The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 03052002 - D3 Dr TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: MARCH 5, 2002 SUBJECT: HEARINGON THE APPEAL.BY LYNN LOPEZ, ET AL,OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING AN APPEAL AND APPROVING A TREE PERMIT TO.REMOVE A TOTAL OF 12 TREES (POSSIBLY UP TO 16 WITH SLIME REPAIR) AND WORK WITHIN THE DRIPLINES OF UP TO 17 TREES TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TWO NEIN RESIDENCES AT 2701 AND 2801 KING DRIVE (LOTS 10 AND 11), IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA (SUP. DIST. II) SPECIF=IC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. CONSIDER the recommendation of the County Planning Commission (Resolution: 7 -20012). CGNTINUEQ ON ATTACHMENT; % YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE : ACTION OF BOARD ON s,-2QU2W APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED Y._. OTHER jL SEE A7T.AUM AMM M FOR BOARD SON VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT' THIS IS A TRUE AND -UNANIMOUS(ABSENT }' CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES,IT r.,.tom 'T NOES:, TTT ENTERED ON THE IMINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: " SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Michael Laughlin 335-1204 ATTESTED March S, 2002 C J"*nUhlty D0V*lsrpment JOHN 'SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: County Counsel-Silvano Marches! SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Public Works-Engineering Services,Heather Ballenger Building Inspectloh-Code Enforcement Sllverhawk&Company,Inc. Lynn Lopez,Appellant BY DEPUTY March 5,2002 Boars!of Supervisors File#TP010011 Page 2 2. ACCEPT the determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15305--Class 5). 3. DENY the appeal and approve the project based on the remised tree removal diagram which would allow for the removal of 7 trees (10 with s(rde repair) and modification or work within the root zone of 17 trees. 4. ADOPT the attached findings and conditions as the basis for this decision. 5. DIRECT staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the County Cleric FISCAL IMPACT None. The applicant has paid application fees to process this project and is obligated< to pay supplemental fees for staff time and material costs which exceed 100%of the initial fee payment. BACKGROUND The subject sites are two lots of an alder subdivision called the Hillside Terrace Subdivision. The lots were not developed at the time other properties developed due to a lack of unproved street access on King Drive and presence of utilities. Street improvements and utilities are being brought to the sites as part of the grading and improvements being installed for the six lot King Drive subdivision, which is part of a P-1 zoning district. Both lots exceed R-10 zoning requirements for lot area, depth and width.. Therefore, there is no discretionary review of the residences required under the small lot ordinance. In 1994 the County adopted the "Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance." The subject sites are vacant lots. Upon review, staff concluded that the applicant would be required to file..a tree permit application along with information preparedby a certified arborist. After reviewing the arborist report and conducting a site visit, notices were mailed to adjacent property owners on September 18, 2001. The notice indicated the Zoning Administrator's tentative'approval to allow the removal of fifteen trees and to work within the dripline of seventeen trees. On October 2 2001 an appeal was filed and received by the Community Development Department. After the appeal letter was filed, staff conducted an additional site inspection to better understand the concerns of adjoining property owners. As a result of that inspection, staff directed the applicant to update the tree removal diagram, topography notations on the site plan and arborist tree inventory. In addition, survey stakes for the houses and lot corners were placed to accurately locate trees impacted by the development. Staff received an updated tree removal diagram and tree list. The number of trees proposed for removal was revised downward from 15 to 12 as a result of the survey and review by the arborist. However, tree removal that may be required due to slide repair on lot 10 could add 4 small trees for a ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.3 March 5, 2002 On this date,the Board of Supervisors considered the appeal by the County Planning Commission's approval of a tree permit to remove a total of 12 trees (possibly up to 16 with:slide repair)and work within the driplines of up to 17 trees to allow for constructionof two new residences at 270 and 280 Ding Drive(lots 10 and 11) Dennis Barry,Director,Community Development Department and.Michael Laughlin, Community Development Department presented the staff report and recommendations. Following Board discussion,the Chair opened the Public hearing. The following people presented testimony: Stephen Phillips, 120 El Dorado Road,Walnut Creek; Lynn Lopez,130 El Dorado Road,Walnut Creek; Arthur Marchetti, 1611 El Dorado Road,Walnut Creek; Carol Fishel,36 Freeman Court, Walnut Creek The Chair closed the Public Hearing and the Beard continued their discussion. Supervisor Uilkema advised the Chair she had some additions and amendments to the conditions of approval. "The applicant shall record the following deed notification prior to the issuance of a building permit: 'The property you are purchasing contains trees that are protected by Contra Costa County Tree Preservation Ordinance. Any modifications or removal of trees on this property requires a tree permit. Removal of trees without the benefit of a permit may include the assessment of substantial penalties, based on the appraised'value of the trees removed. " "Site plans fore the development of the site shall include a delineation of all trees to be preserved on the property. Pursuant to section 816-6.6004 of the County Code, any tree so designated becomes a protected tree and can not be altered or removed unless a tree permit is fust obtained from the Community Development Department." The applicant cannot remove any trees until March 15, 2002. Designate trees#24 and 39 as trees with heritage status. Four trees are to be replaced if the slide repair occurs on lot 10. An onsitegradng inspector; hired by the Contra Costa County, should be present on site during the grading. An abrist should mark the drip line on all protected'trees before grading occurs. There should be minimal trimming of the oak on lot 910 and staking at the drip line. That the drip irrigation system and replacement of trees occur before the issuance of the occupancy permit. The Board then discussed the matter and took the followingaction: ■ CLOSED the public hearing; ■ DENIED the appeal filed by Lynn Green Lopez et. al. (Appellants) • APPROVED the recommendations of the County Planning Commission; • ACCEPTED the determination'that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) ■ APPROVED the project based upon the revised tree removal diagram as amended today; ADOPTED the findings and conditions as the basis for this decision; ■ and DIRECTED staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. March 5,2002 Board of Supervisors File#TP010011' Page 3 total of 16. On January 8,2002,the Planning Commission held a hearing on the appeal. The primary topic of discussion concerned the request tot continue the hearing to allow fQr_the neighbor to survey the rear property line. To allow for a survey to occur, the Planning._ ornmiasion added a condition (condition 2), which would not allow for any tree removal to odcur prior to March 15, 2002. If there was a significant discrepancy in the survey, the matter could be brought back to the Planning Commission. CEOA D TERMINATION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)provides for Categorical Exemptions which do not require the preparation of environmental review documents Section 15303 allows for the construction of up to three single family residences as an exempt activity. Development of existing lots with appropriate Zoning and General Plan designations within the jurisdiction are considered in-fill development, which is also an exempt activity under QEQA, dor the County, infill development is within the Urban Limit Line on existing subdivided parcels, or on parcels proposed for subdivision surrounded by existing development and which comply with current Zoning and General Plan.:.designations. ANALYSIS OF THE APPEAL Can January 17, 2002, an appeal to the Planning Commission was received, raising additional issues about the request.°Staff offers the following response to the'issues raised in the appeal letter: Appeal Point. The Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator decisions did not meet the criteria listed in County Cade Section 816-6.8010. Response: Section$16-6.8010 outlines the criteria for the issuance or denial of a tree permit, The Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission found that four of the trees requested to be removed were in poor health per the arborist report,and that reasonable development of the property would require the alteration or removal of trees. Further discussion is provided below for each of the two lots. Lot 10 For tree removals on vacant lots,the ability to reasonably develop the property is balanced with protecting as many significant trees as possible. The initial application for the two lots included house plans for lot 10 that were recommended by staff for denial due to impacts to trees. The home now proposed on lot 10 was redesigned around the most significant tree,a large Valley Oak. For lot 10, additional trees on the property include oaks and buckeyes on the eastern portion of the site, faro oak trees proposed for removal in the driveway area and three small trees (4" in diameter each) that may require removal due to slide repair. March 5,2002 Board of Supervisors File#TP010011 Page 4 Lot 11 For lot 11,the appeal letter notes some discrepancies with the plotting of trees. In response to the appeal, staff and the arborist conducted an additional site review_to more accurately plot and review the condition of trees. In the cluster of trees at the bottom of lot 11 (trees 14,15,16,' 21, 23, and 24), the bay tree identified by the arborist (tree #23) is aetcally a buckeye tree in poor health, surrounded by a grouping of small bay laurel trees. The tree discussed in the appeal letter is likely one of the bay trees in the general area which was not plotted since it will not be impacted by the development. It is important to note that given the topography of the siteanddense vegetation, it is difficult to plot all of the vegetation onthe site. One of the most significant trees on the site is tree #24 which is an oak tree whose long term health will require the thinning or removal of trees in the vicinity.This tree and the pine tree near the back property line will provide primary screening of the new residence from view for the properties below. A photograph of the cluster of trees taken from King Drive is included for review by the Board. Since replacement trees are required, filling in between the two trees will provide a better long term solution for screening between houses than trying to save all of the existing vegetation which will never mature due to competition with other trees and shrubs. The appeal letter suggests that the house designed for lot 11 should be shifted further to the west to preserve the buckeye tree that is located on the east side of the proposed house(tree# 27). This tree exhibits typical buckeye growth habit (multiple trunks originating from the ground). The arborist suggests that heavy pruning of this tree can be accomplished. The house would need to be shifted or rotated at least 12-15 feet to save this tree so that no limbs would require removal. The disadvantage to this suggestion is that the new residence would have more mass visible from one of the two houses below, and have more impact on the root zone and increase shading to the more desirable oak tree (tree #24). Staff' has prepared a diagram showing this shift,which the Board could require as part of the decision on the