Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03012005 - D.5 TO. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra r i FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY AICD : :.n� r� -. Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR �Q:;��a _r .;.� County zr�`rouK"� DATE: March 1, 2005 SUBJECT: Hearing on an Appeal by Lionsgate Development Corporation on a County Planning Commission Approval of a Tentative Map Application for Three Parcels at#2501 Warren Road in the Walnut Creek/Saranap area. County File#MS030015 (Lionsgate Dev. Corp. -a Ap. & Owner) (Sup. Dist. 11) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Motion to: A. DENY the appeal of Lionsgate Development Corporation; B. ADOPT the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and related findings contained in the County Planning Commission Resolution #6-2005 for purposes of determining this project's compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED OTHERN V E OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT��� '.�--- CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Ruben Hernandez [(925)335-1339] ATTESTED cc: Lionsgate Development Corporation JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF DeBolt Civil Engineering SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Community Development Dept. Public Works Dept. Building Inspection Dept. BY EPUTY County Counsel March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS030015 (Lionsgate Dev.) Page 2 C. ADOPT the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program. D. SUSTAIN the County Planning Commission approval of the Tentative Subdivision map application for three parcels as conditioned. E. ADOPT the findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution #6-2005 (general plan consistency, exception to subdivision ordinance standards, variance) as the basis for approval of this project. F. DIRECT staff to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. 11. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The applicant is responsible for all staff time and material costs in the processing of this application. Ill. BACKGROUND The applicant is attempting to subdivide a 39,000+ square foot {0.91-acre) property into three parcels. He filed a tentative map application with the Community Development Department on May 20, 2003. The site contains one existing residence that is proposed to remain. The proposal would create two vacant parcels in addition to a parcel that would contain the existing residence. The property is located at the southeast corner of Boulevard Way and Warren Road, in the Walnut Creek/Saranap area. The site also lies alongside Las Trampas Creek. The General Plan designates virtually all of the site Single Family Residential — Medium Density (3.0 —4.9 units per net acre); the extreme southeast corner of the site, closest to Las Trampas Creek, is designated Open Space. The site is zoned Single Family Residential, R-10. The proposed division would create parcels that comply with the minimum parcel dimension requirements of the zoning district. The proposed number of parcels also falls within the density range of the general plan designation. There are a number of mature trees on the site. As part of this entitlement action,the Planning Commission authorized the removal of eight (8)trees,the largest of which is a multi-stemmed Valley Oak. Other trees authorized for removal include trees that an arborist report has determined to be dead. The approval also proposes to allow work within the dripline of other trees on the property including an oak tree with a 50-inch trunk diameter. A. Environmental Review For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),staff conducted an initial study on the proposed project to determine if it would result in any significant impacts to the environment. Based on that study, staff concluded that the project could result in significant adverse impacts to geologic conditions, biotic resources, and cultural resources. Still, staff identified measures that would reduce the identified impacts to a less than significant level. The applicant agreed to include those measures in his project. Consequently, for purposes of this project's compliance with CEQA, staff proposed the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. On December 29, 2003, staff posted and otherwise noticed, a proposed Notice of Intent ADDENDUM D.5 March 1, 2005 On this day, the Board considered an appeal filed by the Lionsgate Development Corporation(Applicant and owner)of the County Planning Commission decision to approve a tentative subdivision map (MS030015), subject to conditions,to divide a 0.91 acre property into three lots located at 2501 Warren Road in the Walnut Creek/Saranap area. Staff reports were presented by Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Department,, Advance Planning, and Eric Whan of Public Works. The Community Development Department requested a modification to the recommended action of today; assuming that the Board concurs with the staff recommendation and with the handling of this application by the County Planning Commission. Community Development requested that the Board declare its intent to deny the appeal and to sustain the County Planning Commission's approval subject to the conditions as approved by the CPC, and continue the matter as an open public hearing to April 5, 1005 to allow staff the opportunity to come back to with findings to support that decision. After hearing from the appellant, Kenneth Barker, Lionsgate Development Corporation,the Chair called for public comment. The following persons presented testimony: Barton Simmons, 10 Boulevard Court, Walnut Creek; Lisa Ryan, 1430 Boulevard Way, Walnut Creek. The Board heard rebuttal from the appellant, and returned the matter to the Board for discussion. Supervisor Uilkema inquired of staff the amount of outstanding fees. Staff estimates the minimum amount to be $65,0001 and noted that the required filing fees have been collected, and that the appeal contains disagreements with other fees charged. Staff further notes that even should the Board find that there is to date no basis to waive or reduce the fees, the applicant is still afforded the ability after project approval to file a claim disputing the fees. Further discussion clarified that while Lionsgate is the owner and applicant,the property would be developed by Farr West Construction Company. Having considered the matter and hearing from all those who desired to speak,the Board took the following actions by unanimous vote: 1. CONTINUED to April 5,, 2005 the open hearing; 2. DECLARED the Board's intent to deny the appeal and sustain the County Planning Commission's approval of the tentative map applications for three parcels as conditioned; 3. and DIRECTED staffto prepare the modified project findings for Board consideration and adoption . March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS030015 (Lionsgate Dev.) Page 4 C. Application of Creek Structure Setback Line to Development The applicant had indicated on a revised site plan where he understood the ordinance specified the structure setback line to be located on this site. That delineation was based on the applicant's interpretation of the ordinance that Las Trampas Creek is "improved." However, staff did not agree with the applicant's premise that Las Trampas Creek adjacent to this site is improved. Staff determined that the adjoining section of Las Trampas Creek is unimproved for purposes of determining compliance with this provision of the ordinance, and therefore subject to a greater structure setback than had been portrayed by the applicant on the revised tentative map. Further, staff determined that the structure setback line intruded to a far greater extent onto the,site such that virtually all of one parcel (Parcel "C") lay within the structure setback area. At that time, the applicant also was not seeking any exception to the subdivision ordinance standards, including the structure setback standards. Because of the extent of the ordinance-directed limitations on development of one of the proposed parcels, staff recommended that only two parcels be approved. D. Zoning Administrator Hearing and Decision The Zoning Administrator conducted a hearing on this project on April 19, 2004. The applicant,the owners of adjoining properties, and the Saranap Homeowners Association provided evidence and testimony on the project. After taking testimony, the Zoning Administrator indicated that he concurred with the staff recommendation and approved the project for two parcels only, subject to conditions. E. Applicant Appeal of Zoning_Administrator Decision, The applicant timely filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator decision. He was the only party to file an appeal on the matter. The appeal objected to the Zoning Administrator's reduction in the number of parcels that the applicant had proposed. He also objected to other substantive aspects of the Zoning Administrator decision, and the procedures that staff had followed. March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS030015(Lionsgate Dev.) Page 5 F. County Planning Commission Hearing on, and Denial of, Applicant's Appeal The County Planning Commission initially heard the applicant's appeal on July 13, 2004. The staff review of the appeal concluded that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support the number of parcels proposed by the applicant; consequently staff recommended that the Planning Commission sustain the Zoning Administrator approval for two parcels only. At the hearing, the applicant indicated that there was additional information that was not included in the staff report that he indicated should be presented to the Planning Commission. After taking testimony, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to allow for receipt and review of additional documents. The Planning Commission resumed the hearing on August 24,2005. After taking testimony, the Planning Commission was not satisfied that development of the site would be safe, and voted 5-1 to deny the application without prejudice (Mehl ma n/Terrell m/s/c; Battaglia — dissenting). G. Reconsideration Request by Appellant Following the Planning Commission denial, the applicant filed a motion for the Planning Commission to reconsider its denial action. The applicant indicated that he was willing to provide the Public Works Department with information it was seeking to better evaluate the merits of his project. On September 14, 2005,the Planning Commission unanimously voted to grant the reconsideration request, and to allow the matter to be scheduled for hearing. H. Proposed Intermittent Creekside Retaining Wall and Planninq Commission Reconsideration of Denial Decision The Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the applicant's reconsideration request on January 25, 2005. Staff reported that the applicant had proposed the construction of a buried retaining (caisson)wall. The proposal provides for an intermittent retaining wall intended to stabilize the development site immediately adjacent to the creek. The preliminary plans indicate that the wall would be supported by 18-inch cast-in-place I-beam steel piers and cement placed at six-foot intervals, with an overall length of approximately 92-feet. The staff review indicated that the retaining wall improvement alone was not sufficient to grant an entitlement or reduce the creek structure setback area. Additional supporting submittals such as technical data, studies, calculations and engineering analysis would be required as part of the applicant's compliance with the subdivision permit. March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS030015 (Lionsgate Dev.) Page 6 The wall would also encroach within the required side and rear yards of two of the proposed parcels. Consequently, the legal notice for the new Planning Commission hearing noted that the revised project would require the granting of variances to those yard requirements. However, based on this proposal and modified conditions of approval, staff determined that the requisite legal findings could be made for the revised project and recommended its approval for three parcels. After taking testimony, some Commissioners still had misgivings about the feasibility of the proposal, however a majority supported the project and voted to approve the application generally as recommended by staff. (5 — 2-1 Terrell/Battaglia m/s/c; Clark& Gaddis Dissenting) In approving the project,the Planning Commission made some modifications to address Commission concerns. • Payment of Application Fees - The applicant must satisfy any application processing fee obligation that applied to this project as of the date of the Planning Commission hearing; consequently, the Planning Commission added text to the recommended conditions that would prohibit any construction activities until all fees due and owed as of January 25, 2005 are paid in full and such payment is certified to the County Planning Commission. (Ref. to COA #2) • Verification of Pro-per Depth of Proposed Pier Holes for Creekside Retainin Wall—The Commission added language to the recommended conditions to require that during the drilling of the pier holes for the proposed wall, a technician authorized by a licensed soil engineer be present to ensure that the pier holes are sufficiently deep for their purposes. Also,the soil engineer must certify that the holes are deep enough for their purpose, and the material inserted into the holes is properly installed. (Ref. to COA#53) • Compliance with Bridqe/Thorouqhfare Fee Ordinance Reguirements — The Planning Commission added an Advisory Note on the applicant's obligation to comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirement prior to issuance of a building permit for residential structures. (Ref.to Advisory Note IIHYY) 1. Applicant's Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval In a letter dated February 3, 2005, the applicant appealed the County Planning Commission conditional approval of the project. The appeal raises nine (9) appeal points covering a range of subjects. The appeal points are described in more detail below, but in brief, the Appellant: March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS030015(Lionsgate Dev.) Page 7 • Objects to Subdivision Ordinance requirements that may be interpreted to require that the subdivider be responsible for handling upstream storm water runoff on his property; • Objects to the County determination that Las Trampas Creek is an unimproved channel, and therefore subject to more restrictive ordinance- specified structure setback requirements; • Questions the staff charges in the administration of drainage and structure setback requirements as apply to this project; • Objects to Condition #3 that requires the applicant to indemnify the County from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of this project by the County; • Objects to required frontage improvements along both Boulevard Way and Warren Road; • Objects to the County requirement to provide a Statement of Obligation in the form of a deed notification with respect to off-site drainage requirements,and Boulevard Way frontage improvement requirements; • Objects to the requirement to Grant Deed Development Rights to the County within the area of the (reduced) structure setback area; and • Objects to the County requirement to record a Statement of Obligation to have Lionsgate and future property owners hold harmless the County and Flood Control District for the exception to the creek structure setback that was requested and granted. In a letter dated February 22, 2005, the applicant also indicates concerns with the processing of his application that he intends to raise in his testimony to the Board of Supervisors. No other appeals of the Planning Commission decision were filed. IV. REVIEW OF APPEAL POINTS The appeal points are summarized below together with staff' responses to those points: Item No. 1 County Storm Drain System.