours , R. M. Bickerstaff Cenaral Partner PACHECO PROPERTIES R*-B:mkD Attachmonts : 1) Check f 1.199 in amount $100. 00. 2) Adjacent Address List. 3) Envelopes addressed and stamped for Adjacent Addresses. January 26, 1990 Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street - 4th Floor North Wing Martinez , CA 94553 Attention: Harvey E. Bragdon, Dir. Community Development Subject: Minor Subdivision MS 108-89 Gentlemen: This ler to.�dd to the appeal, to the Board of Super- visors , 'Ite:n 6 A 21of the Conditions of Approval for Minor Subdivision 11S 108-39. The easons. tor the appeal are the same as stated in my letter of �anuary 25 , 1990. Very truly yours , a R, I . Bickerstaff General Partner PACHECO PROPERTIES RMB:mkb �' -- V-r. 2 Le t � L� 1� RECEIVED APR 5 1990 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: Pacheco Properties APPLICATION NO. MS 108-89 605 Miner Road Orinda, Calif.. 94563 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.380-042-010, 12, 13 OWNER: (Same as above) ZONING DISTRICT L-I EFFECTIVE DATE: 29 March 1990 This matter not having been appealed within the time prescribed by law, the minor subdivision is hereby granted, subject to the attached conditions shown as Exhibit Harvey E. Bragdon Director of Community Development By: G:it�C Karl L. Wandry, Acting Zoning Ad inistrator PLEASE NOTE THE APPROVAL DATE, as no further notification will be sent by this office. Unless otherwise provided, you have 36 months from the approval date to file the FINAL MAP. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 108-89 1. Prior to the recording of a Parcel Map the applicant shall obtain P.G. & E. and Zoning Administrator approval for suitable access to Parcels "C" and "D" 2. A parcel map as revised shall be prepared and recorded for the minor subdivision in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 9 (Subdivision) of the County Ordinance Code. 3. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a certified archaeologist has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find. 4. All storm waters entering or originating within the subject property are to. be conveyed (without diversion of the watershed) to the nearest natural watercourse or adequate man-made facility. 5. Annexation requirement to Drainage Area #57. 6. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as follows: A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9) . Any exceptions therefrom must. be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the following requirements: 1) Constructing road improvements along the frontage of Pacheco Boulevard. Because of the pending realignment of Pacheco Boulevard along the frontage an exception to this requirement is granted provided a deferred improvement agreement is executed requiring the owner(s) of the property involved in Subdivision MS 108-89 to: a) Construct curb, sidewalk (width measured from curb face.) , necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and 20 feet of pavement widening along the frontage. b) At the time the deferred improvement agreement is called up, submit improvement plans, if required, to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, for review; pay the inspection fee and plan review fee. 2) Installing street lights on Pacheco Boulevard; and annexing to County Service- Area L-100 for maintenance of the street lights. The final number and location of the lights shall be determined by the County Traffic Engineer. 3) Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities. 1 2 4) 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. 5) Designing and constructing storm drainage facilities required by the Ordinance in compliance with specifications outlined in Division 914 of the ordinance and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. 6) Submitting a Parcel Map prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. 7) Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer, payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of approval for this subdivision. These. plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Traffic Engineer. B. 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. . C. Submit a traffic study which includes sight distance requirements along Pacheco Boulevard from the access road based on the posted speed limit plus 10 MPH and data on projected traffic 1 generated by the . development. Based on the traffic study, a left turn channelization improvement may be required subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. 