appeal, if the Board finds that not allowing the pruning of this buckeye tree is important. The arborist recommends pruning of trees 28, 27and 16 and removal of trees 21 and 23 (and brush designated by number 14) to allow for preservation of tree 24. Appeal Point: The house on lot 10 should be shifted to the west to avoid impacts to tree#39, the 28"valley oak. Response: As part of staff's site review with the arborist, impacts to this oak tree were: reassessed. Based on the location of the stakes outlining the driveway, entryway and house, impacts were assessed to be minimal. The supplemental review of the impacts to the tree are included in the arborist's updated letter. As part of review of tree permits within the County,, staff routinely approves a greater amount of work within the root zones of oak trees than is proposed in this case'. Minor limb pruning can be accomplished without damage to the health of the tree, or without significant change to the structure of the tree. Since the house has already been redesigned to save this tree and impacts of the current house design are assessed by staff and the arborist as minimal, shifting of the location of the house is not March 5, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#TP010011 Page 5 recommended or necessary. Ap peal Point. There is concern that the rear property line surveyed by the applicant may be in error. Response: After the first appeal was received in October, staff requested a surrey to define the property lines and to place the corners of the houses. This survey would normally be required as part of the building permit process, but was requested early to'provide more clarity for the tree removal permit. After the survey was conducted, the location of the rear property line was called into question by downhill neighbors. The project engineer met with the County Surveyor to discuss the methodology of the survey. The survey was conducted using established monuments on Upper Golden Rain Road and Olympic Boulevard,',and was conducted using accepted survey methods. Staff has offered to the neighbors below a peer review of any conflicting survey information they have received by the County Surveyor. The downhill neighbors have not submitted any conflicting survey information to dispute the location of this property line. This information may be presented at the Board hearing. As discussed by the Planning Commission, the survey would have to be off by more that 10 feet to affect the location of the house,which exceeds the required rear yard setback of 15 feet by more than 10 feet. In addition,the change in location would not impact tree removal since no trees are proposed for removal in the rear setback area. The survey places one of the pine trees planted by a downhill'neighbor on the applicant's property (lot 11). Apj2eal Point; The appellants do not want vegetation and brush removed on the undeveloped portions of the site. Response: The site contains areas which include a mixture of plants, trees and shrubs which are small in trunk diameter but create a dense growth of six to eight feet in height. This growth is not protected under the tree preservation ordinance. To require the preservation of this growth would unnecessarily restrict the property rights of the buyers of the property to landscape portions of their yard areas and is not recommended by staff. The applicant will be required to provide for erosion protection and tree plantings on the two lots as part of this tree permit and as part of the grading and building permits: Drainage will be required to be engineered so that the runoff created" by the house and driveway will be directed to storm drain improvements. This may involve detention of water on site and pumping into the line on King Drive. Drainage issues will be addressed'as part of the building permit process. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION Given the past history of the hillside on lot 10 and concerns expressed by neighboring property owners, staff understands the desire to have soils information from qualified professionals, ' f ' March 5,2002 Board of Supervisors File#TP010011 Page 6 have that information peer reviewed by the County,and to make sure that the work done on the propertieswill not create problems for the downhill neighbors." As previously mentioned, the normal course of review by the County will occur at the building permit stage for the houses. A. separate grading permit may be obtained for the slide repair, but will require thorough,review and monitoring by the County. Since the lots are legally subdivided and have established residential zoning,the soils and structural information is not subject to a public review process. The homes will be built on pier and grade beam foundations. The depth of the piers will be established through on site testing and reporting back to the Building.Inspection department. A letter from the project Geotechnical Engineer and diagram shows the slide area on lot 10. The depth of the unconsolidated material is about 15 feet. Left in its current state, the area poses a significant hazard to property owners below. The slide area is proposed to be excavated, and reconstructed using the buttress fillmethod into stable bedrock..` The homes would rest on piers into the bedrock. With proper repair and home construction,the stability of the hillside will be improved for the home purchasers and property owners below. If the entire slide area is repaired, a 3"oak tree,9"black oak tree and two 4"buckeye trees not previously' identified for removal may require removal. If they are removed, additional replacement`trees would be required. At the Planning Commission hearing, neighbors submitted a diagram expressing their belief that there is a slide area on the lower portion of lot 11. The County's Geotechnical Consultant has .:reviewed all of the Geotechnical information submitted to the County to date, and has outlined a course of action in his letter. Consultation between the County's Geotechnical Consultant and the applicant's Geotechnical Engineer shall be ongoing through the process,to make sure that;repairs and:construction are safely carried out using accepted' engineering practices. FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR,TREE PERMIT NO. TP010011 (Jeff Batt, Applicant,Morgan Capital Inv., Owners) Criteria far Review of the Tree Permit A. Required Factors for Granting Permit. The Board of Supervisors Planning' Ceffmiissiu is satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for granting a tree permit have been satisfied as:marked: X 1. ' The arborist report indicates that the subject tree is in poor health and cannot be saved. (Four of the trees to be removed are in fair or poor.health). 2. The tree is a public nuisance and is causing damage to public utilities or streets and sidewalks that cannot be mitigated by some other means. _ 3. The tree is in danger of falling and cannot be saved by some other means. 4. The tree is damaging existing private improvements on the lot such as a building foundation,walls,patios,decks,roofs,retaining walls, etc. 5. The tree is a species known to be highly combustible and is determmed;,to be a fire hazard. _ 6. The proposed tree species or the form of the tree does not merit saving. X 7. Reasonable development of the property would require the alteration or removal of the tree and this development could not be reasonably accommodated on another area of the lot. As,part of meetings with the developer, the house on lot 10 was completely redesigned to avoid tree#39 and a majority of the larger trees on the southeast side of the lots. There is an unavoidable loss of trees for the driveway. For lot 11,tree removal is necessary for the driveway and building pad. The house was shifted to the east to maximize separation between this home and the existing home to the west: 8. The tree is a speciesknown to develop weaknesses that affect the health of the tree or the safety of people and property-. These species characteristics include but are not limited to short-lived,weak wooded and subject to limb breakage, shallow rooted and subject to toppling. 9. Where the arborist or forester report has been required,and the Director'is satisfied that the issuance of a permit will not negatively affect the sustainability of the resource. 10.' None of the above factors apply. B. Required Factors for Denying a Tree Permit. The Board of Supervisors is satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for denying' (or modifying) a tree permit application have been satisfied as marked: I. The applicant seeks permission for the alteration or removalof a healthy tree that can be avoided'by reasonable redesign of the site plan prior to project approval (for non-discretionary permits). 2. It is reasonably likely that alteration or removal of a healthy tree will cause problems with drainage, erosion control,land suitability, windscreen,visual screening, and/or privacy and said problems cannot be mitigated as part of the proposed:,removal of the tree. 3. The tree to be removed is a member of a group of trees in which each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. _ 4. The value of the tree to the neighborhood in terms of visual effect,wind screening, privacy and neighboring vegetation is greater than the hardship to the owner. 5. If the permit involves trenching or grading and there are other reasonable alternatives including an alternate route,use of retaining walls, use of pier and grade beam foundations and/or relocating site improvements. _ 6. Any other reasonable and relevant factors specified by the Community Development Director. X 7. None of the above factors apply. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General 1. The application for Tree Removal is approved based on the following documents: , mer-13, ; B. Revised report and tree location plans for the project by Reliable Tree Experts, a certified arborist, dated August 30, =Deeembe-it, 200 February 20,2002. -2- .,::.F �...,s::: All grading, site and development plans shall clearly indicate trees proposed for removal, altered or otherwise affected by development construction. The tree information on grading and development plans shall indicate the number, size, species, assigned tree number corresponding to the arborist report discussion, and location of the dripline of all trees on the property. All trees to be removed shall be tagged with red or orange ribbons,all trees to remain shall be marked with yellow ribbons. This permit shall be valid for a period of 90 days and may be renewed for additional periods by the Director of Community Development upon request by the applicant. 2. M M (Added by the Planning Commission on January 8,'2002)' Construction Period Restrictions 3. Site Preparation - Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on site with trees to be preserved, the Applicant shall install fencing at or beyond the dripline of all areas adjacent to or in the area to be altered and remain in place for the duration of construction activity in the vicinity of the trees. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff. Construction pians shall stipulate on their face where temporary fencing intended for trees to be protected is to be placed; and that the'required fencing shalt be installed prior to the commencement of any construction activity; 4. Construction Period Restrictions-No grading,compaction, stockpiling,trenching,paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline of any existing mature'' tree other than the trees approved for removal unless indicated on the improvement plans approved by the county and addressed>in any required report prepared by an arborist. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline of a tree to be saved,an arborist is required to be present during grading operations that may impact the trees. The arborist shall have the authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Upon the completion' of grading and construction, an involved arborist shall prepare a report outlining further methods required for tree protection if any are required. All arborist expenses shall be home by the developer and owner unless otherwise provided by the development conditions of approval. 