—Summary ofAppeal Point-Pursuant to County Ordinance Code Section 914-14.020"Private Drainage Systems,"Lionsgate shall only be responsible for the disposal of storm water run off generated on the property from "...slope intercept ditches., yard drains and other similar drainage systems. all as mandated by the said County Ordinance Code. Lionsgate does not accept any condition that makes Lionsgate responsible for handling, changing►, or paying for, the County's existing storm drain system that March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS030015(Lionsgate Dev.) Page 8 presently transports redirected, and concentrated, off site storm water flows across the site from up to a quarter of a mile away. The County's existing storm drain system across the subject property constitutes the seizure of Lionsgate's private property for public use, without just compensation. This is violation of the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of California, and therefore, constitutes inverse condemnation. Accordingly, Lionsgate will not accept any condition that interferes with its rights to recover all costs and damages flowing from this matter. Staff Response -The storm drain system that traverses the project site,from the road right of way near the back of the junction box at the corner of Warren Road and Boulevard Way to its outfall into Las Trampas Creek, is considered to be a privately owned and maintained system. Staff has researched County records and found no evidence that the County ever installed the pipe across the property. There are no public drainage easements or rights of way on the project parcel. The appellant's property is at the downstream end of a small watershed and therefore receives water from upstream properties within that watershed. The County is just one of the property owners within this watershed. The County is responsible for collecting storm water that enters or originates on its property and conveying it onto the next property downstream. The County only maintains those storm drains that lie within County road rights of way or within some other public land right (i.e. easement). Water that enters, then leaves a public road right of way as it flows down through a watershed does not automatically make the water"public"and therefore the responsibility of the local public agency. The only way the storm drain system across the minor subdivision property could become a public drainage system is if the County were to exert control over the system and assume responsibility for maintaining it. The County has not maintained the system across the appellant's property nor does the County desire to do so. The appellant claims that this is a taking by a public agency is incorrect. As a condition of the subdivision, Section 914-2.002(b)of Title 9 of the Ordinance Code requires the applicant to collect and convey storm water originating within the subdivision as well as storm water flowing into and/or through the subdivision. Item No. 2 County Ordinance for Creek Set Backs.—.Summary of Appeal Point - The County failed to comply with County Ordinance Section 914-14.006 for improved: "(1) Earth-lined and Rock-lined Channels"and"(2) Concrete-lined Channels"for determining the easement width from the top of the creek bank. The County erroneously asserted that the greatly improved adjacent channel section of Las Trampas Creek, was unimproved, and therefore, Ordinance Code March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS030015(Lionsgate Dev.) Page 9 Section 914-14.010 for "unimproved channels" applied. In fact, the adjacent creek channel section had been greatly improved via County approved plans and construction permits, and the County knew it, but concealed this information. In compromise, and without prejudice, in order to mitigate the ongoing delays and damages, Lionsgate proposed installing even further creek channel improvements, via a soldier pile retaining wall at the top of the creek slope. The added creek slope protection is not required by the County Ordinance Code, nor by any creek bank soillstability consideration. The County has now accepted Lionsgate's proposal and has approved the requested three (3) lot minor subdivision application. Therefore, Lionsgate does not accept any condition that changes the County Ordinance Code Section 914-14.006 for computation of the easement width, nor any condition that changes Ordinance Code Section 1010-6.014 that defines an "improved Channel". Additionally, Lionsgate does not accept any condition that restricts its right to recover its damages from this matter. Staff Response -The Public Works Department has consistently maintained the position that the creek structure setback line as depicted on the Tentative Map and as requested by the appellant is not correct based on the topography shown and existing site conditions. The appellant's desired setback line is based on the fact that there is an existing soldier pile wall along a portion of Las Trampas Creek. The appellant further argues that this places the creek into the classification of an improved channel. The appellant claims that this is an improved channel and, as such, should be subject to the easement requirements specified in the Ordinance Code for open channels. The appellant contends that Las Trampas Creek should be considered an improved channel due to the fact that the former owners of the Looney property, located immediately to the east, constructed a soldier pile wall within and along their side of the creek to provide a measure of protection against erosion the creek bank was experiencing at this location. The appellant feels that based on his own interpretation of the definition of an improved channel provided in Title 10 of County Code and because of the existence of the wall, there is no longer a need to implement the creek structure setback requirements. Public Works has maintained throughout the review of this application that even though measures have been taken to stabilize a portion of one of the creek banks,the remainder of the creek at this location is still in a natural, unimproved state. The creek bed as well as the banks upstream, downstream and across the creek from the wall, and possibly the wall itself, are subject to the influence of flows within Las Trampas Creek. March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS030015(Lionsgate Dev.) Page 10 The appellant contends that the portion of Las Trampas Creek in question falls under the definition of an improved channel as defined in Title 10. Section 1010- 6.014 states"Improved channel"means a watercourse which has been modified through man-made construction including (but not limited to) increasing its width and/or depth, straightening its alignment, or stabilizing its banks through grading, concrete, riprap or other means. Public Works interprets this to mean that an improved channel is either man-made or a natural channel that has been studied and undergone significant improvements such that the entire channel will adequately convey the design flow and is not subject to the erosive forces that are typically experienced in a natural, unimproved creek. Also, improved channels typically have an access road on one or both sides to allow for inspection and maintenance, as necessary, to insure their desired function. The lower stretch of Walnut Creek is an example of an improved channel. This portion of Las Trampas Creek is privately owned and not maintained by the County or other public or private organized entity (i.e. HOA, GHAD). In the case of Las Trampas Creek,the Ordinance Code specifies the design flow to be a 50- year event with additional freeboard and a 100-year event without freeboard. Title 10, Section 1010-6.026, defines an unimproved channel as a watercourse,which has been left as much as possible in its natural state. Construction of the soldier pile wall, such as was done at this location, is an isolated erosion control project and does not automatically classify this segment of creek as an improved channel as contested by the appellant. The wall only protects a small portion of the northwest bank, not the entire creek channel which remains substantially in a natural state. The County authorizes these types of projects at locations where it is appropriate and consistent with the surrounding conditions, but not necessarily in a location that will contain a 100-year storm event. Because of the existing site conditions (deep channel, steep bank) at this location, the creek structure setback line has a sizable encroachment into the property. The setback line as calculated by Public Works using the method specified in the Ordinance Code, determined that the line encumbered almost all of proposed Parcel C and about half of Parcel B.The intent of the creek structure setback requirement is to insure that future structures on the parcels within this development are protected from the natural forces that influence Las Trampas Creek. The Ordinance Code does allow an applicant to request consideration of an exception(s)to requirements stated in the code. However,three findings must be met before any exception can be granted by the County: 1) That there are unusual circumstances or conditions affecting the property;2)That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the applicant; 3)That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS030015(Lionsgate Dev.) Page 11 The possibility of considering an exception to the creek structure setback requirement was explained to the appellant in a revised staff report dated September 8, 2003 to the planner and copied to the appellant and as well as in a meeting with the appellant, Community Development, Flood Control and Public Works on September 30, 2003 and again on October 9, 2003. It was pointed out that the creek structure setback line, as depicted by the appellant's engineer on the Tentative Map, was incorrect and if the appellant desired a setback line that was less restrictive, such as was proposed by the appellant on the Tentative Map, then he must provide the necessary supporting studies and analysis to justify the exception to the Code requirement. The appellant indicated that he felt the line should be less restrictive because the creek bank and existing soldier wall were stable. It was explained to the appellant that it is his obligation to adequately demonstrate that his proposed, less restrictive setback line, was reasonable. At the meeting on October 9, 2003, Public Works asked for a detailed geotechnical analysis of the soil as well as a hydrology and hydraulic study to determine if the creek bank is stable and non-erosive with respect to anticipated creek flows. The applicant agreed at the meeting to provide the requested information. Public Works agreed to research department files to determine what information existed regarding construction of the soldier pile wall. It was at this time that the Flood Control Division of Public Works began their file search. The documents were located, copied and placed into Engineering Services files on October 29, 2003 where they have been available for review. Following the October 9, 2003 meeting, the applicant provided an additional geotechnical report dated February 11, 2004, supplementing an earlier report for the overall site dated September 23, 2003. A bank stability analysis was submitted on February 17, 2004 along with a calculation of the 100-year water surface within Las Trampas Creek dated October 8, 2003. The conclusions of the applicant's geotechnical engineer state that the creek bank is stable. However, these reports provided general conclusions based on site reconnaissance, logging of four exploratory borings and limited laboratory testing. None of the documents provided discussed the relationship between anticipated creek flows and velocities and their effect, if any, on the stability of the soldier pile wall, and the erodibility and stability of the creek bank upstream, downstream and above the wall. Public Works asked on numerous occasions for the additional information regarding the relationship between the creek and overall bank stability but the applicant was not forthcoming with the requested information needed for staff's analysis. The applicant repeatedly challenged the Department's position on the unimproved vs. improved condition of the creek and, in his opinion, felt that it was unreasonable for the County to be asking him to submit additional information, especially after his engineer had determined that the creek banks were stable. Public Works supported the County's consulting geologist recommendation to have the applicant submit a final geotechnical report meeting the requirements of Title 9, Section 94-4.420. The Public Works Department, which is tasked with implementation of the creek structure setback March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS030015(Lionsgate Dev.) Page 12 requirement, must insure that information provided by the applicant is complete and contains sufficient detail before it can recommend any proposed modification to the creek structure setback line to the hearing body. The burden of proof was with the applicant. Public Works recommended that the structure setback line be adhered to per the Ordinance Code unless appropriate backup analysis was provided indicating the creek bank and wall are stable and not subject to the influences of Las Trampas Creek. On July 13, 2004, the applicant's appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a two parcel Tentative Parcel Map was brought before the County Planning Commission. The Commission took testimony and continued the item to August 24, 2004. After further testimony and deliberation the Commission denied the project without prejudice. The applicant subsequently requested a meeting with Public Works Department staff on August 26,2004 to discuss outstanding issues relevant to the project. At that meeting,the appellant expressed concern about creek bank geotechnical and stability considerations as well as site drainage. Public Works reiterated its long-standing position that due to the proximity of Las Trampas Creek to the property and the significant encroachment of the creek structure setback line, consideration of three parcels at this site would require the appellant to pursue an exception to the creek structure setback requirements. To pursue this course of action, the applicant would have to either appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors or submit a Request for Reconsideration before the Commission based on the premise that an exception to the creek structure setback requirements would be requested.With either course of action, the appellant would have to provide supporting information such that findings could be made to allow an exception. Public Works restated its desire for the applicant to submit a detailed hydraulic analysis that evaluated and determined the level of erosive force Las Trampas Creek would have on its bed, bank and the existing soldier pile wall in order to determine the overall stability of the creek bank. Based on that information, a determination could be made as to a possible modification of the creek structure setback line.The appellant was not in favor of providing the information. During the meeting the appellant proposed a concept for construction of an intermittent retaining wall along the top of bank to stabilize the development site immediately adjacent to the creek thereby allowing a reduction in the creek structure setback line. Public Works agreed that the idea had merit and requested that a sketch plan of the concept be submitted. The applicant proceeded with filing a Request for Reconsideration with the Community Development Department that afternoon. On September 8, 2004 the appellant submitted a Conceptual Improvement Plan for consideration by County staff. A Request for Reconsideration was scheduled before the Commission on September 14, 2004 and subsequently granted. County staff met with the appellant on September 16, 2004 to discuss the merits March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS030015 (Lionsgate Dev.) Page 13 of the submitted proposal. Numerous issues were discussed and additional requests for information were provided to the appellant at the meeting and in follow-up letters from Public Works and Darwin Myers, County Consulting Geologist on September 21, 2004 and September 22, 2004 respectively. In its letter to the appellant, Public Works agreed that the Ordinance Code requirement for determining the creek structure setback that is based on the design storm water surface elevation in Las Trampas Creek would not have to be considered. This is due to the fact that the opposite bank is significantly lower than the adjacent bank.The appellant would only be required to consider the 2.5 to 1 slope method as defined in the Code. The appellant was asked to provide a detailed proposal of the intermittent retaining wall, prepared by a registered engineer that assumes a"worst-case"scenario of a complete bank failure on the creek side of the proposed intermittent retaining wall. The failure would occur along a hypothetical 2.5 to 1 failure plane beginning at the toe of the existing soldier pile wall in the creek and extending up to the face of the intermittent retaining wall. This situation would cause the structure to act as a retaining wall. To support the soil loads behind the exposed wall,the piers would have to extend a sufficient distance below the 2.5 to 1 failure plane. The applicant agreed to provide the requested information for staff's review. Additional supporting information was submitted for consideration(date stamped received) on October 7, 2004 and forwarded to Community Development and Flood Control for review and comment. Public Works staff reviewed the supplemental information and discussed it with each of the reviewing agencies as well as the Building Inspection Department. While the documentation submitted by the appellant provided additional information relative to the design of the proposed structure, it did not answer all concerns initially raised by staff nor did