0. Future bridge or culvert crossing of the drainage channel to gain access to Parcel D will require a drainage permit and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. ADVISORY NOTES A. The project lies within the 100-year flood boundary as designated on the Federal Emergency Agency Flood Rate Maps. The applicant should. be aware of the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Flood Plain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 87-65) as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. B. 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. 3 C. 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. D. The applicant will be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 57 as adopted by,the Board of Supervisors. TB/TSK/aa/df MSIII/108-89C.TB 1/5/90 1/18/90 1/23/90-za(a)-, 2/28/90 / u a � z ,�7 �� � � % C G yi. , APPENDIX B COUNTYWIDE AOB PROJECT LIST t. 0 o 0 0a o Q d N co N � N N' w a eA eA � a O A d 41 r� to L ^CS G. G to co .o r� ..P u. o d s r l G1 L'y' v G V N S R "A r w 7 Olz ty ✓ v� J Jd d n to > 71 4Y .. OOP O 3 m Ir- ^C7 .r Y � RS Q 7 d y w r CP 4W 7 t0 L Se 7'L a! 41 cJ 7' 7 G .► pG co G A G O a � `� G G a y©.1 o.3 cL .`r r o O co y . oZO .c> r- �� i W > c 2 Z f � J N Jn t- CD cz 0oaoaoo oCD c o o O o c O C 0 C C O O O UA O N ^ N N Z w C7 1G *,Wrr ^ ro .-•q � N W M LCnLA- Ln ro .O U- 00.a W I-- vi ¢ to a.0 •r •r r. ++ •N C M••. W - ro u. ¢ o c C s- C ++ L ro L Q to c7 O E ro ro J ro W W u ++ OL ro C r- C Q N ¢ ro 4- CL ro CU ro - L CU E ro Z7 N N N N ro -0 O L1 L - C ro to L CU to CU C L a "a ro L ro cx +� ►- CU ro L L Cil i Q! L = �o o rn C ro cu ro ++ roO 3 41 •L �--• L L.co 4 L C . , U ro C L O tL� Q v1 O - vs to � C W .- C � � C ro C O L C cu y N L .•- U CU +d L 01 CL C ro. C CU C O r- 0 .— o . - cb ro u ro o 4-J CU .� O to0/ ep o > > �, o > ti oa c 3 o 3 •- L S w L 3 7 CT 4,J CM W L J E +j 0J ro ++ C •^ 2 CO O 7' > > S v N O O O O O 0J O > c1 U 4- O ' U M CA. of oo +.+ v vo cC w r� > U L L 4.1 >'U CT M > � L. o ro i C C O ci ^ 3 O .- N C� L Cl. N .••r 0! L L L 0J N N CZ C "a ro Cl U to "0 0. L C W o 0 0 O C ro 0J C E O O p r. +.a U ++ 3 CY .. CL CZ ro -• T U ro O -0 CY ro 'o L- O ro 4J ro %� C O a > GJ 'o Cr C ro CU ^ ro O ro Y > 3 O 'C ro C G CU O o. aj _c c m to ¢ _ ¢ ? N m N p W 2 S ••�111 ^. ••^� .-. .•r rr N JJJ N 't � �� �'"• ,- ��s�;;;�:;''--..'" ':- '♦ �f `�� � fig. t .� �� � _ ,{,/" ;' 'sem .` /��`' �"~`.�. ••� � � � Or 6.0 �t�♦ �• �, ��,/�� � � � 1 •, �� f�Yom.. "ti,M `.,♦ � Q ♦♦,♦�.. •••111 �I 14 f :_. :�, '\T♦ � lk N',f * • Y .�• ; r 1f ' i 1. •` •{f� `�' %� '/!�^- , `r Ilk 10 ov y r �� j ,•''44 0/( '•"�.'. i\d ' tt • • a •`j. +v `'�ai�� "?' w.,.,�'•,,•"••�,,,�' � i j � `1„r/ tib /.- i i ifs♦. • /f z �� Cf1RTA..,riff. C.CARLYLE RICH,Chief Engineer FLOOD CONTROL 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, Calif.94553 Telephone 228.8200 \Nye;RVnTpai .. December 22, 1972 Mr. E. Schell Schell and Martin Land Surveying and Civil Engineers 3473 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Lafayette,., California Dear Mr. Sche.ii : The plan for the proposed culvert to be installed beneath the relocated oil lines on the General Conveyor Site, received by this office on December 20, 1972, has been reviewed and the following comment or recommendations are made. 1 . The system should not result in a hydraulic grade line, excluding losses, higher than elevation 9.0 feet at the railroad. It appears that two 54 inch culverts would be required: 2. The invert of the facility shall not be higher than the invert of the culvert through the railroad embankment . Your drawing indicates this culvert has an invert e-levation of 2. 1 feet. Therefore, it appears that an invert elevation of 2.0 feet is required. 3. The slope of the new culvert(s) shall be 0.0015. 4. The culverts shall be "day-lited" at the time of installation. The ditch necessary to "day-lite" the pipes can be at zero grade. Please feel free to contact this office i.f we can be of further assistance. Very truly yours, C, C. RICH, CHIEF ENGINEER By Robert S. Conner, Jr. Associate Hydraulic Engineer Planning Division RSC:rd cc: Building Inspection Dept. , Attn: Jim Searfus, Grading Engineer (G-1925)