5. Pro ib}tionof Parking No parkin; or staring vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the drip line of any tree to be saved. -3- b. Construction Tree Damage-The development property owner or developer shall notify the Community Development Department of,any damage that occurs to any tree during the construction process. The owner or developer shall repair any damage as determined by an arborist designated by the Director of Community Development. 7. Any tree not approved for destruction or removal that dies or is significantly damaged as a result of construction or grading shall be replaced with a tree or trees of equivalent size and of a species as approved by the Director of Community Development to be reasonably appropriate for the particular situation. 8. Supervision of Work by an Arborist-All work that encroaches within the drip-line of a tree to be preserved shall be conducted under the supervision of a certified arborist. Arborist Expense 9. Arborist Expense-The expenses associated with all required arborist services shall be borne by the developer and/or property owner. Payment of Any Required Supplemental Fees 10. Payment of Any Due Supplemental Application Fees-This application is subject to an initial application fee deposit of$625.00 which was paid with the application submittal,plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceeds the initial fee deposit. An additional$1,000.00 deposit was received for a review of the appeal, Any additionalfee due must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit, commencement of tree alteration work,or 60 days of the effective date of this permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant or owner may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner.A bill will be mailed to the applicant shortly after permit issuance in the event that additional fees are due. Restitution for Removed Trees and Construction in the root zone of existing trees 11. Trees to be Removed-This approval allows for the removal of up tom 46 7 trees to allow for the construction of two single family residences. The applicant is encouraged to preserve trees that are outside of the area of improvements even if approved for removal,if possible. 12. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance,to compensate for the loss of the trees, the applicant shall provide the County with a security(e.g.,bond,cash deposit)to allow for the planting of replacement trees. The security shall be based on: a. Extent of Possible Restitution Improvements The planting of up to 22 trees, minimum 15-gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees, and installation of landscaping and hillside erosion control improvements, subject to prior review and -4- approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit for the houses, b. Determination of Security Amount-The security amount is based on the planting of one tree for each 6 inches of diameter of trees to be removed, at an approximate planted'cost of $150.00 per tree (22x $150.00=$3;300). The total band would' include an additional 20%for inflation costs,for a total of$3,960.00. C. Acceptance of-a Security-The security shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.'' d'. Initial Deposit''for Processing of Security-The County ordinance requires that the applicant cover all time and material costs of staff for processing a tree protection security'(Code:S-060B). The Applicant shall pay an initial fee deposit of$100 at time of submittal of a security. 13. The security shall be retained by the County up to 24 months following the completion of installation of approved landscaping improvements. In the event that the Zoning Administrator determines that the landscaping is not in healthy condition, and the Zoning Administrator determines that the applicant has not been diligent in prodding reasonable care of the replacement trees,then the Zoning Administrator may require that all or part of the security be used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees. 14. Trees to be Altered-This approval allows for work within the root zone of 17 trees to allow for the construction of two single family residences and driveway improvements. 15. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, to compensate for the potential damage to the trees,the applicant shall provide the County with a security(e.g.,bond,cash deposit)to allow for the planting of replacement trees. The security shall be based on: a. Extent of Possible Restitution Improvements' - The planting of up to 32 trees, minimum 15-gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees, and installation of landscaping and hillside erosion control improvements,subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator; b. Determination of Security,Amount-The'security amount is based on the planting of one tree for each 6 inches of diameter of trees to be removed, at an approximate planted post of$150.00 per tree (32x $150.00=$4,650.00). The total bond would include an additional 20%for inflation costs,for a total of$5,580.00. C. Acceptance of a Security-The security shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.' -5- d. Initial De]osit for Processing;of Security-The County ordinance requires that the applicant cover all time and material costs of staff for processing a;tree protection security (Code S-060B).. The Applicant shall pay an initial fee deposit of$100 at time of submittal of a security. 16. The security shall be retained by the County up to 24 monthsfollowing the completion of installation of approved landscaping improvements. In the event that the Zoning Administrator determines that the landscaping is not in healthy condition,and the Zoning Administrator determines that the applicant has not been diligent in providing reasonable` care of the replacement trees, then the Zoning Administrator may require that all or part of the security be used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees. ADVISORY NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDIDITONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES,DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF TICS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000,et seq., the applicant:has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90 day period after the project is approved. The ninety(90)day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of any dedication,reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit,begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development'Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. S:\curr-plan\Tree Permits\TP010011permit Its 10&11,BOS revised.doc -6- CALIFORNIA ENVIRON1v1ENTAL QUALITY ACT Notice of Exemption Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,4th Floor-North Wing,McBrien Administration Building Martinez,CA-'.94553-0095 Telephone: (925) 335-1204 Contact Person: Michaet-P.Laughlin Project Description, Common Nance(if any) and Location: A Tree Permit to remove a total of 12 trees(possibly up to 16 with slide repair)and work within the driplines of up to 17 trees to allow for construction of two new residences at 270 and 280 King'Drive'(Lots '10 and 11), in the Walnut Creek area(Sup.Dist. H) This project is exempt from CEQA as a: Ministerial Project(Sec. 1526$) Other Statutory Exemption,Section` — Declared Emergency(Sec. 15269(a)) General Rule of Applicability(Section 15061(b)(3)) Emergency Project(Sec.''15269(b)or(c)) XX Categorical Exemption,Class;3 Section 15303a and Class 32,Section 15332 for the following reason(s): Section 15303 allows for the construction of up to three single family residences as an exempt activity. Development of existing lots with appropriate Zoning and General Plan designations within the jurisdiction are considered in-fill development,which is also an exempt activity under CEQA(Section 15332,Class 32).For the County,infill development is within the Urban Limit Line on existing subdivided parcels,or on parcels proposed for subdivision surrounded by existing development and which comply with current Zoning and General Plan designations Date: By: Community Development Department Representative AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING I declare that on I received and posted this notice as required by California Public Resources Code Section 21152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the filing date. Signature Title County Clerk Fee$25 Due Receipt#' i r �+ Contra Costa County Community Development Dept.. 7 7_0 651 Pine Street, 2n4 FIgor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 January 17,,2001 RE: County File#T110,10011 Lots 10& 11,King:Drive in Walnut Creek area Appeal to Board of Supervisors Xi We are requesting an appeal of the decision ofthe Planning Commission that was rendered on the evening of 3anuaiy 8, 2001. A check for$1.25.00 accompanies " this Letter of Appeal. The Tree Permit should be denied, as it does not follow the guidelines set forth by Contra Costa County. The Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission°s decisions do notmeet the criteria ofCounty Code Section 816.8010,Per the section Criteria for Review ofthe Tree Permit, Items B1,B2,B3 and B4. The decisions were also based on naccurate'information provided in the tree list and diagram. A group of neighbors have reviewed the Tree count and the diagrams of tree removal that have been given to the county planning department. Some,ofthe neighbors also did a site visit to confum the tree count and tree locations. Several discrepancies were found whereas the tree diagram and list did not match accurately with the tree locations on the lot, house carriers and property stakes. There''are also many fees,tagged for removal that are not fisted on the tree count,.that are irr.excess of inches. -On the diagram for tree removalon Lot 11, tree#23-w Ray tree;shows that the tree isvery close to the footprint—within 3 feet. In actuality,this tree lies 16 feet from.the corner stakes of the house,,and feet,from the property lines as marked.by Silver hawk. Tree#15— Buckeye is shown as being within the footprint 0oundation)of house. This is not true as the tree measures 8 feet from the house and 14.feet from the rear property as staked per S lverhawk. A tree permit cannot be issued on inaccurate information. Trees 14, 16, and 21 also have inaccurate measurements, and lie outside the footprint. A large multistemmed buckeye with a tree circumference-of 45 inches is not listed on the Tree Removal list,yet it marked for removal. There is a grouping of approximately 20 Bays that.are not on the list,yet again tagged for removal. A 12 inch live oak is also not listed, but tagged. Trees 14, 15, and 23 lie within the setbacks and provide:'erosions control, screening, privacy, and windscreening for the homes directly below Lot 11. These trees should be denied removal' per required'Factor B4;and B2.. Lot 10 has;a 150 year plus Oak tree that could qualify as Heritage status. The circumference of k this tree is 103 inches. The tree list.indicates this tree is outside of the footprint,yet the canopy of this tree hangs over the comer stakes of the house. The tree would have to be cut back which is unacceptable, as damage is very passible, since work would be within dripline of tree. This house could easily be moved to the west by 10.12 ft and avoid any possibility of damaging this beautiful, century; oak. The house is currently 25 feet from the west side property line and the setback requirement is only 10 feet. To work within the dripline of this tree should be denied per factor B 1. Lot 11 could also:be shifted by a few feet to the west so that Tree#27 could be saved;. This house is currently 45.feet from the weif property line and again the setback requirement is only 10 feet. In both Lots 10 and 11 the driveways would not be affected by shifting the houses to the west. These lots are on a steep hillside, and the trees,brush, and vegetation are very important to the stability of this hillside. Without these trees,brush, and vegetation,drainage and erosion problems are evident. These problems have.no-t been addressed. It is critical that,as many trees as possible be spared to preserve the ode. It should also be made a Condition of Approval that any trete, brush, vegetation,regardless of size be spared if it lies within the setback requirements, and.the area designated.as.c pen space. Trees, brush. and vegetation in the setbacks also provide visual and windscreening for the surrounding-neighbors and community. Without screening, these large houses will be visible,for miles. It is crucial that as many trees as possible be saved. It is also important that the correct information be provided. The revised report and tree location plans dated December 11, 2001, by Reliable Tree Experts is again incorrect. The tree permit-should be denied based on misleading information and the fact that it does not follow the county guidelines. ake urge the county toime a site visit so that the information submitted can:be compared to the field location, prior to any important decision-making: There is also a Property Line dispute at the present time. The rear property lines of bath lots 10& 11 are being disputed.by 2 neighbors on ElDoradoRoad. A independent survey by the neighbors is bem�g obtained. 