it guarantee the granting of any entitlement or the approval of a reduced creek structure setback. Even with the approval by the Commission and the granting of an exception for the reduced creek structure setback, additional submittals such as technical data, studies, calculations and engineering analysis are be required as part of the applicant's compliance with the conditions of approval. Public Works issues that must still be addressed during condition of approval compliance include an understanding of the relationship between the proposed intermittent retaining wall and the hypothetical 2.5 to 1 failure plane.Assuming a complete failure of the creek bank along this plane {"worst-case scenario"), the piers would have to support the remaining soil load behind the wall thereby requiring the piers to extend below the failure plane a sufficient distance. The appellant's engineer had assumed a pier depth of 20-feet with no correlation between the depth of piers and the location of the failure plane. An alternative approach might be considered whereby the deeper underlying soils are assumed to be competent sandstone and the bank would not necessarily "fail" along the failure plane from the toe of bank to the intermittent retaining wall. Soil failure March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS030015 (Lionsgate Dev.) Page 14 could be assumed to occur along the hypothetical 2.5 to 1 plane up to a point where competent sandstone is reached and then would follow the top of this layer up to the intermittent retaining wall. The depth of overburden material on top of the sandstone and behind the piers would determine the required pier depth into competent sandstone thereby potentially eliminating the need to consider the depth of piers below the 2.5 to 1 failure plane. This assumption hinges on the soil characterization of the site: depth of overburden; depth to competent sandstone; location of sandstone layer beyond the intermittent retaining wall towards the creek. Additional fieldwork would be required to make this determination if this assumption is used. A Building Permit would be required for the intermittent retaining wall. Before a permit could be issued, certain requirements must be satisfied. Some of which include, but are not limited to, demonstrating a safety factor of 1.5 or greater, determining appropriate pier spacing such that the soil supported by the intermittent retaining wall can act as"lagging"between piers, and determining the distance to which the intermittent retaining wall should extend onto Parcel B. Additional soil profiles along the alignment of the wall will be required. Submittals will also be subject to a peer review by an independent soil engineer. Item No. 3 County Billing for Staff Time for MS 03-0015— Summa!y of Appeal Point— Pursuant to the County Ordinance Code, Lionsgate is responsible for payment of County staff time, that was reasonably expended on MS03-0015. Lionsgate has no quarrel with requirement,, and is prepared to pay for all valid County costs. Lionsgate, however, is not responsible for the County's staff costs incurred by the County's conduct as described in Items I and 2 (above). Accordingly, Lionsgate does not accept any condition that requires it to pay invalid County staff time costs. Staff Response — Consistent with the fee schedule adopted by the Board of Supervisors, Condition #2 (as modified) requires the applicant to pay staff time and material charges in the processing of the current application within 60 days of the permit effective date, or prior to use of the permit, whichever occurs first. Staff is willing to consider reasonable and timely filed claims from the appellant supported by appropriate documentation on why staff charges to this project may not have been appropriate. However, this appeal provides no substantial evidence for relieving the applicant of any charges made by the County in the review of this project. Accordingly, staff is not able to support any relief from fee charges based on the existing alleged claim by the Appellant. However, even if the Board of Supervisors were to agree with staff and to deny this appeal point, the Appellant would still have the right to file a Fee Protest March 1,2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS030015(Lionsgate Dev.) Page 15 under Government Code Section 66020 (Mitigation Fee Act)within 90 days of a conditional approval of this project by the Board of Supervisors.' For a Fee Protest of fees authorized by approval of this subdivision to be valid, the submittal must satisfy both of the following requirements. (1) Tendering any required payment in full or providing satisfactory evidence of arrangements to pay the fee when due or ensure performance of the conditions necessary to meet the requirements of the imposition. (2) Serving written notice on the Board of Supervisors,which notice shall contain all of the following information: a. A statement that the required payment is tendered or will be tendered when due, or that any conditions which have been imposed are provided for or satisfied, under protest. b. A statement informing the Board of Supervisors of the factual elements of the dispute and the legal theory forming the basis for the protest. Item No. 4 County Requirement for Indemnification by Lionsgate-'Summa!Y ofAD.0eal Point–Section (CCA?) 3 of the draft conditions of approval requires Lionsgate to indemnify the County for certain claims against the County pertaining to the approval of MS 03-0015. Lionsgate. will indemnify the County for valid claims against it. However, Lionsgate, Lionsgate does not accept any indemnification condition that interferes with Lionc iate's right to recover its damages from the County for all items contained in %0 this appeal. Staff-Response- Government Code Section 66474.9 authorizes the County to impose Condition #3 on the approval of this subdivision. The condition requires the applicant (subdivider) to indemnify the County from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of this subdivision by the County. This provision is intended to protect local agencies from third party actions. It is the staff position that indemnification would ,not apply in the situation described by the Appellant. Accordinglyno modification of the condition is recommended. Item No. 5 Roadway Improvements(Frontage)at Boulevard Way.—summa of W _ppea/ Point - Item No. 25 of the draft conditions of approval requires a 4.5 foot wide side walk., curb, storm water drainage system, underground lighting and other improvements be installed as part of the minor subdivision development. Were the Board to approve this subdivision application on March 1, 2005, then the appellant would have a right to file a Fee Protest with the County as late as Tuesday, May 31, 2005. March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS030015(Lionsgate Dev.) Page 16 Lionsgate objects to this requirement because it is unreasonable, unsafe., and a violation of the County's Master Plan for Boulevard Way. Also, these improvements were not required by the County for the minor subdivision that is located just 150 feet north of this site, and on the same east side of Boulevard Way. Specifically: In 2002 the County approved MS 02-0007,, which is a two (2) lot minor subdivision. It is located just 150 feet north of the site and on the same east side of Boulevard Way. In approving that minor subdivision the County granted a "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for all frontage improvements. Therefore, a similar deferred improvement agreement condition should also apply for MS 03-0015. There are no existing sidewalks within a mile of the site in the unincorporated Saranap area of Walnut Creek. Therefore, the approval condition that Lionsgate construct a short section of unconnected sidewalk on the inside of two curves on the east side of Boulevard Way, would create a highly unsafe condition for any one that used the side walk. County Master Plan No. PA 3851-00 2of 3, is entitled"Boulevard Way--Saranap Ave. to Olympic Blvd." This Master Plan shows the final road alignment for Boulevard Way. The Master Plan shows no sidewalks will ever be installed on the east side of Boulevard Way. Rather, all sidewalks are planned to be located on the west side of Boulevard Way in order to connect the west side sidewalk on the existing Las Trampas Creek Bridge. Lionsgate also objects to the condition that it shall be responsible for handling redirected storm water flows from Boulevard Way and Warren Roads caused by the County's changes in the natural drainage patterns. The asphalt paving on both Boulevard Way and Warren Road, and lack of operable drainage ditches., wrongfully concentrates and diverts storm water flows from their natural drainage pattern. This has caused increased, and accelerated storm flows, onto the subject property. Staff Response - The condition of approval requiring frontage improvements along Boulevard Way is a requirement of the Ordinance Code for new subdivisions that meet certain criteria. Developments within zoning districts of R- 12 or denser are required to provide sidewalk. Also, Boulevard Way is a road of general county importance and is shown as an arterial/thoroughfare on the Major Road Plan of the County General Plan. Boulevard Way also provides circulation for vehicles and pedestrians between the Lafayette area and Saranap/Walnut Creek. Although the proposed Revised Precise Alignment for Boulevard Way, PA3851-00 does not specifically call out sidewalk along either side of Boulevard Way, the community has expressed a desire to see pedestrian facilities along March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS030015 (Lionsgate Dev.) Page 18 appellant expressed concerns about constructing curb and sidewalk and asked for relief from this condition. At the Zoning Administrator hearing, Public Works agreed to allow the appellant to enter into Deferred Improvement Agreement (DIA) for the frontage improvements along Warren Road. By allowing the DIA, the County retains the ability to require frontage improvements at a point in time in the future when infrastructure needs along Warren Road are better defined. The decision as to where a sidewalk is needed along Warren Road has not been determined. The County can "call-up)) at any time all (i.e. curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc.)or just a portion (i.e. curb and gutter only)of the improvements obligated by the DIA. The property owner at the time of "call-up" would be responsible for constructing the specified improvements including any engineering and modifications to the existing driveway necessary to address topography constraints. Item No. 7 Drainage Improvements--Condition No 30. —. Summa!y of Appeal Point - Lionsgate repeats Item Numbers I and 5 (above) for its objections for handling %.W and disposing of off site storm drain waters. Staff Response — As part of the collect and convey requirements for this subdivision, the appellant will be required to install an adequate storm drain system to handle all storm waters originating and/or entering the property. The drainage system on the property will be privately owned and maintained as it currently is. The intent of condition of approval No. 30 is to notice future property owners of their obligation to maintain the storm drain system as it traverses the subdivision. Because of the site's proximity to Las Trampas Creek, the nature of the intermittent retaining wall and the concern about bank stability, parcel drainage will be drained back away from the creek to minimize the potential for erosion to occur at the top of bank along the back property line. Roof drains and surface drainage will be collected in pipes and area drains and carried to the storm drain system that discharge into Las Trampas Creek at the proposed outfall.The deed notification will serve as notice to future owners of the need to maintain existing drainage patterns on each parcel in order to minimize potential erosion and the need to obtain appropriate permit(s) if they do want to make modifications. Item No. 8 Creek Structure setback— Condition No. 42 and 43. — Summary of Appeal Point - Lionsgate repeats Item No. 2 (above) for its obVections for creek set backs. Also, Lionsgate does not agree that it shall relinquish a 20 foot wide section of the site on the basis that agreement on this matter is already recorded in an Easement Agreement between ShawlRyan and the previous property owner. March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS030015(Lionsgate Dev.) Page 19 Staff Response — Refer to staff response for Item No. 2 regarding creek structure setbacks. With respect to condition of approval No. 42, the relinquishment of development rights along the face of the intermittent retaining wall as required by the conditions of approval is completely unrelated to the"20-foot section" referred to in the appeal letter. The "20-foot section" referred to by the appellant is a private easement along the southerly property line of proposed Parcel C of the subdivision and was granted to the Shaw/Ryans by the previous property owner. The 20-foot relinquishment of development rights to the County is an integral part of the overall creek structure setback issue. The Ordinance Code requires that there be a setback distance from a point determined by the intersection of the adjacent creek bank by either the design storm water surface or a hypothetical 2.5 to 1 slope, whichever is greater. The appellant requested an exception to the creek structure setback requirements and proposed an intermittent retaining wall to structurally stabilize the creek bank thereby allowing the setback line to be reduced. The appellant proposed a 20-foot setback from the intermittent retaining wall to provide an additional margin of safety. Staff felt that the distance was reasonable and recommended the relinquishment of development rights as a condition of approval. Condition of approval No. 43 requires Lionsgate to record a Statement of Obligation in the form of a deed notification that states that Lionsgate and future property owners will hold harmless the County and Flood Control District due to the fact that an exception to the creek structure setback was requested and granted.The intent of this condition is to insure that the owner and future owners are aware.that,when constructed,the intermittent retaining wall exists to provide a measure of stability for the property in the event of creek-bank failure or erosion damage due to the creek. This structure will be privately owned and maintained and ultimately will be the responsibility of the property owner(s) in which the wall lies. If, in the future, there is bank failure or erosion that threatens any of the parcels of this subdivision, it is the responsibility of property owners to protect their property. Because this is a privately owned creek and the County has no rights or responsibility to maintain it, the County cannot be held responsible for any bank repairs or maintenance because it granted an exception to the creek structure setback requirements. Item No. 9 Miscellaneous Approval Conditions— y*SummalofAmeal Point— There are a number of miscellaneous approval conditions regarding the wording of several illegible approval condition clauses. Lionsgate plans to resolve these issues via discussions with County staff. Staff Response — At the time of preparation of this staff report, the specific wording concerns of the appellant had not been supplied. Only the Board of RESOLUTION %]ESOLUTION N0. 