'Due to the irregularity of the slope, and the lots sizes of.33 and .55 acres,we are also requesting a Small Lot Review ofthesepr€posed plans. There are also several other issues regarding slope stability, slide history, and drainage that should be solved prior to tree removal.. Thank You, ynn6ren Lo in behalf of the neighbors RESOLUTION NO.7-2002 BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEAL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEAL— Stephen Phillips,Et. Al. (Appellants) Morgan Capital Investments, (Owners) Silverhawk and Company,Inc. (Applicant) Tree Permit 010011 Walnut Creek area I WHEREAS, a request was received on March 15, 2001 by Silverhawk and Company'.' (Applicant), for a Tree Removal Permit to allow for the removal of trees and to allow for work within the root zone of trees to construct,two single family residences; Whereas,On September 18,2001,, a notice of tentative approval was seat to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed tree removal. On October 2, 2001 an appeal of the decision was submitted; Whereas,on January 8,2001,after notice was issued as required by law,the County Planning: Commission, acting as Board of Appeals, conducted a hearing on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's administrative approval decision, Whereas,On January 8,2002,the County Planning Commission,acting as Board of Appeals, took testimony concerning the appeal of Zoning Administrator's administrative approval decision; Whereas, after taking testimony at the January 8 2002 hearing, the Commission fully reviewed, considered''and evaluated all testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commission voted to DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD TETE DECISION of the Zoning Administrator by vote of the County Planning Commission at a regular meeting on Tuesday, January>8, 2002 with the addition of a condition requiring that tree removal shall not occur until after March 15,2002 to allow for a survey by the neighboring property owner of the shared property line; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of this Planning'Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California. Page 2 The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday,January 8, 2002 by the following vete: AYES: Commissioners- Terrell, Battaglia,Wong, Kimb6r, Clark, Hanecak, Gaddis NOES: Commissioners- None ABSENT: Commissioners- Mehlmen ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None VaIEREAS, in a letter received January 17, 2002, following the initial decision on this application by the County Planning Commission,neighboring property owners appealed the County Planning Commission's approval of File#TP010011 to the Board of Supervisors. RichardClark, Chair of the County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa,State of California ATTEST: DENNIS M. BARRY, Secrethy County Planning Commission, County of Contra Crista, State of California 00 'G o N t i M 1y0 - _ Ca o � ta CC3� 1 1^ di olk ' ` g VA KZ,1N ! •:sem es ;ri 1 LBZL b5 r C$Sbt m s WX03 ip 3,ibS4d5 56 Y 4.p,y,•'...{t" ,�' A� ••• '�,.<�t.�t.ice � L`� Yi "5T � Y33 �•. %i .�y "R.. -. mow""' i� v ,9t.{M. � M.x<.9+•S� $ t C1 3.2t&-U YAd M NS d ss too IAJ f3 N ' ' r t�3-''+ (,.� �+�''(� .n•S� w � C> ., 414 r t543 K w r~e ays Q � t i pt1ANi'A `� pR yK..' GP f*` �w +w Ae,y OQAAn An Tr/ k +�f UPPER COLOEM RAIN I D - k .CT /Jf Off` S ( ' 41 # es for: See area aranap Ra Ilkza n DEL VALLE y R41 �' as WGH 5CKQ L ot` ` ki 0 ` >y Sao .,..—•----""�------."'"'"CSA.,_............� Q�� iao kT ( s ------------ 1 '7th ffS d 1 _ ✓' � L t »a d 3 f is k IP t,oAau fa'a.as� .a ,,..s y�'t ''I Pt�� $�` ° j p• � d'�` a x x � 4. K ••� �; � § fig!. �.f°'�Fr��p� i�f �+, .1� 5 a i 333 q RELIABLE TBEE'. ' EXPERTS 2960 CHAPMAN STREET, OAKLAN�Dj CA 94601-2803 OAKLAND5101531-1000 t.AFAYE1TTE 9251'2^84.4522 February 20, 2002, Mike Laughlin County Administrative Building 651 Pine Street, 4'Floor, North Wing Martinez, C.A:94553-6095 RE: Ding Estates,Lots 10 and 11 Dear Mr. Laughlin: In response to our site meeting of January 24*,;I am re-submitting the tree survey for lots 10 and 11 with minor modifications and clarifications. All issues raised in your letter of January 29* are addressed, .Also, I have enclosed the two surveys. Sincerely, Jiro Mussells cc: Jeffrey Batt Susan McShanock Ed R,evilla c -47 FINE PRUNING TRIMMING REMOVAL LAND CLEARING STUMP REMOVAL S y TREE SURVEY,LOT 10,KING ESTATES Following is a table of trees located on Lot10 and a plan showing tree location and canopy size. -�► Two smaller trees are listed for removal. -t Tree No. 39 will require pruning to allow for clearances. The canopy of this tree appears to extend about 2 feet beyond the stakes indicating where construction will occur. The pruning that will be required is minor and can easily be accomplished under ISA guiddlnes. The impact to the tree's health would be negligible. The tree is currently above average in health. I would estimate the age of the tree to be 44-60 years old,a period of maximum health for Caffornia. oaks. LOT`IO No. Name Size Condition Trees iu footprint: 147 Valley Oak 9=1 Good I 0Valley Oak 6" Good 'frees impacted or possibly impacted by building: 39' Valley Oak 28" Good' Trees outside of footprint: 31 Valley Oak 5" Good 32 Valley Oak 3„ Poor' 33 Black Oak 9" Good 34 Valley Oak 51f Good 35 Buckeye 6" Fair 36 Valley Oak 9" Fair 37 Valley Oak 76" Fair Live Oak 3" Good 39 Valley Oak 2811 Good 40 Valley Oak 12" Good 41 Elderberry 8" Poor 42 Valley Oak 1011 Good' 43 Valley Oak 18" Good 4 Buckeye 411 Good 4' Buckeye 4" Good 46 Valley Oak 4" Good Buckeye clusters east of trees 3 6 and 3 5. _;.. .... -...... .... w... ,M1. ...-:zna�- sq•'-'n'f eYb'r .h-+"'+`^°fi'a lgrs.-moi. mss:+^!!' 'fY .,hN• 3 Wiz::1. -.•v -3 ii' ^Slii J.':�.".3N„�,.:`- `'�'��` b'RSASS`'.'",x.,'b°.. .. ..,'tNb' :� �.E•e��'.`^w'"?? -i- o-;. N. ..}`a-:a.�}wF�d ...501 i '^'. PS c 59/ 251 288-34. StTBA 18A 21 15 59 4 15 20' Job S 3o3. 0 91 .64 TAr - 4 A# ' 7j-5 32 �. : .,, 30�.,31 327 TREE SURVEY,LOT 11, KING ESTATES Following is a table of trees located on Lot 11 and a pian showing tree location and canopy size of each tree. Trees No. 28, 27 and 16 would normally be recommended for removal due to close proximity to the house. These are young trees growing within several feet of the proposed house. These trees will survive a heavy prune-back. The trees growing in the cluster that include trees No. 15, 16; 23 and 24 are competing for light. If left as they are, most would eventually die due to lack of light. I would recommend that all of these be removed except tree No. 24 whichhas the potential to become a well developed, esthetically,pleasing tree, Currently,'this tree is being forced to grow at an arse due to competition for light, 4 For the purposes of this survey,I have only recommended removal where absolutely necessary for construction. -4 I consider the brush and pine trees to represent a fire hazard and would normally recommend their removal as well. Again, for this report, Z have not done so. LOT 11 NO. Name Size ondition, Trees in footprint: 20 Buckeye 24'' Poor 25 Buckeye' 14'1' Good 15 Buckeye 121. Goad Trees outside of footprint removal Necessary; 21 Bay 611 Fair 23 Buckeye 901 Poor Trees outside of footprint-scut baelk needed: 16 Buckeye 1000 Fair 28 Buckeye 4 fr Good 27 Buckeye 120' Good Trees outside of footprint—no action required: 26 Live Oak 2" Good 24 Live Oak 12" Good 29 Live Oak 2" Good 17 Buckeye 811 Fou 18 Valley flak 8" Fair 19 Live teak 121' Fair 13 Pine 1401 Good 14 Various small brushy trees Fair t p1 �M i ww.rrn a../."• •_. .X'. •';.� ''r {`�' �� ,,+-,✓-..'f " � r' � of � �• �•.. ";� : K 14 ie CD ol .,r ,/'J f ,�" ./'•��i, 4[.,y�y. '�"�.�''h�� ,fr•�,',✓�+'� �iri 1} y i� i( dfi fird fi f4Y" js P /P ` ✓�// f ,r• t w `r' • •`�� ,� !`r ��.�.'�.,��.-r..�`}j4j�r' t 1 't'�~ �r'� .r�` �+„--� t� r1r �,i�aM�� 'r A..,,. «. .. .« ."'�C'1' Fpj,�/. ,f !'k'�[" •3 i.," /a;yt � ,a•^^.e"�'rm .' '� .«^r r-r,,, ,5. l,•„'++ F K .t+'r J ffj+" {Jf .�.�,—.•. r' ,y...r � _� _ /',�•1.1yJ_-".J' "!rI•w^r' .,,�;"�' ,,,r^r " ,..""N"i ,yw.�' a�� _....e.. & r yM �Y` f .fr°.1F.h. 1+•M'A:'t ,rn. rY '`•ad.;•�N. .w......,. µr. � « ,,.' ,� .•�, ,� �s # ;ui" -��'` ��; `�� Fes.._ wrx� y`t • ...,.w.x��.�.-r•�a �. ..,:-ir»*rr�a�w"r. .�ae> t �WI'�•1F� a.mrlS�p-..}..��w ,...,,.e,.i,.".•. �„ 1 .,.....""'�...,_ t''r .. _-'�-••-sti:•rrn•.....�..".;�;.�.',�.:-:�,� -..., n m tom.,;+.� t wrY rrr •..wwv +w•vV J.L.IJWJJVVVJ .... .. r+ kac u:+ DIA61KAm. q4 co i -•"'.".. r• i �I�•,.....'"• rep t ��` '! t�/ �,>��K rµ�:+ +, e: `�� , _may �,� .�...........,..•,.,-«•-,.ay... Nv-yij �w _ ""'� ^y- hy,-^+...w•" q03 n ttlit „ V,P Z99 t t ,_. raj � .:.. �.»-....'"` „,.,,.,.,y-�•Y� w. ....".,,.,..,..__ .... ». t.. ,Z.+..... �+.+•wMt�Mw+w..�.� F e. 3'( •'•whar.t.Y.nn {}-� L 0 - /� Y w n c dpt ct y : t � v 1\ VIII i •�.' �, •� + h "p �- 44 w ,� + OA y`f •Cy { � t Qi � 1 F � t� � �t }� '7�Gvk i ¢' t+ y 1 � tt tt� ltt �`� � "'}"7M1P l •� � �� '�� `ter t ' . ?. .,� l� �t \ 1✓' +,t +i � t� j�` ,\� �'y 1 t � aa. ��k , IN Vk ,,t �' S t4 t '� � •t f �� . r tY ,•.� rf. +. ..••�"� �+ 1in t � .51t,en `v 1 `'Lt jt` t4 '•1.� �._ •� s t fit:, � ',Y{ V* 1 r.1 �� `t tt .t •{ RR 1'n 4, _.��` •\�� : ;'t; 't Z li�, k c 1 c5 � s 06 t DARWIN 'ERs AssocIATES ENVIR?3id[vtENTAL RESEARCH ! ENGINEERNC—GEOLDGY ZII February 26, 2002 Michael Laughlin,Planner Centra Costa County Community Development Department -- 651 Pine Street,2"d Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Geologic Review Services Contract' King brave Subdivision 4 Review of Geotechnical& Grading Information Lots 10 & 1 I/Subdivision 7267('Tree Pen-nit/G312058) Saranap Area,Contra Costa County DMA Project#3003.02 Dear Michael: The scope of our review included review of pertinent geologic mapping of the U.S.Geological Survey(USGS),review of previous geologic/geotechnical report for the project site,review of previous memorandums issued by County staff, including the former County Geologist(Todd Nelson),former Public Works Director('Vern Cline)and the Engineering Services Division of the Public Works Department(Brian Table I Ba.lbas). Thesereferences,which are PREVIOUS GEOTEMOCAL INVESTIGATION, documented in Tables 1 and 2,formed a KING DRIVE SURDIVISION SARANAP AREA context for review of the geotechnical data Don Hillebrandt Associates provided in a series of letter-reports'issued Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Studies for 11%x Acre Site Area;Immediately South of King Drive,Walnut Creek,CA(dated by the geotechnical engineer for the grading July 14,1977);Job#336-1 that has been performed under Permit# Herzog G312058 and future earthwork on Lots 10 Geotechnical Evaluation,Ding Drive Subdivision,'Walnut Creek, and 11 (Arthur Knudson, Subsurface CA Gated June 7,1989)Job#27oi1.1.0.1 Engineering). Merz Preliminary Geotechnical Repad,'King Drive Subdivision,Walnut Creek,California(dated September 18,1989),Job#2700.1-0-1 It should also be recognized that we made a Hultgren-Tillis Engineers site visit on February 7,2002 to view Peer Review,King Drive,Driveway Access,Walnut Creek,CAA existing conditions. At that time we' et (dated May 15,2001);Job#419.tt2 representatives of the project proponent at Geostrata Geotechnical Investigation,King Drive Development,Contra Costa, the entrance to the site(applicant,grading CA(dated November25,1999)Job#543-1 contract and Art Knutson),and we then Geostrata walked the property with Joe Romo' Plan Review,Lots 5 and 6,King,Drive Development-Tract 7267, (Grading!Technician,Building Inspection` Contra Costa County,CA(dated January 5,2001)Job#543-1 T3, L10096 Department)and we had a telephone conversation with the BID Lamorinda Office(Joe Cluff)to discuss that office's inspections of the walls that are being constructed finder building permits. 1308 PINE STREET 9 MARTINEZ,CA 94553 R 925/3703-9330 Page t Geologic Setting Table 2 During the 1990s, both the USGS and COUNTY CORRESPONDENCE AND PLANS California Division of Mines and Geology County Correspondence(Staff and Contractors) (CDMG)issued'geologic and Quarternary Memorandum ofTodd Nelson,Planning Geologist Community deposits maps Of the site and vicinity. The Development Department(dated_©dober 16,1989) most detailed maps were those of the Development ent eTadd Nelonnt(dat,dlar ing Geologist Community l� Dcyeloprneni Departnicnt{dated March.14,19&) CDMG.' These maps,published at a scale Memorandum of Vernon L.Cline,Public Works Director(dated of 1"=2,000',have a stated purpose of October 18,1977) providing information about slope Suability Letter of Brian Bulbus;Engineering services Division,Public for use by local officials in land use Works Department(dated July 24,2000) planning and evaluation of building permit PLANS applications. This CDMG publication Donato Thomas Henderson Associates includes not only a bedrock geology map site Plan,subdiviison'7267 and landslide map,but also includes a King Drive subdivision,scale I"=5D' d p (dated November S,1988) relative slope stability map and a debris Ed 1Levilla Consulting flow susceptibility map. The King Drive-Plan&Profile(sheets 3 and 4 of 6 Sheets) interpretations shown are based on a Tract 7267(1;atest revision dated 3/31104),,ERC Job#K.rNG broad-scoped geologic reconnaissance, 17267 which included review:of pertinent geologic maps and reports,geologic interpretation of stereo-pairs of vertical angle aerial photographs,and field mapping performed during the summer field season 1992 and early 1993. According to the CDMG the site is in the outcrop belt of the Briones Formation,with three landslides identified on the site. The eastern- most slide generally coincides with a landslide mapped by;Knutson on Lot 10,bat it appears substantially larger. As mapped by the CDMG,this slide extends from King Drive to the north property line of Lot 10 and includes much of Lot I i (see Figure 1). The Relative Slope Stability Map is presented in Figure 2. This map indicates the entire property is in Category 4 (most susceptible to landsliding). The west and central portion of the ssite is"in Subarea 4.1,and the eastern portion of the site is in Subarea 4.2.,As the explanation for the map indicates,lands that are within Subarea 4.1 are considered by the CDMG to be or close their stability limits because of the steepness of the slopes.The:materials underlying this area can, therefore,be expected to fail locally,when adversely affected by,natural processes or span - - caused modifications that steepen slopes,increase loads,or remove natural buttresses from the bases of the slopes. Slope instability is probably more the result of the steepness of the slopes' than theweakness of the rocks. Lands within Subarea 4.2 are considered to be generally softer,weaker,less resistant and less stable than the racks within Subarea 4.1 and are invariably less stable than those in the balance of the CDMG study area. Slopes in Subarea 4.2 are considered by the CDMG to be naturally unstable and subject to failure even in the absence of the activities of man. The slope'instability results primarily from the weakness of the rocks in what is only moderately steep terrain. Haydon,Wayne D.,1995. Landslide Hazards in the Martinez-Walnut Creek Area,Contra Costa County, California. CDMG Open-File Report 95-12. Page Issues The purpose of our review is to assist in resolution of the following grading related issues. 1. Was the keystone wall on upper King Drive(Lot l l area)constructed in accordance with the provisions of the approved plans and in accordance with applicable codes and ordinances? 2. Is there a landslide on Lot l 1 that is not recognized in the'geotechnical data submitted by the project proponent?' . Are the walls being built along Oak Branch Way adequately documented by the project proponent's geotechnical consultant? 4. Was the road grading consistent with the approved geotechnical report of Geostrata? Background The site is steep,wooded and characterized by springs and relatively shallow landslides. Important geologic/geotechnical work was performed by Hildebrandt and later by Herzog for previous developers. The primary product of the Herzog investigation was an original geologic map that provided an interpretation of bedrock geology,geologic structure, landslides/colluvium, and areas of erosion. The subsequent work performed by Geostrata was aimed chiefly at providing speck standards and criteria for construction'of the road improvements(King Drive and teak Branch Way). Based on review of Geostrata report and associated grading plats,a grading permit was issued and associated'building permits were obtained for proposed retaining walls. Earthwork was initiated,but for reasons that are not clear in the written record,the geotechnical engineer for the project,Geostrata, either failed to make required inspections,or,if made,they are not documented in the written record. A critical point of construction of a wall is the over- excavation to ensure that it is constructed on competent material(not undocumented fill, creeping soil or slide debris). The Geostrata report provided standards and criteria for the wall construction. This initial phase of wall construction occurred prior to commencement of -- inspection work by Arthur Knudson,and it was not inspected by the County BID inspectors in the Lamorinda office. Mr.Knudson inspected wall construction after the first 2 or 3 feet of wall was laid;and he offered the opinion that the grading contractor for this:project is knowledgeable and that for that reason Mr.Knutson was satisfied that wall construction work performed prior to commencement of his inspection services met appropriate standards. Mr.Knutson is now the geotechnical engineer"of record,and he has accepted the Geostrata report(dated November 25, 1999) as the design-bevel report for the site. Simply stated,the Geostrata report provides specific standards and criteria for the grading project;Mr.Knutson Inas responsibility to document that the earthwork,wall construction,drainage improvements,comply with those recommendations. Additionally,Mr. Knutson explored a landslide on Lot 10 and provided conceptual recommendations for mitigation of the landslide hazard. A concern of the County has been and continues to be the initial preparation work for the.wall. The site is a"thigh risk"area, and the grading;contractor is not a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. Page 4 DMA Findings 1. Lot 14 Evaluation. The landslide explored Arthur Knutson is located in the portion of the lot that is adjacent to King Drive. It probably extends into King Drive and as rnappedloy Knutson it also extends onto Lot 11. The test pit logs are diagrammatic and generalized,and do not provide details on observed features and conditions. Similarly, geomorphic features used to establish the lateral margins and toe of the slide are not discussed in the two letter reports issued on this slide. The CDMG report maps this slide to the north boundary of this parcel. The base map used by Arthur Knutson to plot the location of the slide shows a storm drain along the west side and north side of Lot#10. It is my understanding that this stone drain is no longer a part of the project plans. According to the project proponent,all concentrated runoff from impervious surfaces on Lots 10 and 11 will be directed to storm drainage facilities in King Drive. Where this is not feasible,runoff is to be collected in a containment facility and pumped to:King Drive. The subdrainage facilities proposed by Mr.Knutson should be connected to this containment/pumping facility. Recommendations. We have the following comments on the grading/slide repair. a) The Knutson report summarizes geotechnical exploration of a relatively small landslide, and recommends that it be mitigated by over-excavation;of the slide mass and reconstructing the slide area as an engineered fill with a basal keyway that is:10 feet wide.The geotechnical engineer provides;a typical section and recommendations regarding compaction of the fill. However, limits of earthwork may extend beyond the. slide limits shown in the Knutson letter-report. It is not entirely clear to me that slide can be remediatedwithout extending the repair upslope to King Drive. For constructability, the limits of grading will/may extend laterally beyond the limits of the mapped slide area. If there are especially,significant trees adjacent to the work areas,the dripline should be fenced prior to the initiation of the earthwork. b) Prior to the issuance of a permit for the slide repair we recommend that BID require a grading plan for the reconstructed slide area that would show.bow the future residence, g_ driveway,King Drive would relate to the slide repair. Furthermore,it;should show the proposed location of the basal keyways and the subdrain as well as the water' collection/pumping system. Furthermore,the location of the subdrains should be established by field survey. The geotechnical engineer should also provide construction details for all phases:ofthe proposed earthwork prior to issuance of the permit,from clearing and stripping,to details of the rock used in the subdran,type of filter fabric, trench backfill,etc. Z. Slide on Lot 411 Evaluation. Neighboring property owners have reported a slide at the tae of the slope on this lot. During our site visit we observed a graded pad on Lot 11 This grading appears to falf under the category of undocumented earthwork(i.e.,grading performed without a grading permit and which may have been performed without monitoring by a geotechnical engineer). Because of the Page 5 previous grading, geomorphic features characteristics of landslide deposits, if they existed,have been obliterated'. The problem reported by the neighbors may be associated with the previous grading. Perhaps a sliver fill was placed on the lower portion of this lot. Recommendation. In our opinion,the building permit on Lot I I will require a geotechnical report that provides information on subsurface conditions both within the building site and downslope portion of the lot. The scope of the investigation should inZIude adequate subsurface data and laboratory testing to characterize foundation conditions and provide specific standards and criteria to govern site grading,drainage and foundation design.The logsof test borings and test pits should show the details of observed features and conditions,and the report should include a map that shows the location of borings,test pits, as well as any undocumented fill and any slide debris. Like Lot 10,runoff from impervious- surfaces (and any,,subdrains) should be conveyed to King Drive. This may entail construction of an on-site collection and pumping facility if the waters collected,cannot flow to King Drive by gravity. 3. King Drive'Retaining Wall Evaluation. On the north side of King Drive there is a wall that was constructed at/near the Lot #11 property line. (This wall is just northeast of the King:Drive/Oak Branch Way intersection.) At the time of our site visit there was a series of en echelon,open cracks within the future travel lane of Ding Drive. These cracks farm a systematic pattern that appears to represent tension cracks(not dessication cracks). These cracks may be evidence of slope movement/wall movement. Recommendation. We recommend that the building;permit on this wall not be frnaled until the significance of these cracks are fully evaluated by the project proponent. It would be prudent to include within the scope of work,subsurface data immediately;.downslope from the wall to provide data on foundation conditions at the base of the wall,as well as exploration of the cracks;to see their vertical extent,and how they=change;.with,depth. Depending on the data gathered; it may be necessary;to have the existing wall taken down or aggressive measures initiated to achieve long-term stability. 