6-2005 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND COMMISSION ACTION ON THE APPEAL OF LIONSGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ON A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR A TENTATIVE MAP BY LIONSGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (APPLICANT AND OWNER) IN THE WALNUT CREED/SARANAP AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, a request by Lionsgate Development Corporation (Applicant and Owner) to subdivide a 0.91-acre parcel into 3 single family residential parcels in the Walnut Creek/Saranap area was received by the Community Development Department on May 20, 2003 (File#MS030015); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15102 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), County staff conducted an initial study to determine whether the project would result in any potentially significant environmental impacts, and determined that the project might result in significant impacts relative to geologic conditions, biotic resources, and cultural resources, but determined that those impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level by inclusion of specified measures in the project. The applicant agreed in writing to include those measures in the project. As a result, staff was able to conclude that the project would not result in any significant impacts and proposed the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for the purpose of compliance with CEQA. A notice of intent to adopt the mitigated negative declaration was posted with the County Clerk on December 29, 2003, and otherwise noticed as required by law, and allowed for submission of public comments on the Notice until February 2, 2004; and WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the Zoning Administrator on April 19, 2004, whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and, after taking testimony from all interested parties, the Zoning Administrator adopted the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration determination as adequate for the purpose of compliance with CEQA; adopted the Mitigation Monitoring program; and APPROVED the project for two (2) parcels only relative to concern about the safety of the proposed development in proximity to an unimproved creek, Las Trampas Creek; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2004, the applicant, Lionsgate Development Corporation, timely filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve the tentative map for two parcels only with the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2004, after notice was issued as required by law, the County Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals, conducted a hearing on Resolution No. 6-2005 Appeal of Lionsgate Development Corp.on Zoning Administrator Conditional Approval of a Minor Subdivision County File#MS030015 the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval decision; the applicant indicated to the Planning Commission that the report prepared by staff was incomplete, and therefore the County Planning Commission continued the public hearing to the August 24,, 2004 hearing date; and WHEREAS, on Tuesday, August 24, 2004, the County Planning Commission accepted additional testimony from the public on the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, the County Planning Commission adopted a motion to DENY the tentative map application and DENY the applicant's appeal based on concerns that the proposed development may not result in safe building sites relative to the nearby creek conditions, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners-Mehlman, Terrell, Clark, Snyder, and Wong. NOES: Commissioners—Battaglia. ABSTAIN: Commissioners—Gaddis. ABSENT: Commissioners -None. WHEREAS, on August 26, 2004 *the, applicant timely filed a request for reconsideration with the Community Development Department in which the applicant declared that they were willing to provide additional information relating to stabilization of the creek bank; and WHEREAS, on Tuesday, September 14, 2004, after reviewing the recommendation of staff, the County Planning Commission unanimously adopted a motion to grant the applicant's request for reconsideration{+Clark/Mehlman m/s/c; Gaddis Absent); and WHEREAS, on Tuesday, January 25, 2005, after notice was issued as required by law, a hearing was held before the County Planning Commission on the revised project; WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter. RESOLVED, the County Planning Commission finds that on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination reflects the County's independent judgment; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Community Development Department office at #651 Pine Street, Martinez, California is the custodian of the documents and Res-2 Resolution No. 6-2005 Appeal of Lionsgate Development Corp.on Zoning Administrator Conditional Approval of a Minor Subdivision 4-_Y County File#MS030015 other material that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration decision is based; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission: • ADOPTS the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for purpose of this project's compliance with CEQA, and the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program; • FINDS that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan based on the findings below; • GRANTS the appeal of the applicant; • GRANTS the applicant's request for an exception to the creek structure setback requirements of Title 9 and variances to minimum side and rear yards for the proposed parcels with respect to a proposed rretainingng (caisson) wall intended to improve the stability of the development site; and • APPROVES the tentative map for three (3) parcels subject to conditions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission FINDS that theproposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan based on the following findings made by the County Planning Commission: A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated 2 additional AM and PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. 2. Drainage and Flood Control: The project's conditions of approval require that the applicant collect and convey all storm water entering or originating within the project to an adequate storm drainage facility. 3. Water and Waste Disposal: The project site is served by the East Bay Municipal Utility District and Central Sanitary District. 4. Fire Protection: The site is in the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and must comply with requirements of the District. The closest fire station is located less than a half a mile from the project. 5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station per 1,000 population. The project will result in a population increase of less than 1,000 people. 6. Parks & Recreation: Prior to building on the new parcels, the applicant will be required to pay a park dedication fee of$2,000.00 per unit. Res-3 Resolution No. 6-2005 Appeal of Lionsgate Development Corp.on Zoning Administrator Conditional Approval of a Minor Subdivision County File#MS030015 B. Approval of a Tentative Map Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law. Project P 7 indinz The project is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the County General Plan. The land use designation is SM, which calls for single-family medium-density development. The density range for the SM designation is 3.0-4.9 units per acre. The tentative map provides for 3 residential parcels on a .91-acre parcel, which falls within the density range as required in the County General Plan. C. Exception to Title 9 Requirements Findings Required Finding : That there are unusual circumstances or conditions affecting the property. Project Finding: The proximity of the subject property to Las Trampas Creek and existing topography of the site have resulted in a situation where the calculated creek structure setback line encompassed almost all of the proposed parcel 'C'. The site conditions that have resulted in this large creek structure setback area are not typical throughout the County. Las Trampas Creek does not physically encroach onto the subject property, but due to the topography of the creek bank, the calculated creek structure setback line places an unreasonable burden on the applicant's ability to subdivide the parcel into three parcels. The burden of the creek structure setback line will be significantly lessened with the installation of the proposed buried wall. Required Finding : That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Project Finding: Granting the exception would allow the applicant to proceed with the subdividing of his parcel. The proposal to subdivide the .91-acre parcel into three parcels is not possible without granting the requested exception. The .91-acre parcel is located within the Single Family Residential, R-10 (10,000 square foot minimum parcel size)zoning district; the General Plan designates most of the site Single Family — Medium Density (SM); however a small portion of the southeast corner of the property (nearest to Las Trampas Creek) is designated Open Space. The General Plan designation allows for a possible density range of 2— 4 parcels for this site. The proposed parcel sizes for parcels A, B and C are Res-4 Resolution No. 6-2005 Appeal of Lionsgate Development Corp.on Zoning Administrator Conditional Approval of a Minor Subdivision County File#MS030015 10,000, 11,800 and 17,800 square feet respectively, and comply with the zoning standard. Required Finding #3: That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. Prosect Findin : The intent of the creek structure setback requirements in title 9 of the County Ordinance is to protect people and structures from being damaged by the possible failure of the existing creek banks. Granting of the exception will only be allowed after the applicant has demonstrated that the safety factors for the stabilization of the creek banks for the proposed wall meet the requirement of the County Geologist and Public Works Department. The preliminary sketches along with the supporting geotechnical information indicate that the proposed wall could provide the creek bank reinforcement If the project is approved by the Commission and the exception granted for the reduced creek structure setback, additional submittals such as technical data., studies, calculations and engineering analysis may be required as part of the applicant's compliance with the conditions of approval. D. Variance Findings forProposedCreekside Retaining Wall within Required Side and Rear Yards of Pro-posed Parcels Required Findi : That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Protect Finding: Allowing the construction of a buried retaining wall within the rear and side yards will not constitute a grant of special privilege. Applications for this type of project are reviewed on a case-by- case basis and decisions are made based on the whole of the project. Required Finding : That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. Fro'sect Findin, The proximity of the subject property to Las Trampas creek and the topography of the creek bank have created a situation where the calculated creek structure setback requirement would encompass a Res-5 Resolution No. 6-2005 Appeal of Lionsgate Development Corp.on Zoning Administrator Conditional Approval of a Minor Subdivision County Mile#MS030015 majority of the proposed parcel 'C'. In order to obtain an exception to the requirements of Title 9, the applicant has proposed the construction of a buried wall, which will encroach into the required rear and side yard of the subject property. If the variance request for the wall is not granted, the three parcel subdivision would not be feasible and the applicant would be deprived of his right to establish three parcels out of the .91-acre property. Required Finding #3: That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Project Finding:Approval of the variance to allow a buried retaining wall within the required rear and side yard in order to prevent possible erosion of the creek bank in order to protect people and property will substantially meet the intent of the R-I 0 zoning district in which the subject property is located. Res-6 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FINDINGS AND CONDI'T'IONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #MS030015 { .. ... .............:....... A. Growth Manacrement Performance Standards I. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated 2 additional AM and PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. 2. Drainacre and Flood Control: The-project's conditions of approval require that the applicant collect and convey all storm water entering or originating within the project to an adequate storm drainage facility. 3. water and Waste Disposal: The project site is served by the East Bay Municipal Utility District and Central Sanitary District. 4. Fire Protection: The site is in the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and must comply with requirements of the District. The closest fire station is located less than a half a mile from the proj ect. 5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station per I,000 population. The project will result in a population increase of less than 1,000 people. 6. Parks & Recreation: Prior to building on the new parcels, the applicant will be required to pay a park dedication fee of$2,000.00 per unit. B. Approval of a Tentative Map Required Findinu: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the Provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law. Proiect Finding. The project is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the County General Plan. The land use designation is SM, which calls for^Single- ,family medium-density) development. The density range for the SM designati07-7 is 3.0-4.9 units per acre. The tentative map provides for 3 residential lots on a .91-acre parcel, which falls within the density ranee as required in the Count General Plan. 1 C. Exception to Title-9 Requirements Findings Required Finding #I: That there are unusual circumstances or conditions affecting the property. Prosect Finding: The proximio; of the subject propertv to Las Trampas creek and existing topography of the site have resulted in a situation where the calculated creek structure setback line encompassed almost all of the proposed parcel 'C'. The site conditions that have resulted in this large creek structure setback area are not typical throughout the County. Las Trampas creek does not physically encroach onto the subject property, but due to the topography of the creek bank, the calculated creek structure setback line places an unreasonable burden on the applicant's ability to subdivide the parcel into three lots. The burden of the creek structure setback line will be significantly lessened with the installation of thep roposed buried wall. Required Finding #2: That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Proiect Findinz.- Granting the exception would allow the applicant to proceed with the subdividing of his lot. The proposal to subdivide the .91-acre lot into three lots is not possible without granting the requested exception. The .91- acre lot is locate within the R-10 (10,000 square foot minimurn lot size) zoning district and within the Single Family (SM) General Plan designation. The minimum lot size that would be allowed within the SM General Plan designation is less than 9,000 square feet. The proposed lot sizes for parcels 4 B and C are 10,000, 11,800 and 17,800 square feet respectively. Required Finding#3r That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. Prosect-Finding: u' : The intent of the creek structure setback requirements irements in title 9 of the County Ordinance is to protect people and structures from being damaged by the possible failure of the existing creek banks. Granting qf the exception will only be allowed after the applicant has demonstrated that the safety factors for the stabilization of the creek banks for- the proposed wall meet the requirement of the County Geologist and Public Works Department. The preliminary sketches along with the supporting geotechnical information indicate that the proposed wall could provide the creek bank reinforcement If the project is approved by the Commission and the exception g--ranted J67- the reduced creek structure setback, additional submittals such as technical data, studies, calculations and engineering analysis maybe required as part 0 of the applicant's compliance with the conditions of approval. 1) D. Variance Findings Required Findineg #1- That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Project FI or Allowing the construction of a buried retaining wall within 4t) C) the rear and side yards will not constitute a grant of special privilege. Applications for this type ofproj'ect are reviewed ewed on a case-by-case basis and decisions are made based on the whole of the prcject. Required Findinc, #2: That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. Project Finding.. The proximio; of the subject propenj) to Las Trampas creek and the topography of the creek bank have created a situation where the calculated creek structure setback requirement would encompass a mql.oriti) of the proposed parcel 'C). In Order to obtain an exception to the requirements of Title 9, the applicant has proposed the construction of a buried wall, which will encroach into the required rear and side yard of the subject property. If the variance request for the wall is not granted,, the three lot subdivision would not be feasible and the applicant would be deprived of his right to establish three lots out of the .91-acre property. Required Finding : That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Protect Fi Approval of the variance to allow a buried retaining wall within the required rear and side'yard in order to prevent possible erosion of the creek bank in order to protect people and property will substantially meet the intent of the R-10 zoning district in which the subject properti)is located. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #MS030015 Administration: I. The tentative map is approved, as shown on the revised Vesting Tentative - 03 and the marked up copy of the Map dated received December 22 1 20 Tentative Map dated September 2, 2004 with the following exceptions. a. The creek structure setback lines as delineated on the map shall be deleted and a new structure setback line shall be established. The new line shall be located a minimum of 20-feet from the top of the proposed buried retaining wall. The precise location I of the wall shall be determined prior to recording of final map. b. The Tentative Map shall identify the maintenance roadway/pedestrian casements along the southern property line benefiting the Shaw/Ryan property. The "Building Setback Line-Typical" as identified on the Tentative Map is not approved. 2. This application is subject to an initial application fee of ($6083.00), which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through pen-nit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If additional fees are owed, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. Jim Indemnification: 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9 the applicant {including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its ,a ents 9 1 officers, and employees from any claim, action., or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF THE PARCEL MAP Condition of Approval Compliance: 4. Prior to filing the Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit an application for Condition of Approval Compliance. Currently, the fee for this application is a deposit of $1,000 that is subject to time and materials costs. Should 4 staff costs exceed the deposit, additional fees will be required. Submittal for this application shall include a checklist describing how each condition of approval has been satisfied, along with applicable proof that each condition has been satisfied (i.e. documentation, plans, photographs, etc.). This application will remain active throughout the life of the project and additional submittals will be required to ensure compliance with each phase of development (grading, building), as described below. Compliance with those conditions administered by the Public Works Departrnent need not be included as part of this application. 5. In addition to excepted creek structure setback line to be dete=ined, the applicant shall identify, on the revised parcel map to be recorded, the location of the centerline of Las Trampas creek and a fifty-foot setback from the centerline of the creek. 6. Prior to filing cy ci information, for Parcel Map the applicant shall provide the following for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator: Detailed geologic mapping of the slope and qf the undocumented fill on site. This may require additional subsurface exploration. On the slope, keit data needed includes Identification of bedrock formation(s), dominantIoznting,� and orientation / continuity spacing of bedding and dom' 65 weathering profile data. far stat c and pseudo-static conditions. If not usnSlope stabilin) anaIVSiS1 iLO-)or -vey (Specialthe methodolog�) of the California Geologr*c SU7 Publication 0 - #117), provide rationale fol- the methodology selected. Also provide justification for soil parameters and seismic coefficients used in the analysis: and justijicatiol7 J67- that standards used to assess the adequacy of recommendations .,fOr remediati071 and/or avoidance o the undocumented fill: for any setback froir the top Qf slope deemed necessary: and construction o a culvert 071 the oversteepenecl slope. I f Should corrective grading be required within the creek for (a) remediation the over-Steepened slope, (b) placement of the culvert 077 the slope, (c) construction of the storm drain outfall, the applicant shall be required to obtain approval for the improvements _/ron? the Zoning Adrninistrat07'. ACaliforniaApproval may also be required the CalIf0 rn* Department of Fish and Game, the Army Corps of Engineers, the US Fish and 9l'ildlifC Serviced, and the Regional 91aterOuality Control Board. 7. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the applicant must submit improvement plans, illustrating the storm drainage outfall facility that is proposed in the creek bank-, for review of the Public Works Department and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The proposed outfall system shall minimize erosion, with the least impact on the aesthetic quality of the creek and its' surrounding vegetation. Approval may be required from the California Department of Fish and Game, the Army Corps of Engineers, the US Fish and Wildlife Serviced, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Park Dedication: 8. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of$2,000 per new residential unit. Police Mitigation: 9. Police Services Mitigation: The following requirements shall be met prior Z-) to filing a Parcel Map or issuance of a building permit as specified below: In4- Prior to filing a Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit two copies of a proposed disclosure, statement for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and shall be recorded together with the filing of the Parcel Map. The approved statement shall be used to notify prospective buyers of parcels that are not occupied by existing legally-established residences at time of filing the tentative map application. The disclosure statement shall advise prospective buyers of affected parcels that prior to issuance of a building permit, they will be required to contribute to the County $17000.00 for police services mitigation and of the obligations for compliance with condition of approval #18 regarding landscaping improvements. The fee may be paid to the Contra Costa County Application &Permit Center. CONDITIONS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Archaeolog3r: 10. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. 11. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. 6 Construction: 12. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction noise, dust and litter control requirements: 0 All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays. 0 The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers that are in flood condition. 0 The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. 0 Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Fn'day, and is prohibited on state and federal holidays. & The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. 0 Unnecessary engines idling of internal combustion is prohibited. Z:) 0 Developer shall notify all adjacent neighbors of construction schedule. 0 At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant In shall post at the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site, notice that construction work will commence. This notice shall concurrently be filed with the Community Development Department. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title., phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall also be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles and the 24-hour emergency number shall be expressly identified on the notice. Tree Conditions: 13. Approval is granted approval to remove trees numbered T, 9, 11 #6- 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and work- within the dripline of tree number 21 and 18 in the arborist's report, dated May 7, 2003, prepared by B&H Tree Service. If the applicant must remove any other trees, they must first be granted a tree permit pursuant to the County Code, independent of this application. Removal of tree #8 (26" Pine on tree exhibit map) is not approved for removal or alteration. 7 14. Tree 413) (50" Valley Oak-) is to be protected and preserved. Removal or alteration of this tree for residential development requires approval of a tree permit, pursuant to the requirements of the County Tree Protection Ordinance. Work within the drip -line of this tree for public frontage improvements is allowed. 15. The removal and/or alteration of additional trees along the frontages of the subject property for right-of-way improvements and dedications is approved--. 16. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the proposed buried retaininc, wall the applicant shall submit a new arborist report detailing the impact of the wall and proposed drainage system on all trees within the vicinity of the proposed improvements. The report shall identify impacts to trees and provide recommendations for tree preservation. If additional trees, other than the ones identified in the original arborist report, are damaged or need to be removed a result of construction of the wall, approval of a new tree penult will be required. 17. Tree Restitution Plantin-g/Irrigation Plan-Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree planting and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed arborist or landscape architect for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall provide for the planting of at least fourteen (14) 15-gallons in size. The plan shall be accompanied by an estimate prepared by a licensed landscape architect or arborist of the material and labor costs to complete the improvements on the plan. 18. At least two weeks prior to requesting a final inspection on any new residence, other than parcel "A", the applicant shall have completed the approved tree planting and irrigation plan, at the same time, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Community Development Department of the completion of the improvements by provision of a written statement from a licensed landscape contractor and photos of the installed trees. 19. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, to address the possibility that construction activity nevertheless damages trees not cited for removal g 4-1 5 the applicant shall provide the County with a security (e.g., bond, cash deposit) to allow for replacement of these trees if they are significantly damaged by construction activity. The security shall be based on; 6� Extent of Possible Restitution Improvements- The planting of up to six I-) (6) additional trees, minimum 15 gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees, or equivalent planting contribution, subject to the prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator; Determination of Security Amount-The security shall provide for all of the following costs: Preparation of a landscape/irrigation plan by a licensed landscape architect or arborist; All labor and material estimate for planting the potential number of trees and related irrigation improvements that may be required prepared by a licensed landscape contractor; and And additional 20% of the total of the above amounts to address inflation costs. Acceptance 01 1 a Security- The security shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 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$100.00 at the time of submittal of a security. The security shall be retained by the County for up to 24 months following the completion of the tree alteration improvements. In the Z) event that the Zoning Administrator determines that trees intended to be protected have been damaged by development activity, and the Zoning Administrator determines that the applicant has not been diliaent, in 4:1 providing idinreasonable restitution of the damaged trees, then the Zoning Administrator may require that all or part of the security be used to de for mitigation of the damaged trees. provide 4_1 At least 18 months following the completion of work within the, dn*pllne of trees, the applicant's arborist shall inspect the trees for any significant damage from construction activity., and submit a report on his/her conclusion on the health of the trees and, if appropriate, any recommendations including further methods required for tree protection to the Community Development Department. Arborist's Expense- The expenses associated with all required arborist's services shall be borne by the developer and/or property owner. In the event of satisfactory compliance with this condition the security shall be refunded to the applicant or released to the applicant within a reasonable period of time following the applicant's request for such release. 9 PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION #MS030015 COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE PARCEL MAP General Requirements: 20. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. The drainacyc road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the Tentative Map received October 1, 2003 and intermittent retaining wall concept plans dated October 7, 2004. 21. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted A It) Z� to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees) and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of approval of this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and stripinig plans for review by the Transportation Engineering Division. Road Dedications: 22. Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, 5 feet of n*cyht of way for the planned future half-width of 30 feet along the project frontage 0) of Warren Road. 23. Additional right of way dedication will be necessary to accommodate the curb return and curb ramp at the comer of Boulevard Way and Warren Road. Relinquishment of Abutters Rights of Access: 24. Abutter's rights of access shall be relinquished along the entire frontage of Boulevard Way with the exception of a 30-foot wide opening to accommodate a J*oint driveway to serve combined Parcels B and C Roadway Improvements (Frontage): e5 Construct curb, a 4.5-foot sidewalk, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, street lighting, and pavement wideninor and transitions along the frontage of Boulevard Way, including the curb return and curb ramp at the comer of Boulevard Way and Warren Road. The face of curb shall be located in accordance with drawinc.r PA3851-00 on file at the Public Works 4-1 Department. 10 26. Execute a deferred improvement agreement for the construction of curb, a 4.5-foot sidewalk,, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, street lighting, and pavement widening and transitions along the ftontacre of Warren Road. The face of curb shall be located 5 feet from the widened right of way line. 27. Install safety related improvements on all streets (including traffic signs and striping) as approved by Public Works. C-W, Maintenance of Facilities: 28. Applicant shall record a Statement of Obligation in the form of a deed notification, to inform all future property owners of Parcels B and C of their legal obligation to maintain the combined driveway serving Parcels B and C. ')9. Applicant shall record a Statement of Obligation in the form of a deed notification, to inform all future property owners of the ex' existence of the buried intermittent retaining wall serving those parcels in which the wall lies and their legal obligation to assume full maintenance responsibility of the buried intermittent retaining wall and to perform repairs or take measures as necessary., to insure the continued stability of their property in the event of any future bank erosion and/or failure along Las Trampas Creek. 30. Applicant -shall record a Statement of Obligation in the form of a deed notification, igation to to inform all future property owners of their legal obl' maintain the storm drain system traversing the property and that drainage facilities and drainage patterns unique to each parcel cannot be modified without formal written authorization (i.e. drainage permit, grading permit, building permit, etc.) by Contra Costa County. At no time shall surface drainage or overland flow be discharged directly over the bank- and into Las Trampas Creek. Access to Adjoining Property: Proof of Access 31. Applicant shall furnish necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or casements for the construction of off-site, temporary or perrnanent, public and private road and drainage improvements. 32. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Applicat' ion and Permit Center, if necessary, for installation of improvements within the n*,crht of way of Warren Road and Boulevard Way. Intersection Design/Sight Distance: t!l e5 33. Provide sight distance at the combined driveway connection to Boulevard Way for a through traffic design speed of 40 mph. Landscaping walls fences and sips must be placed to maintain adequate sight distance. Bievele —Pedestrian Facilities 34. The applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap Access) and the Amer-icans with Disabilities Act. Utilities/U n dergroun ding: 35. All new utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground- Undergrounding of existing utilities will not be required. Drainage Improvements: Collect and Convey 36. The applicant shall collect and convey all storm water entering and/or originating on this property without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility,.to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. 37. Storm drainage facilities required by Division 914 shall be designed and constructed in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with design standards of Public Works. 38. No surface drainage within the boundaries of this development shall be ) permitted to drain directly to Las Tramp as Creek via overland (sheetor surface flow. Lot drainage shall be directed away from the creek and collected and conveyed to the storm drain outfall proposed to be constructed as part of this project. 