4. Oak Branch Drive Retaining Walls Evaluation. These walls are located in an area which is classified as naturally unstable and subject to failure even in the absence of the activities of man by the CDMG. The Geostrata report,provided geotechnical criteria for walls,including'recommendations for subdrainage and permeable material behind the wall. As we understand it the initial construction of the wall was not observed by the geotechnical consultant,nor was it observed by the BID. (Inspections by the geotechnical consultant of the project proponent and BID inspectors are required at this time to ensure that the wall is not constructed on unstable soils and that drainage facilities are installed in accordance with the recommendations of the approved report.) Recommendation. In our opinion the building permits for walls cannot be"fnaled"without documentation that foundation conditions for walls and wall construction'complies with the provisions of the approved geotechnical report and provisions of the codes administered by the Building Inspection Department. The applicant's representatives should provide a Page 6 proposed plan for verifying compliance. The plan should be subject to review and approval by BID,and then the project proponent should proceed with the testing/engineering analysis. 5. Gut Slopes Evaluation. On-page 13 of the Oeospectra report; cut slope gradients were recommended at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical)within 1.5:1 allowable where competent bedrock is exposed. In the field'I observed no cut slopes along the road which comply with this standard in the approved report. Moreover,I question whether any of the exposed rock will be stable in slopes steeper than 2:1. The rock exposed in cut slopes was weathered,fractured and raveling. In the upper segment of Oak Branch Way,areas ofjointed sandstone were observed,with joints dipping parallel to the natural slope. These joints observed'resemble the exfoliation jointing commonly seen in granitic terrain. Within this area rockfail is a significant hazard. Recommendation. Slopes along Oak Branch Road do not conform with the approved soil report. No evidence has been submitted to document that slopes steeper than 2:1 are appropriate. If 21 slopes are not feasible(because of tree lass or interference with development concepts for future residences),retaining walls may be required to achieve long-term.stability. A starting point for engineering analyses of these existing cut slopes is detailed geologic snapping and stability analysis. A potential approach to stabilizing the cut slopes is a soil-nail wall. Soil-nail methods have been used successfully for permanent walls in recent years in rock similar to that present on the site. Soil-nailing strengthens the rock behind the face of the cut with grouted in-place small diameter steel bars. 6. See a e Evaluation. There are areas of groundwater seepage along Oak Branch Road.I areas of seepage,rock is typically deeply weathered and may not perform satisfactorily in cut slopes. The seepage area may be an indication of landslide debris. Recommendation. The final geotechnical report for Oak Branch Way shall include data on the location of seepage areas,details of the design measures undertaken to control subsurface water and evaluation of landslide hazards'Within'the seepage area. We trust this letter provides the evaluation and comments that you requested. Please call if you; have any questions. Sincerely, DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIATES ^., tftt.pARV4 N A 44i M E cc P. E CES ED ENGINEE rim t Darwin Myers,CEG 946 ,'�7 z. Principal ��U cc: Gary Faria,Building Inspection Department Joe Romo,Building Inspection:Department Jeffrey Batt, clo'Morgan Capitol Investment Properties Arthur Knutson, Subsurface Engineering 3003-02hr(4).wpd s y ♦ Y •' { ''. Ch >} u aj CL IA '.� 1. , � •\a ti..JJ _ 1 ' 2 r 1 ai °�cb � orm "' oa R 1L G� a � m � "'c 0w st b 3» raf "y+ S p ' + ami V2 •o c�ss � s� � 'y b a,i �'" .s ' a',g E.- cc c o b `c `z v " tw C7 G u e+ as 4.'Q= �, o, ° "«' few` ° roma C'~ mn W o sdi' m c'ro m ? " w 0 E o�'i v car c o I °m' t+`4 p' w K .;T ,.c. • a o °' AW u 3c'' .°" rss ' be atw csa o Q 06 W +- <C ,cs ^ca c E X 'err.` �'�� '• -. t � A` S e a A CL It 0 CL '. ,n ♦ .ter Q LM a jf lit A \ 5 y .c,- to a;IE-N 1 1 5 AgaIts r ° 1 � � H14% 11 fill lit 1.1 it 'I Mat Iriv UHHH'Ifillf � Ifln 'it 1,11 , I a if All, 41 M , Zell9 <2 1 1� MU I U!a �9 use..m E LIST 189 140 008 189140016 238 011 001 First Walnut Creek Mutual Creek Mutual No Eight Walnut Lance&Elise Coletto PO Box 2070 PO Bax 2070 ✓/ 200 King Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek: CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 238 011 010 238 011 011 238011012 Robert&Rochelle Holbrook Paul James ./ Doris Jean Ainsworth 111 El Dorado Rd ✓� 121 El Dorado Rd 131 El Dorado Rd Walnut Greek,CA 94595 Walnut Creek., GA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 238 011 013 238 011 014 23 M I l 015 Jennifer Hale Eric Schueler&Kelli,Adler-Schueler Arthus Marchetti j 141 El Dorado Rd 151 El Dorado Rd 161 El Dorado Rd Walnut Greek, CA 94595 Walnut Greek, GA 94595 Walnut Creep, CA 94595 238 011 016 238 011 017 238 011 018 Marena Rhone .!` Raymund&Mart Petersen John & Shelley Powers 171 EI Dorado Rd 181 El Dorado Rd 220 King Dr Walnut Creek- CA 44595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 238 011 019 238 012 002 238 012 003 Robert&E Williams V Morgan Capital Investment John Manuel&Flora Pinnella� 21O King Dr 3 Harbor Dr 4303 4 260 King Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Sausalito,CA 94965 Walnut Creek., CA 94595 238 012 004 238 012 005 238 012 006 M Joan Steuart � Randy&Mary Susan Bauder Thomas&Pamela Fcrosby Jr. 150 El Dorado Rd 160 El Dorado Rd 170 El Dorado Rd Walnut Creek. CA 94395 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Greek,; CA 94595 238 012 009 238 012 010 238 012 017 Stephen&Karen Phillips ' Lard,&Joan Johnson / Gregory&Limn Lopez 120 El Dorado Rd 110 El Dorado Rd 130 El Dorado Rd Walnut Creek.,CA 94595 Walnut Creek. CA 94595 Walnut Creel-, 94595 238 012 018 238 021018 238-021019 Melinda Moreno Lawrence&Lois Ruff Jr. Kenneth&Martha Wainola 140 El Dorado Rd 201 King Dr v' 211 Ding Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek,CA 94:595 Walnut Creel-,CA 94595 238 021 020 23S 021021 238 040 005 Steve&Linda Pappas Robert Dick Harrison Curtis& Cvnthiia Holmes 1 221 King Dr 231 King Dr , 5 Corte Del Contento V Walnut Creek. CA 94595 Walnut Creek. CA 94595 Walnut Creek:. CA 94395 238040 006 238 040 007 238040008 Corrine Beatrice Busbee ,/f Conrad Peloquin ,,. Stephen&Kathleen Ann Fox I l Corte Del Contento 17 Corte Del Contento 16 Corte Del Contento tl-.,' Walnut Creek,CA 94595 Walnut Creek_ CA 94595 Walnut Creel. CA 94593 ........................ . ....................... ............... .. ........ 238 040 009 238040010 238 050 002 Andrew Jalui&Virginia Macintosh Daniel Conway& Susan CroDoloi-es Williams 251 King Dr 255 KiDgDr 2683 W Newell Ave Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut CreeL, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 ell ............. ....... ........................................ ...................... .......... .......... Carol Fisher Robert Stevens 36 Freeman Ct. President of Sara.��ap HOA ,r CCC. Fire Road , Walnut creel-, CA 94595 125 Kendall Road v' Pleasant I t7 nt Hilaryl, , oad 'Walnut Creek, CA 94595-1112 Pleasant Hill, CA'9450a Martin Lysons G.M.M'.A. •.-' Susan Crosby ar'` Stephen Phillips 279 Front St. 255 King Dr 120 El Dorado Rd P.Q.Box 218 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 9459-51 Danville, CA 94526-0218 Torn Crosby Ed Sevilla P.E. Morgan Capital Inv, 170 El Dorado Rd 2520 Stanwell Lar. Ste 140 3 Harbor Drive 4 303 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Concord, CA 94520 Sausalito, CA 94965 Silverhawk Company, Inc Susan Mc Shannock 1''Blackf eld Drive,PMB 404 35 Mitchell Blvd, 4 9 Tiburon, CA 94920 \I/ San Rafael, CA'94903 KING DRIVE TREE REMOVAL COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FOR THE JANUARY 8, 2002 MEETING Agenda Item# Community Development Department Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002.—7:00 PM. L INTRODUCTION SILVERHAWK AND COMPANY, INC. (Applicant), MORGAN CAPITAL INVESTMENTS (Owner) — County File #TP010011—An appeal filed by Stephen Phillips of a conditional approval of a tree permit by the Zoning Administrator to construct two new residences and to remove a total of 12 trees (possibly up to 16 with slide repair) and work within the driplines of up to 17 trees on lots 10 and 11 at 2'70 and 280 King Drive, in the Walnut Creek area. (R-10) (ZA: Q-14)'(CT:,3420) (Parcel#'s 238-012-002, 023)' H. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the County Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval with revised conditions and required restitution. III. SUMMARY OF REVIEW The subject sites are two lots of an older subdivision calledthe Hillside Terrace Subdivision. The lots were not developed at the time other properties developed due to a lack of improved street access on King Drive and:utilities. Street"'improvements and utilities are being brought to the sites as part of the grading and improvements being installed for the six. lot King Drive subdivision, which is part of a P-1 zoning district. Both lots exceed R-1'0 zoning requirements for lot area, depth and width. Therefore, there is no discretionary review of the residences required under the small lot ordinance. In 1994 the " County adopted the "Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance." The subject sites'are vacant,lots. Upon review, staff concluded S-2 that the applicant would be rewired to file a tree permit application along with information prepared by a certified arborist. After reviewing the arborist report and conducting a site visit, notices were mailed to adjacent property owners on September 18, 2001. The notice indicated the Zoning Administrator's tentative approval to allow the removal of fifteen trees and to work within the dripine of''seventeen trees; IV. APPEAL On October 2, 2001 an appeal was filed and received by the Community Development Department. The appeal letter mentioned several issues that are discussed"below. After the appeal letter'was filed, staff''conducted an additional site inspection to better understand the concerns of adjoining property owners. As a result of that inspection, staff directed the applicant to update the tree removal diagram, topography notations on the site plan and arborist tree inventory. In addition, survey stakes for the houses and lot corners were requested to be placed to accurately locate trees impacted by the development. Based on this information, staff received the diagram attached to this report, and updated arborist list. The number of trees proposed for removal was revised downward from 15 to 12 as'a result of the survey and review by the arborist. However, tree removal that may;be required due to slide repair would add 4 small trees for a total of 16, as noted on the attached lists and diagrams. If Commissioners desire to conduct a site inspection, survey stakes are now in place to mark the house corners and property corners for reference. Appeal'Point: The appeal letter states that the trees selected for removal or for work within the root area of remaining trees will cause soil erosion and destabilize the steep hillside. These lots are documented as having unstable soil with past slides. Response: The two lots do have a history of slides. As part of the conditions of approval (condition 9A), a plan for the installation of erosion control improvements and landscaping are required prior to the issuance of building permits for the houses. In addition, the Building Inspection Department (Grading Division) will impose erosion control measures as part of the issuance of a'grading permit for the houses. A Geotechnical Report is required to be submitted with building permit plans and grading plans to the Building Inspection Department. These S-3 documents will be reviewed along with the structural plans for the residences to assure that appropriate measures are taken. Since the lots are legally subdividedand have established residential zoning, the soils and structural information is not subject to a``public review process. The homes will be built on pier and grade beam foundations. The depth of the piers will be established through on site testing and reporting back_to the Building. Inspection Department. - Staff has attached' to this report a letter from the project' Geotechnical Engineer and diagram which shows the slide area in question." The depth of the unconsolidated material is about 15 feet. The slide area is approximately 85-90 feet wine and. 90-100 feet long. Left in its current state, the area poses a significant hazard to property owners below. The slide area' s proposed to be excavated, and reconstructed using the buttress fill method into stable bedrock. The homes would rest on piers into the bedrock. With proper repair and home construction, the stability of the hillside will be improved for the home purchasers' and property owners below. 