39. The outfall structure shown on the Tentative Parcel Map docs not meet current County standards. The applicant shall design and submit detailed drawings of an outfall consistent with County Standard Plan CD501 to remedy the erosion caused by the existincT outfall and runoff currently discharging near the Looney/Shag-Ryan property. The pipe outfall elevation ,6_ 4_� shall be located a minimum of three (3) feet above the average height of one hundred (100) feet of top of bank located directly opposite and across the creek channel from the proposed outfall location or 100-year water surface 12 elevation as shown on the FEMA flood plain maps, whichever is greater. The proposed "T' at the end of the pipe outfall, as shown on the concept drawings submitted on October 71, 2004 shall be eliminated. The spillway shall be constructed down slope from the pipe outfall to the top of the existing soldier pile wall where the storm drain water will be allowed to cascade over the top of the wall. An appropriate splash pad or other alternative acceptable to Public Works shall be constructed at the base of the existing, soldier pile wall where the spillway passes over the wall. The proposed outfall will be subject to the review and approval of County, State and Federal regulatory agencies. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: 40. Storm drainage oneariatincy on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s j. 41. A private storm drain easement conforming to the width specified in Section 914-14.004 of the County Ordinance Code shall be created over the existinc, or relocated storm drain line traversing the prof ect site. Creek Structure Setback: 42— Applicant shall relinquish "development rights*"' over that portion of the site Applicant that is located twenty (20) feet to the west of the intermittent retaining wall, ID measured perpendicular to the westerly face of the piers. "Development rights" shall be conveyed to the County by,grant deed. t__ 43. The applicant shall record a Statement of Obligation in the form of a deed notification, which states that the applicant and owner and future owners of the property will hold harmless Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District due to the fact that the applicant and owner requested and have been granted an exception to the creek structure setback requirements of the County Ordinance Code and is constructing an intermittent retainingwall to address those requirements. The wall's purpose is to provide a measure of bank- stability for the property in the event of creek-bank failure or erosion damage to the adjacent bank as a result of the influences of Las Trampas, Creek, which is a natural, privately owned and maintained creek. 44. A deed restriction shall be placed over the rear yard of Parcels B and C prohibiting the construction of an in-ground or above-ground swimming pool within an area measured from the back of the proposed residences, easterly to eastern property line and across the entire width of parcel. This area shall be clearly delineated on the Parcel Map or by other acceptable means. 13 Intermittent Retaining; Wall: 45. Applicant shall obtain a Building Permit from the Building Inspection Z) Department for the installation of the intermittent Building retaining wall. Z) Z) Permits for residences shall not be issued for any lot within the minor subdivision until the building permit for the retaining wall is finaled. Z) t) 46. Improvement plans prepared by an engineer registered in California in a discipline qualified to design such a structure, shall be submitted to the Building Inspection Department, along with review and inspection fees and if necessary, security for all improvements required by the conditions of approval of this subdivision. 47. As a requirement of the Building Permit review process, the applicant shall In be responsible for submitting, in a timely and complete manner, all information and documentation (i.e. technical data, calculations, engineering analysis, etc.) requested by staff. 48. A safety factor against overturning of 1.5 or greater shall be demonstrated for zn 4t) the intermittent retaining wall. 49. Calculations demonstrating appropriate pier spacing such that the soil supported by the intermittent rQtainina wall can act as "lagging" between piers shall be provided. 50. Applicant shall submit for the review of Public Works and Building Inspection, improvement plans, including all documentation and analysis, showing the extent to which the intermittent retaining wall shall be extended if necessary, onto Parcel B to adequately address the creek structure setback line, as determined by County Ordinance Code, across Parcel B. 51. Ai)-plicant shall determine the appropriate depth of piers such that the Applicant intermittent retaining wall is assumed to act as a retaining wall and will resist overturning, assuming cr a complete bank failure alonor a hypothetical failure It) plane with a 2.5:1 (H:V) gradient from the toe of the existing soldier pile wall up to the planned location of the intermittent retaining wall. Additional cross- sections along the proposed alignment of the intermittent retaining wall shall be provided. The number and location of cross-sections shall be determined by Building Inspection. Each cross-section shall be to scale and indicate topography of existing ground surface, the 2.5 to I failure plane, property line and proposed location and depth of piers. Pier depth shall be, at a minimum, 20-feet. In lieu of this approach, the applicant may demonstrate through further soil exploration, that competent sandstone underlies existing overburden soil. The applicant may assume a complete bank failure along the hypothetical 2.5 to I 14 failure plane from the toe of the existing soldier pile wall up to the point where the 2.5 to I failure plane intersects competent sandstone. Failure would be assumed to continue along the top of this layer up to the planned location of the intermittent retaining wall. The depth of overburden material on top of the competent sandstone and behind the piers would determine the required pier depth into competent sandstone. This could potentially eliminate the need to consider the depth of piers required to extend below the hypothetical 2.5 to 1 failure plane. This assumption hinges on the soil characterization of the site: depth of overburden; depth to competent sandstone; location of sandstone layer beyond the intermittent retaining wall towards the creek. Additional fieldwork- will be necessary to make this determination. Additional cross- sections along the proposed alignment of the intermittent retaining wall shall be provided. The number and location of cross-sections shall be determined by Building I n shall be to scale and indicate cr Inspection. Each cross-sectio topography of existing ground surface soil profile of each section, the 2.5 to 1 failure plane, property line and proposed location and depth of piers. Pier depth shall be, at a minimum, 20-feet. 52. At the discretion of the Building Inspection Department, all submittals may be subject to a peer review by an independent soils engineer. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with any independent review required by the Building Inspection Department. 4:) 53. Applicant shall insure that monitoring during intermittent retaining wall and drainage facility construction is conducted by a licensed soil engineer. Documentation shall be submitted to the County indicating that construction complied with approved plans. Documentation shall include logging of cuttings, depth of pier holes, and condition of pier holes at the time of wall construction (i.e. no loose material or water at bottom of pier holes) and, observation and testing of backfill of drainage facility trenches. J 54. As-built plans shall be submitted to Public Works and Building Inspection. Plans shall indicate the precise location, depth and spacing of piers and all drainage facilities in the vicinity of the intermittent retaining wall. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPD►ES) Requirements: �n W 55. The applicant shall comply with the Counni's Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Ord. # 96-21) and all rules, regulations and procedure of the National Pollutant DischarcrC)e Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the 4­1 15 California State Water Resources Control Board,, or the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. A "Best Management Practices" (BMP) plan shall be developed in conjunction with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department and Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. BMPs to be considered shall include, but not be limited to: - Provide educational materials to new homebuyers. - Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins - Provide options for grass pavers or other semi-pervious paving systems for walks, drives and patios. - Slope pavements to sheet flow onto planted surfaces. - Other alternatives, equivalent to the above, as approved by the Public Works Department ADVISORY NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS 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. A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS,, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Goverru-nent 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 proj*ect 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. B. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water 16 Resources Control Board or any of its Re-Donal Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay—Reolon 11). C. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources,per the Fish and Game Code. D. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Eng:'Lrieers. it is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps ofEngineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. E. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District. F. Comply with the requirements of the County Office of the Sheriff. G. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Permits are required prior to grading and construction. GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\MS030015 F1NDC0A's.rev2.doc 1/11/05 RLH mp: 2/1/2005 17 APPEAL LETTER LIONSGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Mailing Address: F. 0.Box 408,Alamo, California 94507 Telephone (925) 831-8500 Fax (925) 831-8502 HAND DELIVERED y_ C� Mr. Denis B February 3, 2005. �, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, -- Community Development Department, C-0 4thfloor North Wmg, -- 650 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 93553-0095 -• Y ti.-) ]ESE: MS 03- 0015 -- Notice of Appeal For 2501 Warren Road,Walnut Creek;CA Dear Mr. Barry, On January 25, 2005 the County Punning Commission approved MS 03-0015 for a three(3) lot minor sub division. However, a draft copy of the approval conditions was only provided g rovided to►Lionsgate on February 1, 2005. Therefore, the ten(10) day time limit for appeal was reduced by the Community Development Department to just three(3) calendar days. Lionsgate concurs with the County's draft conditions of approval for MS 03- 0015, except for the following items: Item No.1--County Storm Drain System.--Pursuant to County Ordinance Code Section 914-14.020"Private Drainage Systems,"Lionsgate shall only be responsible for the disposal of storm water run off generated on the property from" ...slope intercept ditches, yard drains and other similar drainage systems..." all as mandated by the said County Ordinance Code. Lionsgate does not accept any condition that makes Lionsgate responsible for handling, changing, or paying for, the County's existing storm drain system that presently transports redirected, and concentrated, off site storm water flows across the site from up to a quarter of a mile away. The County's existing storm drain system across the subject property constitutes the seizure of Lionsgate's private property for public use, without just compensation. This is violation of the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of California, and therefore, constitutes inverse condemnation. Accordingly, Lionsgate will not accept any condition that interferes with its right to recover all costs and damages flowing from this matter. Page No. 2 Letter to Mr. Barry--Notice of Appeal--February 3, 2005. Item No. 2--County Ordinance For Creek Set Backs.-- The County failed to comply with County Ordinance Section 914-14.006 for improved: " (1)Earth-lined and Rock- lined Channels" and " (2) Concrete-lined Channels." for determining the easement width from the top of the creek bank. The County erroneously asserted that the greatly improved adjacent channel section of Las Trampas Creek, was unimproved, and therefore, Ordinance Code Section 914-14-010 for "unimproved channels" applied. In fact, the adjacent creek channel section had been greatly improved via County approved plans and construction permits, and the County knew it, but concealed this information In compromise, and without prejudice, inorder to mitigate the ongoing delays and damages, Lionsgate proposed installing even further creek channel improvements, via a soldier pile retaining wall at the top of the creek slope. The added creek slope protection is not required by the County Ordinance Code, nor by any creek bank soil/stability consideration. The Country has now accepted Lionsgate's proposal and has approved the requested three (3) lot minor sub division application. Therefore, Lionsgate does not accept any condition that changes the County Ordinance Code Section 914-14.006 for computation of the easement width, nor any condition that changes Ordinance Code Section 1010-6.014 that defines an " Improved Channel".Additionally, Lionsgate does not accept any condition that restricts its right to recover its damages from this matter. Item No.3 --County Billing For Staff Time For MS 03-0015.-- Pursuant to the County Ordinance Code, Lionsgate is responsible for payment of County staff time, that was reasonably expended on MS 03-0015.Lionsgate has no quarrel with requirement, and is prepared to pay for all valid County costs. Lionsgate, however, is not responsible for the County's staff costs incurred by the County's conduct as described in Items I and 2 (above). Accordingly, Lionsgate does not accept any condition that requires it to pay invalid County staff time costs. Item No. 4 County Requirement For Indemnification cation by Lionsgate. -- Section 3 of the draft conditions of approval requires Lionsgate to indemnify the County for certain claims against the County pertaining to the approval of MS 03-0015. Page No. 3 Letter to Mr. Barry--Notice of appeal --February 3, 2005 Lionsgate, will indemnify the County for valid claims against it. However, Lionsgate does not accept any indemnification condition that interferes with Lionsgate's right to recover it damages from the County for all items contained in this appeal. Item No. 5 Roadway Improvements (Frontage) at Boulevard Way.-- Item No.25 of the draft conditions of approval requires a 4.5 foot wide side walk, curb, storm water drainage system, under ground lighting and other improvements be installed as part of the minor sub division development. Lionsgate objects to this requirement because it is unreasonable, unsafe, and a violation of the County's Master Plan for Boulevard Way. Also, these improvements were not required by the County for the minor sub division that is located just 150 feet North of this site, and on the same East side of Boulevard Way. Specifically: In 2002 the County approved MS 02-0007 which is a two (2) lot minor sub division. It is located just 150 feet North of the site and on the same East side of Boulevard Way. In approving that minor sub division the County granted a"Deferred Improvement Agreement " for all frontage improvements. Therefore, a similar deferred improvement agreement condition should also apply for MS 03-0015. 'There are no existing side walks within a mile of the site in the unincorporated Saranap area of Walnut Creek. Therefore, the approval condition that Lionsgate construct a short section of unconnected side walk on the inside of two curves on the East side Boulevard Way, would create a highly unsafe condition for any one that used the side walk. County Master Plan No. PA 3 851-00 Sheet 2 of 3, is entitled " Boulevard Way -- Saranap Ave. to Olympic Blvd. " This Master Plan shows the final road alignment for Boulevard Way. The Master Plan shows no side walks will ever be installed on the East side of Boulevard Way. Rather, all side walks are planned to be located on the West side of Boulevard Way in order to connect to the West side sidewalk on the existing Las Trampas Creek Bridge. Lionsgate also objects to the condition that it shall be responsible for handling redirected storm water in flows from Boulevard Way and Warren Roads caused by the County's changes in the natural drainage patterns. The asphalt paving on both Boulevard Way and Warren Road, and lack of operable drainage ditches, wrongfully concentrates and diverts storm water flows from their natural drainage pattern. This has caused increased,, and accelerated storm water flows onto the sub 5 i ect property Page No. 4 Letter to Mr. Barry --Notice of Appeal.-February 3, 2005 Item No.6 Roadway Improvements( Frontage)Warren Road-- Item No.26 of the draft conditions of approval requires a deferred improvement agreement be executed for a 4.5 foot wide side walk along Warren Road. Although the proposed Warren Road side walk will probably never be installed, it would be also impractical to do so, because it would materially increase the grade of the already steep drive way. As a result, there would be no drive way access to the existing house. Item No. 7 Drainage Improvements - Condition No 30.--Lionsgate repeats Items Numbers I and 5 (above) for its objections for the handling and disposal, of off site storm drain waters. Item No 8 Creek Structure Set Back- Condition No. 42 and 43.--Lionsgate repeats Item No 2 (above) for its objections for creek set backs. Also, Lionsage does not agree that it shall relinquish a 20 foot wide section of the site on the basis that agreement on this matter is already recorded in an Easement Agreement between Shaw/Ryan and the previous property owner. Item No. 9 Miscellaneous Approval Conditions-- There are a number of miscellaneous approval conditions regarding the wording of several illegible approval condition clauses. Lionsgate plans to resolve these issues via discussions with County staff. Subject to the above noted approval conditions being corrected, Lionsgate, accepts the County's conditions of approval for MS 03-0015. Check Number 2562,, in the amount of$125.00 is attached for the required Appeal Fee. Please contact the undersigned at your earliest inorder to finalize the approval conditions for MS 03-0015. Sincerely, j. Kenneth Barker) President, Lionsgate Development Corporation. LIONSGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BLAND DELIVERERailing Address: P. 0.Box 408, Alamo, California 94507 Telephone (925) 831-8500 Fax (925) 831-8502 Ms Aruna Bhat, February 22, 2005 Principal Planner Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, 4'hFloor, North Wing. .,_ Martinez C A94 5 5 3 RE MS 03 --0015 Complaint of Illegal Conduct, Negligence and Gross Mis Management by the Public Works And Community Development Departments. Rear Ms. Bhat, Further to your letter of February 17, 2005 we plan to make the following presentation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the following subjects: 1)MS 03-0015 Appeal of Conditions of Approval. As support for this item, we refer you to the Lionsgate Appeal to the County Planning Commission dated August 2nd 2004. Selected exhibits will be referred to at the hearing .The County staff and Supervisor Uilkema already have a complete copy of this appeal. 2) Illegal Concealment of County Public Records by the Public Works Department. Exhibits from the above noted appeal will be selected for presentation to the Board of Supervisors. 3) County contract with Darwin Myers and Associates. Lionsgate contends that this contract is not in the public interest and lacks proper controls and safe guards for the expenditure of public funds because it is grossly administered by the Community Development Department. 4) County contract with Larry Gosset. Lionsgate makes the same contentions as (3) being grossly administered by the Public Works Department. 5)Black Mail conduct by the County [ Public Works and Community Development] for the approval of MS03-0015. Lionsgate's appeal of February 3, 2005 and letter to Mr. Shui dated February 16, 2005 will be used for this item. The County already has copies of these documents. 6) Over view of conduct and performance of the Public Works and Community Development Departments Lionsgate contends that they are grossly mis-managed and major changes are needed in personnel, policy and performance, including greatly improved over sight of these departments by the Board of Supervisors t We again request that 20 minutes be allowed for this presentation Sincerely. Kenneth Barker, President. Lionsgate Development Corporation Copy: All Supervisors ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 1T-7' Community Development Contra Costa Counl CD=" ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MONDAY, APRIL 19.2004. 1:30 P.M. I. D\TTRODUCTION Lionsc-rate Development Corporation and Owner-).- Cunt,,, - #MS03001 5): The applicant requests approval of a Vesting Tentative Map subdividing I Ina a .91-acre parcel into three. (3) lots. Proposed improvements will require the removal of up to nine (9) trees, including two valley oak trees, and wor1c within the driplm' e, of two (2) additional oak trees. The site, address is 2501 Warren Road and is located on the southeastern corner of the Warren Road and Boulevard Way intersection 5 m the, Walnut Creek Area. (APIA: 184-15)0-0'29)(Zomfficr: R-1 0)(General Plan: (S M) Single- C-" I-- Family Residential Medium De-nsity)(Census Tract: 341 0)(ZM: P-13) ii. RECOMNENDATI ONT A. For Purposes Of Compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, find that the Initial Study is adequate for the project and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. B. Find that the. Mitic,rated Necrative Declaration determination reflects the County's &..� C7 independent judgrnen.t and analysis; that on the basis of the whole record before them, the Zoning Administrator has determined that there, is no substantial evidence that the project will have, a significant effect on the enviror-imt-nt, and that the material that constitutes the record of the, proceedings rnaybe found at the, Contra Costa County Co=unity Development Department, 651 PInt", Street, Martinez, C.A. C. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Prom-am. D. Based on the Creek Structure Setback Lint as calculated by the PU`Olic Works Department and identified in Exhibit "A" of the staff report, staff i-E-0commcnds approval of two lots., rather than three, subject to the attached Cori diti ons of Approval. Ill. GENERAL INFORMA,7101N, S-1 A. General Plan: Most of the, site is designated Single-Family Residential Medium Density (SM), (3.0-4.9 units per net acre). A small Portion of the site, in the southeast comer,, adjacent to Las Trampas Creek- is within the (-)pen Space General Plan Designation. B. Zoniffizr: Single-Family Residential District (R-10), 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. C. CEQA Status: An Initial study was prepared and a mitigated negative declaratIOD was noticed on December 29, 2004. The, comment period ended on February 2004. Staff has received two letters in response to this negative declaration. A discussion about the initial study is included in staff analNisis portion of this staff report. D. Regulator-v Programs: The propeMi IS DOT located within a flood hazard zone or an Alquist Priolo Special Stud),Zone.. AGENCY COM14ENTS A. California Department of Fish and Game: Attached is a letter from the California D ep artm ent of Fish an d Game, dated August 19, 2003. In their letter th e, Department commented that the site may support California red-legged frogs oi- burrowing owls. In response to this information. staff required a biological investigation, to determine whether-or not these two species are present on the site, be submitted. Neither of these species was found on the property. B. US Fish and Wildlife Service: Attached is a letter from U.S. Fish and -AT'Ildlife ". Service to Geoff Monk, dated March 29, 2004. The letter declares that there is little or no possibilit�l of the,red-}egged frogs being located on site and they do not recommend a survey for red-legy-cred fro Qs by the developer. C. Contra Costa Count-%,Public Works Department. EnmffieenffiE Services: Numerous corrcs-Qondencs.-..s and memos have been received from the Public work=s .4 Department. The most recent memo, dattd. March I S. 2004, discusses ii-a great detail the two most controversial issues surrounding,the prqlect, creek structure %.., setback and drainage, issues. The memo is attached. D. Contra Costa Count,Buildinar Inspection D=artment--Co=cntS from the grading division of the building inspection department are attached to this staff report. 23, California Historical ResourcesInformation Cent= In a letter dated 200-3. C=S commented that the proposed the.projecta has the s*b'l* o r ty area pas S 1 1 1 1 containing unrecorded archeological sites and recommend a study. Th=...-oTg,.-1fOT,-. S--) .w staff required an archaeological study be provided prior to the completion of the. h-litial Study for the project. The stud),,prepared by the Anthropological Studies .0 Center at Sonoma State University, found no archaeological resources I c)cated on site. F. EBMUD: This agency commented that property has service,but once thepropertv is subdivided, separate services for each of the lot will be,required. G. Contra Costa Countv Fire Protection District: The fire district has no cc:)mments on this application. H. Central Sanitary,District: The applicant will be required to comply with the Sanitary District Requirenaents. The sanitary district staff did mention that thp- district would determine if a pump to move effluent to the street level is necessary wrien they review the plans for thr,.-property. I. Citv of Walnut Creek: The City of Walnut Creek was notified but no comments have been.received. J. Walnut Creek School District: The subject property is located within the Walnut Creep School Distract for grades K-8 and in the Acalanes Union High &choo) District high school district. K. Acalan,.=-.,s Inion High School District: The district commented that they are th.- in school district for this project. They had no further comments. L. Sarana-n Homeowners Association: The Saranap Homeowners' Associa--tion has submitted two letters regardincr the project. Both of the letters are, attached. L-� 03 M. Rvan/Sha-.A/ Letter: The, Ryan/Shaw Fanilhi has submitted several letter-s regarding this subdivision. Rather than include ever),letter in this staff- report, staff has decided to include the most detailed letter dated, from the Rya-n/Shavl Family. This letter provides a comprelicnsivtm, discussion of the their concerns related to the prof ect. SITE/AREA., DESCRIPTION The subject property is located On the southeast comer of the Warren Road and Boulevard Way intersection. Both Boulevard Way and Warren Road are two lanCk streets with unimproved frontages. There is a 15-foot wide strip of land between th., edge of pavement and the property linst., along Boulevard Way. The property slopes downwards in an easterly direction across the property, with the highe=st'-' , st point of elevation in the southwest corner of the lot at 230-feet above sea level and a lowest point of 186-feet in the southeast COMeT of the, property. The central area Df the sit.,is S-n D relatively flat, and slopes upward towards Boulevard Way and Warren Road. The site has an area of appTOXU* nately 39,600 square feet and has a single-family ho-Me located onproposed parcel "A". An existing storm drain main line traverses all of three of the proposed lots, and terminates at an outfall., on the nei2hborincr property, into Las Trampas Creek in the southeast corner. Two casements exist along the southern propeM line, a five-foot wide, pedestrian easement and a twenty—foot wide maintenance easement. The area surrounding the site is mostly residential. The lack of sidewalk improvements and the abundance of trees in the neighborhood 21ve the area a woods), or semi-rural feel. There are numerous trees scattered throughout the propert},. Las Trampas Creek runs near the southeast corner of the property. The status of the portion Las Trampas Creek adjacent to the property has been a point of much debate for this application. The applicant contends that Las Trampas Creek is an "improved" -he presence o' some along the nort,nwestem ea-rth channel., due to IL improvements bank of the creek-, and is not subject t'o creek structure setback rtquire,-rnents. The, Count�l Public Works Department and Flood Control District have, determined that the channel is an unimproved channel, and is subject to the creek structure setback- requirements (see attached Apr'] 8,, 2004 memo from Public Works Department). PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant proposes to subdivide a 39,600 square foot parcel into three parcels. Parcel "A". parcel "B", and parcel "C" would be 10,000, 11,800, and 17,800 square feet, respectively. The proposed lots will be, in compliance with the, size requirements of the R-10 zoning district. An existinp, single family residence is located or the proposed parcel "A", the other two parcels are fret of structures except for a cement f.Lwincy wall" located in the, easement area along the southern property line of parcelC� "C".1. The wing wall is part of the drivcwa), and parkinc, area for tine adjacent property owner to the south. The County approved a variance for the construction of the "wing wall" and driveway in September of 200" Per the application requirements of Title 9. the applicant was required to identify "creek cre Ck structure setback liDeS" on the ttmiative, map. The revised tentative map identifies two CTeA %.0 th structure, setback lines: ODP.- Is based upon "improved channPI", and the other upon "unimproved channel The Public Works Department has determined that the portion of Las Trampas Creek that runs near the southeastern portion of the propeMl is "unimproved" and. acCOTding to calculations made In,, the Counts, Public 'Works Department, the, "creek, structure- setback line based upon un- improved channel" on the revised tentative map is incorrect. The creek structure setback line, as, calculated by the Public Works Department, Would encroach upon almost all proposed parcel "Cit and half of proposed parcel "B". The cre.-o.2-11: strucTure., setback IlDe., as calculated by the Public Works Dcpartmc-nt, would make a thTt,,-, lot subdivision at this site not feasible. S-4 Currentl}J, the proposed parcel "C" has a roadway easement and a r-aaintenance easement located along the southern property line of the parcel. As part of the tentative map approval the applicant is proposing to relocate the existing storm drain that transverses the site and remove nine trees. The proposed storm drain will be moved closer to the eastern property line and -Jill outfall into Las Trampas Creek. In order to accommodate the development of the three parcels, the applicant is proposing the removal of up to 9 trees. Three of the trees to be removed are dead and two are valley oak trees. Realignment of the storm main will also require work within the dripline of two additional oak trees. VII. STAFF ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION A. Consistence with General Plan Policies The General Plan Designation for the site is single family residential, medium density (SM), with a small portion of the southeast corner of the site within the Open Representative Land Use General Space General Plan Designation. The density Plan Policl, range for the SM General Plan Desion is 3.0-4.9 units per net acre. The subdivision, as Poiic)? 3-8: Infilling of alread`, developed areas shall be proposed, would be in compliance, with the encouraeed...ln accanmodatin�� General Plan densityrequirements. new development, pref�Tence shall generally be given to vacant or The proposal is consistent with Land Use underused sites within urbanized Element Policy 3-8 of the General Plan, which areas, which have necessary utilities uistalled with available r,-ma' Promotes infill development on vacant or ca aciry before l7Tldevelo ed P - P under used saes. The subject property is also suburban lands are utilized. located within the Saranap Area for which there are specific land use policies in the General Plan. Policy 3-135 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan (Policies for the Saranap (walnut Creek) Area) pertains specificall�� to an area south of Olympic Boulevard and does not apply to . - P1 _ this prQ1 ect. Because of the subject property's proximit}, to Las Trampas Creels an d the Open Space General Plan Designation, portions of the Conservation Element of the General Plan will apply to the project. The conservation and protection of water resources within the County is expressly addressed in the Count}, General Plan, and Representative Creek Protection General Plan Goal specific goal and policies apply to projects near water resources. Goal 8-U: To maintain -the ecology- and hydrology of -Te,l:s and The intent of the representative General Plan streams and provide an am,,,.nin- to water resource goals and oiicies that a }�� to the pubi?�, while. at the same time . `� P .PP -� preventing flooding, erosion and the project is to assure creel: preservation and danger to iife and pro ert�-. p to protect people and private property from S-5 loss. The General Plan identifies the minimum required structure setback from creeks as being 50-feet from the centerline of the creek. The project as proposed would not violate this policy, but development standards in the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9) and in the Public Works and Flood Control Ordinance (Title. 