'While there is concern about removal of vegetation that is perceived as helping stabilizing the hillside, maintenance of the current vegetation will not stop the slide area from moving if conditions are right,. If the entire slide area is repaired, a 3" oak tree, 9"" black teak tree and.two 4" buckeye trees not previously identified for removal may require removal. If they are removed, additional replacement trees would be required. ppeai Point: A third party review is requested of the arborist report as there are issues not addressed in the report, i.e.: tree dependency, erosion and the effects of working within the room zone of certain trees. Response: The arborist report includes an inventory of trees on the sites, and indicates"the health of the trees and trees planned for removal. Staff°did not request further information from the arborist on dependency or erosion: or work within root zones. Several of the trees are stand alone specimens (147, 20, 30 and 25) and others have grown wig areas where there are multiple trees and vegetation. Staff had the applicant redesign the home' on lot 10 to avoid the most significant tree on the site, tree #39, a 28" diameter valley oak. As indicatedabove, erosion control will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit. The trees that will remain are not dependent on the trees proposed for removal to survive. The conditions of - S-4 approval require fencing of protected trees and that the arborist be present for work within the root zone of trees. In this case, the arborist is on the site on a regular basis, and staff receives updates from the arborist on activities and recommendations. Banding is also required in the event of damage to trees. The County can call in an outside arborist for peer review if monitoring does not occur or if there is some question about the removal recommendations. Staff is not recommending this course of action at the onset, since the current site arborist has demonstrated his abilities in monitoring and reporting for the work on the larger subdivision above the sites currently under review. Staff can always request the services of an outside arborist if problems develop during the process. The cost for this peer review would be paid by the applicant. Appeal Paint. Boundary lines have not been surveyed so it is not possible to determine whether the designated trees are within the legal boundaries. Response: Staff agreed with this appeal point and requested a survey to define the property lines and to place the corners of the houses. This survey would be required as part of the building permit process, but was requested early to provide more clarity. After the survey was conducted, the location.of the rear property line was called into question by adownhill neighbor. The project engineer met with the County Surveyor to discuss the methodology of the survey. The survey was conducted using established monuments on Upper Golden Rain Road and Olympic Boulevard, and was conducted using accepted survey methods. Staff wrote the downhill neighbor a:letter (attached) requesting a copy of the plan or survey information for her property for review by the County Surveyor, but did not receive a response. To date, staff has no evidence that the survey that the applicant has conducted is incorrect. Appeal Point: The tree count dues not correlate with the tree permit in question. Response: The trees indicated in previous plans for the subdivision only included larger trees used by the engineer as site references. For this tree permit, the arborist, working with the engineer, sited all trees proposed for removal or potentially affected by the construction. After the appeal was submitted, a site inspection with adjoining property owners and the arborist - S-5 ' was held by staff to attempt to identify discrepancies. As a result of this meeting, modifications were requested to more precisely identify the trees for removal. The attached revised inventory and diagrams indicate that between 12-16 trees will require removal to construct the residences,- driveways and complete any necessary slide repair. Appeal Point: Trees on lot 10 within the area designated in the General Plan as Open Space should be allowed to be removed or have work done in their-root zones. Response: The eastern portion of lot 10'has a General Plan designation of Open Space. As discussed in the General Plan Lancs Use section, an Open Space General Plan designation allows for the construction of one single family residence on any legal' lot within' the area designated. This would also allow for the removal of trees (or work within'the root zones)', with a tree permit, to allow for the house construction. No delineation of this area by survey is required. The location of the house favors the western'portion of the lot, which preserves trees on the eastern'portion in the area designated for open space: Appeal Point: An Environmental Impact Report is required as no report has ever been done on these two lots. Response: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)' provides for Categorical Exemptions' which do not require the preparation of environmental'review documents. Section 15303 allows for the construction of up to three single family residences as an exempt activity. Development of existing lots with appropriate Zoning and General Plan designations within the jurisdiction are considered in fill development, which is also an. exempt activity under CEQA. For the County, infill development is within the Urban Limit Line on existing subdivided parcels, or on parcels proposed for subdivision surrounded by existing development and which'comply with current Zoning and General Plan designations: Appeal Point: A Soils Report, prepared by an engineer, .should be prepared and address soil and stability issues as well as tree loss. Response: Given the past history of the hillside and concerns expressed by neighboring property owners, staff understands the desire to have soils " ............. ............... S-6 information from qualified professionals, have that information peer reviewed by the County, and to make sure that the work done on the properties will not create problems for the downhill neighbors. rop As previously mentioned, the normal course of review by the County will occur at the building permit stage for the houses. A separate grading permit may be obtained for the slide repair, but will require thorough--review by the County. Appeal Point.• Story poles are being requested on the lots prior to any tree removal. Response: In order to satisfy this concern, staff requested that the footprints of the houses be staked to establish the limit of the tree removal. Since there are no discretionary reviews required for the residences, story poles can not be required. The homes are within the height and, setback standards established by the County. The homes are large and>>at the maximum height limit of 35 feet, but comply with County standards. Revegetation and replacement trees will be required below the new houses, but their appearance will not be completely screened from view. Appeal Point.• There are several trees with a trunk circumference of more than 20 inches that are listedf or removal, as well as trees that form a significant groupin9 of trees. Response: This appeal point correctly states the basis for the requirement that the applicant obtain a tree removal permit... Unfortunately, trees are located in the central portions of the lots or driveway access areas which can not be saved to allow for reasonable development of the lots. CONCLUSION Based on the above staff report, staff recommends that the County Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval decision for County File #TPO 100 11. TpO1001 Lsr 12-18-01 MPI .......... .................... ................... ..........................-.... .................. .... .. ................... CO4�i R A COST 01 OCT -2 PH 2' OS Contra Costa County rty Community Development Dept. c ��,�+ i f .nji VL'LOPME T DEM � 651 Pine Street, 2 Floor,North Wing, Martinez, CA 94553 RE: County File#TP010011 Lots 10& 11 of King Drive in Walnut Creek area Appeal of Tentative Approval Neighbors on El Dorado Road wish to"file this Letter of Appeal against the tentative approval of the request to remove up to 15 trees and to work within the root zones of seventeen trees on Lots 10 and 11. 'A check for$125.00 accompanies this Letter of Appeal. We feel that the decision by the Zoning Administrator does not meet the criteria of County Code Section 816-6.8010, per the section Criteria for Review of the Tree Permit, Items B2, 3, and 4. There are also numerous,.additional reasons as to why this Tree Permit should be denied and they are as follows: .' • The amount of trees that are selected for removal or work within the root line will cause soil erosion and destabilize the steep hillside. These lots are"documented'as having unstable sail with past slides. • We are requesting a 3d pasty review of the recent arborists report as there are issues that are not addressed in his report ie: tree dependency, erosion, and effects of working within the root zone of certain trees. • Boundary Lines have not been surveyed or engineered on these lots so it is not possible to determine whether the designated trees are inside or outside the legal boundaries. This is noted in the arborist's report.. A full property lines survey is being requested'. • The tree count does not correlate with the tree permit in question. According to Sheet l of Tract 7267 Site Grading Plan dated March 15, 2001 by E. Revilla, l l trees exist on Lot 10 and 5 trees exist on Lot 11, for a total of 16 trees. Four of these trees may have already been removed or designated for removal as they are within the approved road grading ofKing?Drive, leaving only 12 trees within the lots.' • A portion of Lot 10 lies within County Open Space. No trees should be removed or allowed to be worked'within the root zones of the Open Space. Surveyors should also stake and mark this area. a a Page 2 -- Appeal to File' 'TPl00l 1 + An EIR(Environmental Impact Report)is required as no report has ever been done- on these 2 lots: * A full sails report by an independent engineer, not associated with the developer is requested, that not only addresses the soils and stability issues,but also addresses the issues concerniig the tree loss. This is being requested as prior reports have contained vague information. An in depth report should also address concerns and how the impact of the disturbance of the soil on these lots with tree removal and construction sArill.affect the neighbors and homes below the sites. A prion report obtained by the county did have concern for kiss of property and life. • Story Poles are being requested on the lots prior to any tree removal so that an accurate tree count can be obtained with the:possibility of many,trees being saved. • There are several trees with a trunk circumference of more that 20 inches that are listed for removal, as well as trees that'form a significant grouping of trees. Thank You, VV- pS?'"�'cY'.. YHi'��sw„•+3 �#U- 'iNa ...., 4. ro_ r ty, � h N r a .ytr 0 i � v N1 1543 s 1544 1 45 (YJA404< Y G _ LW M L 1 y � �•� y r -2Q �''. � •" } tp !. �: � n,- we k� � �g�en� t � t,,t f 4 �, "" � a ✓ �� j' tet_ _:i a f s $lj f Ra w u SY t Y� � tC .._..•..,sus "�•• � Pok Tte M }[}}/_ A See area Policies for. -S rana ► C eC C �O i 4 OFk RgfN DEL VALLE ae kx HIGH r r c >ti r Dr. a _ 013 imELIABLETREE -X '. 2960 CHAPMAN STREET, 0&96&1 AY,94601-2803 OAKLAND 510-531-1000 LAFAYETSE 5ai,,��C`7`-2 �#'-4422' x; December 11 2401 Ed Revilla 2129 Fox Glen Dr. Fairfield, CA 94533' RE: King Estates, Lots 10 &- 11 Tear Mr. Revilla'. Following is an updated tree survey that addresses ' the issues brought up by Michael Laughlinin;, his letter of October 11 , 2001 to Jeffrey Batt. In addition, several other trees appear to be far` enough away from the houses as to not warrant removal. Please consider" this survey as an addendum to my survey dated August 30f 2001. Sincerely, Jim Mussells W.C.I.S.A. certified arborist #324 c.c. Jeffrey Batt Susan McShannock Michael Laughlin FINE PRUNING • TRIMMING • REMOVAL LANA} CLEARING STUMP REMOVAL page 2 LOT 1,0 Trees in footprints No. Name Size Condition 147 Valley Oak 9" -,Good 30 Valley Oak 6" Good Trees impacted or, possibly impacted by buildings No. Name size Condition 39 Valley Oak 28" Good 31 Valley Oak 5" Poor 32 Valley Oak 3" Farr 33 Black Oak. 9" Good Trees outside of footprint: No. Name Size Condition 34 Valley flak 5" Good 35 BuckeYe , 6" Fair , 36 , Valley Oak g" Fair ; 37 Valley Oak 6" Farr 3 Live Oak 311. Good- '655(&5- 9640 c 39 Valley Oak 28" Good 5t_O #'At 0 Valley Oak 12" Good 4`1 Elderberry 8" Poor 42 Valley Oak 10" Good 43 Valley Oak 18" Good Buckeye 4" Good (D5 Buckeye 4" Good 46 Valley Oak 4" Good :Buckeye clusters east of trees 36 and 35. 1 -�-� 93 Mco UJ, 50 SE V . ,, T � 288.34 ACK .. .: 80 21 5,1 594 4 20" ' 916 ', : 99.39 ; 00 < � 303. 91 s 90 .64 583 j 3 r Q. 2 J 324.13197 W9� i• 89{y ,, 32 f page 4 LOT 11 Trees in footprint: No. Name Size Condition 20 Buckeye. 24„ Boor 25 Buckeye 12" Good 15 Buckeye 12" Good ny small buckeyes as indicated on the plan. Trees so close to foot print that removal is advisable du Me to root damage,, po'tenti-al fire hazard, and severe cut back that would be required. No. Name Size Condition 16 Buckeye 10" Fair 21 Bay 611 Fair 14 Buckeye 9" Fair 23 Bay 12" Good 27 Buckeye 12" Good 28 Buckeye 61' Good Trees outside of footprint No. Name Size Condition 17 Buckeye 811 Fair �t(• N' 4E QfZ(VCxKA`f 18 Valley Oak 8" Fair 19;. Live Oak 12" Fair 26 Live Oak 2 Good 24 Live Oak 12" Good 29 Live Oak 2" Good .. :., :. c� f 8-�* '4TE 22"W 83.77- moo lot :�. { v 0q. TL _TBA SE 20 2� i 903 00 2-99 49 1 r ILL. u S-fWC � '. 4. 5f r�� ................................. ------------ -42 rr lick RI 4V LOWER, MAIN, ramy no UPPER/GARAGI! and ROOF PLM43 am mm LOT 10-M"m TERRACE M=momm 0-IM WALNUT CREM, CAL11-ORRIA Lit i,i I .......... .................... ............. ........... ilk rte. z 1 Ii H (f{ Lim4' RA 3 -H T cLCVATION5 'Ila 1D AEYK3A-PE RL am #fSDtOT%f iLLS1UE TM=QTW 000� � WALNUT CRbCK,CALIFORNIA }rat rn'm 6= f s � aR :a ,F 3' t 00 ❑ s pEJr� Y J RL"AK and IK4Wtl B"t AEri.LA CONBU..T9'11i 4 -numt TMM TRACT t gt n6a 'NWbd --#30Gq _ WALNUT CReEK,CALIPORNIA � r n ! s op fro oil ra �► -�� t mri� �f Turpoil r i"` aspo-rwrnt t MAW CM . mmmm t m r> 1ih z � � �i of j w 4 Emma `'w ',. 22!M # raww sq p StE 614Yr zm hEYJE3.A CCgBTIfi6 i ur ia- rAW t 2 WK Ae EOA110NS A mmu-FL mF moe lWtait bac Cava r a+gw`Y Sam M a a�AraAtAec vara A.�' From A. K4JTS-r1N SUBSURFACE= ENG, PHONE No. 41-1-' '8 2 7414 No".13 2001 5 57,PK ' P01 ARTHUR T. NUT N i SUBST V 26 Am 4 TAMDEPT. A B+CA'tii5 , NOVATO,oAur-oFv41A94940-itib FHX 9837C.L1 0NOVEMBER 19,2001 MORGAN CAPITAL INVESTMENT PR4JrPEWIrITS - THREE HARBOR SUITE 303 SAUSALITO,CA 94965:r 2943: &TTN'-.I.TNDA ALPS RE: ICING ROAD SUBDIVISION,WALNUT CR R, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SURDWISIGN 7267-LOTS Pr IU& 11, RILLSIDE TERRACE TRACT GEOTHCHNICAL OPINION. DEAR LINDA: Rased on my July 17, 1949 repute T ain submitiing my writum opin- ion IA)ts a0 & I I as shown on the Map of Hillside Tcrrnrx Tract Portion of the Raizho Sari Ramon and Portion of the Northwest Ito of Section 4,TI 5, R 2 W Mount Disbltr Base and Meridian,ContraCosta County, California. MRKEE Review of July 17, 1999'Report and current construction of the roadway improvernents on King give. N' OITLO] A cess.atpreseatisover arzurtpuvcdoxtensi nofKingDrive. Tlmsttisdown hill beyond the sabc3 vision at the North East.corner bolow King!)rive. Tire lots slope Wxply from the road from 2-112:1 to 1-112:1 with xmpa orhuminacky and irregular suggestive of o►d slide deposits and possible creeping bails.. c,vm A. KNU7SGN:SUBGLR=ACE ENG. PHONE Na. 415 e9el 7414 Nov.19 23G 2 5.54A 1 i321 c Tt=v an nes nnaJ r drainago r-OUr ek or streams that crc►,S the site. C�IC?LC1GY ANDS - i'heget�lou of the area has bmadisc sled in the 1979Hillel}'andt reporCetntl' data from my site ret;onna ssance confirms the site mapping which show Briones forina- tion. The Tis-Iones ShaIG gollerally cDn5jsts of e*:trc cly close spaced f�ract�ire€�;pla iic to tri able,esti hi l>ty wcatliered w�hcrc cxpused, '11-1c.t��aterial tends to erode arn1 sl yagh at relatively gentle slopes. The&oilsoverlyingthebedrookunitconsistoffill,topsails,colluviumzedresid 6 soil.'rill materials wore observed along the vvxboa.rd edges of the ex sting roadway. The fills consist of loosc to medlurn dense clay=ey sands to silty rocky clay. Topsoil rAmhting of silly sands to silty clays were found across the iite fro 2 to 6 t'cx:t in depth below the ground surface. Collin W imaterial is a gradual accurt uiation of worthc ud rook and soil transported downhill by Smvity,, 'l'h SC sods arc-prone to continued downhill credit. The Colluvial soils consist of clayey rack to silty rocky clay and wereloose&nt very moist iuMitisarea. Soils derivedforamtbaBr onesshaletendto type ga�ndy clay4. The clay content,may be,moderately expansive_ IJ�i.T+ili3�LliTl As she%m on Site Plan Diagram l of the July 17, 19.99 Report a slide exists on lot 10 and 7l, -r•om A. 104UTSal SUBSLPFACE GNG. PHONE NO. 41S 6'932 -7414 NOV. 13 2001 5 54PM P03 ��AJf" IT�T�►NS Raced upon the resttlte Of MY 1999 subsurface investigation, from a feztechnical standpoint , it is any prufe Rifmxl c0nioit that the proposed Rite-9 arc witablo for Qonfitruet on of 2 houses providW thst tile, recommendations presctjted in this report anti the 1999 report are incorporated into the design and anristruction of the pro,.ct. It is xct.onYme+ndcd that further t ypltlratioll by test bnrings or test:pits are made In the Arca of the proposed conrd-1,uction with detailed reeoinmendations for remedial work and foundation made based on tic findings. The:main geow-linicttl considaritions I have previously identified at the,:site are: 1. 7110 l:rescncc of colluvial and old'landOme deft aitc within the area; 2. The possible preset= of creeping sails on slopes steeper than 5:1. 3. The pmetioe of swelling soils at the site. In any profe clonal opinion the current slide area mtls�t he rebuilt as a trtttresrfill with benching into sound bedrock, an adequate bottom keyway, fullback- drainage and compaction to 90% of TAboratory'Density F+tx Modified A511110. The slide area has been'repaired within the King Drive fill, however the reminder'within Lots 10 and Il ary to be repaired prior to house construction. The preserve ofweal;soilsrecluiret that any arcate receive fill mij%i have a start- ing k9yway,fxdl back-drainage and benching Into sound inamrial undcr the di rection of the Geoteclinicallingineer. The depth ufkeywaywill bedependent onthe depth ofthe 3 From : A. V.NU'-MN 9-IESPt:E Ems. PHOt>!E No.. 11-5 OTO 7414 Na,--.19 203: 15:55RII PO4 eeticlefcr Lliticd. Aftcrtl�ecompletionofthe resionit It1c}pe�sedJill v�h chhtasttotyetlZan the.fills should besL3I.etewidsuitablcfor devL.tc>ptzaOntSubbjct-ttoreviewaiv 91)igrOve1'01' a qucifified Geotechnical En inear If any cuts an proposed they must be 2:1 or flatter with a V ditch or svWmin above. GRAD Cut and fill slopwq must be 2:1:or fritter unless the slope is re infotved pez'tiae�ec+techn nical Engineers re;,.ominendatlon. The fills over 10 feet doop must be rsvmpa ted to 95 of Y,ah��ratory ,dcukly After slopes arefinished the must be hydra-seeded with appropriate eru5ivn control-grasses, All grading shall be.in compliance with Knutsnr.St atidrrd Specirications the Uniform Building Cade and good Ictal ccomttvction practice. Foundation requirements ;will be:recommended after t;U ple vn of the fills,and further exploration since the quality cif fill cannot be dcurtuitted at this time, 4 Srcrn Vit, k.NUTSON SUBEURFqCE E43. PPL-HS No. 41 892 -7,4114 NOV 1 6�M P�5 The womwndudons oftlris report.ars based on the assumtrtion tttattile sail coedit inms do not deviate from those disclosed In the probes;If uny variations oruMe sirable wa itions we encountered clueing construe,Jolt,or if the proposed cooz.mcti u wilt differ f om that planned at present bale;,circ Cootachn cal Engineer chould be MAW so ftl suphlemenuiry recommmidations can be ,given'. It has been a pleasure tv 3 have gwstions please call me nr any 91 time.. Very truly yours, Vic: EXR I?1311 TEO ARTHUR T. iii l t� Civil En €uwr - .12 GCOItchn c eer-GEt 00419 RegSstx°a tions Exp re 12/31104 w T .. (J w 159 LF CID s+r un N°VATO4 CALTsoty Y S ues URFACe (41 ` IN �` t 414 lommunity Contra Dennis t Berry, pme �� Community deve}opment director Costa )epartment ou � aunty Administration Building 51 Pine Street h Floor, North Irving f artinez,California 94553-0095 ione: (925) 335-1204 December 5, 2001 Melinda Moreno 140 El Dorado Road Walnut Creek, CA 94595 RE: Survey on lot s 10 and 11 of Ding Drive Dear Ms. Moreno: I have tried to call you over the past week, but there appears to be a problem with your phone line, so I thought I would write to you instead. As we discussed several weeks ago, you had concerns with the location of surrey stakes placed to identify the rear property line of the lots above you on King Drive. In response to your concerns, the project engineer, Ed Revilla, met with the County Surveyor, Ray Zwernmer. At that meeting, Mr. Revilla Indicated that the surveyor he had hired from Terra Firma had used the two established monuments in the vicinity, one on Upper Golden Rain Drive, and the other on Olympic Boulevard to establish property corners by accepted surveying methods. In our earlier conversation,you indicated that you had received a plan when you purchased your property which indicates the location of the property lines and the house which differ from where the stakes have been placed. I requested a copy of this plan to pass on to Mr. Zemmer for review. I did not receive a copy of this plan to forward. The hearing for the tree permit is tentatively scheduled before the County Planning Commission for Tuesday, January B, 2€302. I would like to be able to have a determination from the County Surveyor to bring to the Planning Commission about the property lime, and would like to again request a copy of the plan if it is possible to make a copy. To date, l have no information that would dispute the accuracy of the applicant's survey or plans. Prior to a foundation inspection for the new residences, the applicant is required to have a survey of the property lines and the corners of the new residence for review by the County Building Inspector. If you have a dispute with the property line location after the County has made a determination that it is accurate, you would need to pursue your claire as a civil matter and by hiring your own surveyor, Office Hours Monday- Friday: B:00 a.m. 5:oo p.m. Office is chr pri'thp, I zt 4rH R rth of Ms. Melinda Moreno, December 6, 2001 Page 2 i hope this information will be helpful to you. l look forward to hearing from you and hope that you can provide me with a copy of the plan we discussed. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me at (925) 335-1204. Sincerely, 01 Michael P. Laughlin, Project Planner Cc: Susan McShannock Heather Ballenger, Public Works Department Jeffrey Batt, Silverhawk and Company Inc. Ray Zwemmer, County Surveyor Ed Revilla, Project Engineer Mpf C:mydoCM=*aarfthg ddvMkd survey R1