10) establishes creek structure setback lines by appl)a*ng a specific formula. The *intent of the structure setback requirements I in Title 9 of the Count), Ordinance is to provide a scientific method of determinincr a specific structure setback from unimproved earth channels or creeks. General Plan Pobcy 8-90 Uhts requires that setback areas al on cr creeks or streams have development ri.- deeded to the County in order to protect a4jacent structures and avoid the loss of Representative Creek- Protection �61 privatt, property. The County General Plan General Pian Policies requires a rmmmurn setback area of 50-feet poli, 8-89: Setback areas shall be frnm tlip r-P-ntPrIInsz of a artr-1- or strcarn. Tltl,,- provided along natural creeks and �A%.O�A.A A.A %WA.A��Prlin� %."& U-4 *.OA %-I I L.� %..# C� 9 of the County Ordinance establishes creek streams mi areas planned fox structure, setbacks based on aMOTt scl'tntific urbanization. The setbach- areas method, but its purpose is the same, to protect shall be .of a width adequate tc) allow maintenance and to prevent the creek- and private property. G- eneral)�, the damage: to adjacent structures, the setback areas calculated using the calculations natural channel and associated identified in the Ordinance are much more, riparian vegetation. The setbacl,, restrictive than the minimum called for in the area shall be a minimum Of 100 General Plan. feet- 50 feel an each side of the centerline of the creep.. Onthe March 16, 2004 revised version of the Polic-17 8-90: Deeded dcvelopment- I V1.1.1'sting tentative map, the, applicant's emcrine,,T rights for lands within established setback areas along creeks or identifies two structure setback lines. The, streams shall be. sought to assure- County Public Works Department has not creek preservation and to protect approved these structure setback lines. In an adjacent structures and the loss of exhibit from the Count}l Public Works private pTopeml. Department dated March 215, 2004, the actual calculated creek structure setback consumes most of the Proposed panel "C'1 and about half of the proposed parcel "B". TJ sine the creek structure setback- exhibit submitted by the Public Works Department., establishing three parcels would Dot be feasible. The creation of two lots at the site would be possible with the creel; structure setback identified by the County Public Works Department. Even though the creek structure statback lint as. calculated by the Public Works Department, dramatically, reduces the buildable area of the entire. site, staff has determined . that there is enough buildable, area. outside of the '%'r.L restrl'tied development area" on the proposed parcel "B" to deVs,=.,.Iop ont additional lot at the site. The buildable area within the proposed parcel "B" is sufficient to establish a sin-crIp, famil-v residence., that is compatible, with other homes in the aroma. without variance--s or exceptions to the cre,,=.,h- structure setback requirements. S-6 B. Consistence With Zoning Ordinance (Title 8) The parcels as proposed comply with all of the R-10 size and averaRre width requirements. The smallest of the three parcels will have an area of 10,000 square feet. The minimum lot size in the R-10 zoning district is 10,000 square feet. The average lot widths of parcel "A", "B" and "C" are 102, 93 and 106 feet respectively. The average lot width minimum in the R-10 zonincy di strict is 80 feet. The applicant is proposing the removal of 9 trees, including two valley oaks and work within the dripim' e of two (2) oak trees. The trees to be removed range in diameter from 8-inches to 24-inches. Three of the trees to be removed are dead according to the arborist report. Impacts to, or the removal of other trees may be required during the development of the property Trees that are not identified far removal or alteration in this application will require approval of a tree permit prior to removal or alteration. Relocation of the storm drain line may r"quire work- within orkwithin the dripline of two oak trees near the eastern side of the property. In order to mitigate the removal of the trees, the applicant will be required, as a condition of approval, to prepare a landscaping plan identifying the planting of at least eleven (1 I), 1 5-gallon trees. C. Subdivision and Flood Control and Drainagye Ordinances (Title 9 and 1 Ol As discussed earlier in this report the property is subject to the CreeR- Structure Setback Ordinance (attached). The applicant has presented two creel- structure setbacks on the vesting tentative map. However the lines presented on the map, titled "creel: structure setback based upon unimproved channel" and "creek structure setback based upon improved channel" have not been plotted correct]�� according to calculations made by the County Public Works Department. An exhibit showing the actual creel'; structure setback (based on an unimproved earth channel} encroaches much further into Parcels "C" and "B" than the line presented by the applicant. The correct location of the creel: structure setbad: line encumbers a vast majority of proposed parcel "C`, rendering it unbuildable. while proposed Parcel "B't is still buildable, it would be limited 1n terms of the placement of the home and any accessory structures (Restricted Development Areas or "Creek Structure Setback" does not allow structures or ane development within the setback area). It. is the ==,h structure setback line calculated by the Public Works Department that has prompted staff to recomrn end this subdivision be. approved for two lots rather than the three the applicant is proposing. However, as is reiterated in the Public Work's memo attached to this staff report. J the applicant could request an exception to the Creel: Setback Ordinance. If the nnain.crs can be made, an exception may be aranted. which would allow, for a ` The avera!e widths for parcels "B" and "C'' was calculated based on the properties being accessed via Boulevard Wad,. The average lot width for Parcel "A," was determined based on a Warren Road access point. S-i reduced creek structure setback line. This option has been discussed with the applicant. but he contends that Las Trampas Creek Channel is "improved" and therefore the property is not subject to the Creek Structure Setback Ordinance and no exception is required. The position of the Public Works Department is that the channel is "unimproved" and therefore the Count�l is required to appl37 the Creek Structure Setback Ordinance to this property. The Flood Control District, Saranap Horne Owners Association and adjacent property owners have also brought up drainage concerns for the subject property. Stormwater generated on other properties and within the public right-of-wav in the area is collected and conveyed into a collection box at the northwest corner of the site within the public nght-of-wa3 A 15" corrugated metal pipe, conveys all of the stormwater collected across the subject property, to an outfall into Las Trampas Creek near the southeast corner of the property. The existing outfall is 1!1 qfGA /11'1 l-►D nri\n pr� ��� \T7/�tto 1 �r�+ti_+���r � � ��• j1... .�...�., 1., lVVa"LVu %Jll tll� GLL1,uvv11L `Ji1LLVY!1\y Gl,LI) PI up. .,I L,`, ailu V V G1 L11G 'y ecu J has sever Gl)` eroded the creek bank, creating a simlificant sinkhole on the neighboring property. The problem is exacerbated by the natural collection sheet flows being generated on the subject propert�l and flowing in the same directi on of, and discharging into, the creek at a point under the existing outfall, undermining the creek banks even further. The revised tentative map identifies the neve proposed location of the ston-n line. The proposed location of the storm drain line and outfall have not been approved b�, the County Flood Control District or Public Works Department, and as a condition of approval will be required to be reengineered and approved prior to modifving the existing storm drain system. Approval from the California Department of Fish and Game will also be required prior to constructing an outfall into the creel:. D. CEQA Mitigated Nenative Declaration and Proi ect Concerns in General On Dcember 29,200; ea mitigated negative declaration was posted for the project. Two letters, from the Saranap Homeowners Association and the adjacent neighbors (RvanlShavw Family), were received in response to the notice of the mitigated negative declaration. Both of the letters are attached. Mianv of the concerns about the CEQA review and the project as a whole are discus sed in both letters. Therefore staff will respond to the concerns found within both letters as a whole. Summary of Concern: The engineering calculations and designs for the drainage system and outfall should be submitted to the County for review prior to th e mitigated negative declaration being adopted. Staff Response: The conditions of approval for the project require that the applicant submit detailed drainage plans for reviev- and approval of the Public W orks Department. With projects that are so small in p density it is not the ractice _ of the County to require the applicant to submit detailed drainage plans prior to the prod ect being approved. In terms of CEQA., staff does not believe that the approval of this subdivision, which will ultimately mean the addition of a S-� maximum of two homes, will have a sim-ificant impact on the environment. Additional)}j the frontage and drainage improvements as required by the conditions of approval will improve the existing drainage problems. Summar, of Concern: The impacts of the outfall should be addressed in the CEQA review. Staff Response: Staff reviewed the project with full knowledge that an outfall would be required. It is for this reason that mitigation measures found in Section NTI of the initial study are being applied to the project. The proposed miti aati on measures will reduce the impacts to a less than sian.ificant level. Summar, of Concern: If County has made a concession to the applicant regarding the creek structure setback requirements this fact should be documented in the Mitic-ated Necrative Declaration. Staff Response: As evidenced in section "C" of the "Staff Arxalysis and Discussion's above, the Count�l has made no concession regarding the req uirement for the project to meet creek structure setback requirements. A condition of approval regarding this matter is being applied to the project. Summar-\1 of Concern: The description of the location of the creek is incorrect. The pro)ect does not touch or cross Las Trampas Creek in any manner. Staff Resvonse: In the initial study staff incorrectly described the prolect as being bordered, on the northeast corner, b}, Las Trampas Creek. The creek actuall}l runs along the southeast corner of the propeM7. The error in the description of the. creek location does not have a substantial impact on the environmental evaluation or the mitigation measures. Whether or not the creek touches the Lionsgate Property, is subject to interpretation. According to County Code, the top of the ban): of Las Trampas Creek is actually located well within Parcel Summary of Concern: The proposed Mitigation Measures do not address requirements for the legal responsibility of the maintenance of the constructed private drain system. Staff Response: While the mitigation measures do not address legal responsibility of the maintenance of the constructed private drain system, one of the attached conditions of approval requires the property owner to record a statement of deed n oti i cati on, which informs all future property owners o f their eir 1 e gal obligation to maintain the private storm drain facilities traversing the property. Summar, of Concern: If the applicant places a fence between his property and the Ryan/Shav, property, it will make it difficult for emeraency vehici es to access the Ryan/Shaw propem. S-9 Staff Response. In terms of the County Ordinance, the applicant could build a fence, along the southern, property 1113e, I'll depcmdent of this subdivision. It appears lack of access to the Ryan/Shaw property is related to the limitations of their own property not the approval of this subdivision. Wnile the construction of the fence may violate the private easement am-eemcnt which was executed by previous owner of the Lionsaate property and the Rvan/Shav; Family, staff doo.=..s not bellieve it is within the purview of CEQA. Surnman, of Concern: The proposed outfall syste-m will not alleviate sheet flov, onmnatina from Boulevard Way. Staff Response: The conditions of approval require the applicant to construct curb autter and sideway along Boulevard Way. These rmprovc,:L-ments Will 1 11 =1 alleviate sheet flov, oria.inating from Boulevard Way. VIII. CONCLUSION Due to the delineation of the creek structure setback, as required by Tit)e 9 of the County Ordinance and identified by the County Public Works Department, staff has determined that the subdivision of the property into three lots is not feasible. Therefore. staff recommends that the application be approved for two lots, subject to the attached conditions of approval. S-Io .t . ■ ,,,,qtr �, ��.►�� �, .�_ ����;�=�.; �► -fir►' ► . rn ,� .1 �, ae. yy'4 e► ,� .� �:.YI_�,, �,:r,R., .� r1 r� r Darr ♦ �' .�. Zen FRI. IM �. Wlxv L �t.■ � ILS`i'?} , �,Y t i T�`-`�i�}� Yj�1 ���.C" a��y� � � 4 to oft town 0 OM X11 � ti � s. � �► l f/,...�a, l!'c„ .t.�'�.a�`„t�+�tts ,.f �'•fit *{ti- ..,..l�,t.i>'„�;"r���i''!,b ' e 'l.',� � "Fk-.'i:� �e.+•�1 �j� .t,.','.-��lu,'•.�',(+h►ar's�” ti.:l t^t.�-71��\w.�i�.,•.�%f r.��71�Y•'' . � - �� 2 �1{,► •'rt=-�,.r � �. �i.L �t 'i4 ,,r- t 4:'1 t('�'i� ,� .F��. L :. �� S�� �,� �''"" � ''sem t��� u,t��y�++�{,"f��•�"''r� "L't.I,i�L:`r S f� ,,e•S;;•��,�i, r�� ,+ . _' � �,�,� F'� ��+ � _ �'7`i°-�"-�tl.-2.t'.� jj-y,�bir�` 1yt�:'"""'c�♦_f:t-�'� �. ���,J.y ,,,,'vy�t'',s.` b�+t+��':,.,i'c.1'.�j,{.}Y'''.';.r+ Rm"'�.�F S"'� •.ZL,.1-y�ltdt _ � '� J.���������1k7LL�tr+ �i',^� �,�il.t' _,• •L. �L$atS ..7'�:.`, h t! e'�y`',11 t�ji.�..,w 1� • �__ �iyy � :L�'tJ.�� � r�.,i* ,� ��V Tyr ! �J t'a t�i.+�.-..;;� 7s{��t""( 'w�L .; iw'r'� .. _ � - --"et�� � .r���jjFhF('•R, r r+ ��r�t'.r''r 'i�:t. 1:2.r �i'1f"�1"itt r.w,r'�.1 f��•• - ..r'1'i•i t }�}`� ."�;a- tom=$.'.�..�.� . ...,, ";.r� et;:. 3� -7�� qj � � - ''`"-""�•.�...r'! it r�'�� � F� .� �rfYJ'^+��� '1• _i. �- �., - _1'.'• n'� a }�� , _ ::�'� `"1�'� '� ,,�. r tit, 4r:,r .r -" •. � +" fi,C �' i - - .l� .i.. "�1 rr,� Lt` �y H.•' j� r�R _ _ .tw.,f.�atK,rir�r *•� `t per► " ti"......•.• y,�.,tti`i'��• -� '.'i-. �try ^, "� ''��"�r'X {ti�;1�+�`n,��. r, r 4�t�+�kf�tj y�T1"'��„�,��i�7n�'±•F -�;1 ` + tR t'�.r•.i `1,,;• ,��� ?�yltarl: t r 't.,it4M. `'GK irr2�. .1 { i ,.^� v. " ' / ."�-{ Lwt.I{Tt � Ire�/.•, { R.��t 1 T'�'+ ,.!C^'�..� i. L.1 f t. »� a a ;�" S�j:F' t � �. �J�3�^ R S - �':::.� ��i •�' �,';,�.�,..tit �, �"f �r 'I,_ .- ,I�. _„w'.•,t j+�q iJ-,RC1'ti"T::rU �1 Lh t ^f�1'n�i+ ^..r tk�'i," 1-rte '"� .'.i"� $ t.i♦�� !t� I ;^ .."...�..• . 17�� ^}thi .rw..F.f;�1 , 1.4Y !.�1s'.� S�,l� ^'s �y " M1avt 3� �} I.� ` ,�;,tt 'S.e'"".. � � (�+�• e+`�.1i'r� { b +!, !r� l •+�,'�'SA iti�'e'"r W 7���' ,� +'„ x;;r+af ti'.x � 1CLj ��' ���"•"T't�t'R�"� �"..,y ! ,+•. � ills" 'r�'j���tN^t'„'yt,� l2�r t��.` Iy►�/V"•ah�-• ir'��14��..r � ,'t,� +*..�'u'*`T' .',r�'x�' �M�',��'i�,R}g �' � I _ nrTs -t� ,,�i �^ �qo. �i� ' 'N 1 i"t�Y..`I� jy.',it �y, {, i�}� 'i {; .?!T��►,� �� 1, 1, tn';-',.c�'�•; �'µ"�-� �4 •�� _,•i �r`ir`.l Ii+:l ..rf!� '; t -46734ua .Idr ' ..+-•+•^.C,, r�fR.r!. '�+` .r, .G ,t.�i ■ yT�M�„e� ���1f��1 ,��,.�'p✓���j4:i.' +'4 t i� �SII'` �"+wy! 1 N.' �N"+� td .. � ,'.,"y«—r''°„n:w l y 1.�,.l: •�'� �lr^':1,r,_4•`��n6�.:..+� ^.f,�4]",., t.� �r'"�*"' Yr+�' ;;�;�a� r _"�.r•:, ; �' '�'jY't'• �� t 1 A.Sj'''h,icP,.y.•Y1 �_t. i �. E� 1` P ,� �.s�R' fj'" 1 1�•' 'k, n3 ,yam'4'Y, ( �" �w, ty,�t+r�iRy h's�f:`.` C'�'�'�tiq�•t, � i j;*���' i ��V`i��.nom 15-{r S"3,. .n.r•-- .`.� ��h f�„�� j a ��� � +11w"�-x'13 1 Rai Sly gym IV u^ '"�'• �� ■ ``�•R fir,.r,�` �i '' ����� � ■ 4`,� ■t� '�I�II�� � � ^Il���lWi � ■ t.rt;r��i ��li�t� �. � �t�, ♦�, +�► �•► ../�..�..� ��.�".Ura � �. ~rye � .7 t,. Y i.11lfi It 4 t�, ��� i• 1� 111211pp.rtyi�i► � Frbe ,+ , MIN A ■1� ■1► r, s- - r► M N eh : vn ca V �t �y (`'✓') `' ev RA' 10, ♦,t• �.Y •�1r•a}� r�r, �t� <o, •pt j Z L8 �' lirAR� .. k p t l.- -� •e. :� \�w , c o ,meq tcS 31 1Q *41 1 r a r; i •�i p •• a �Y"s Z J dL t- N NA V IK -DV-19 „ •�tC o, ��1 -qt: may. •,,, t� >i� �,,.,i -p OP�•���b�y-n° � •'^mss. '�• �'��• �,�e'"sc b o � � ., r `U � C' $ .; M •.!s 1•�' p .cit,.* ,`� �\ x ', (�, � f f r t• � r' .y ,� o�' � Nib 'L� tU { � CD v r„ i WG 1 t. •, ~ Wwr Lk 1 { c 01 Ac r C.i v� �� �,. .j Z.Fy,,: �p �'fit'' � w+. s 'a•�� N,�. � C •r�,�F s � ' � � tit•M�4.���: � © Y \ Q ( ) �, 5J) {n�""" \ ` w�a 1'.. J(j/t�t�• ,lC'►�{ ..Y i" �C`..r } {Cl .p1C I.Y ISP(.1�• Y lot r --P t .♦ If�� 'i lft co Vkl vrl Q Y � // r�r •..ct. r}a '' ' t i�.f✓ ` �7 tit -� N �- ' Ole (✓ 151 �'. rDIV ✓ vii` \tC1 ♦� (`, �c 4 h " R �� (� j i �► " :y `./t, - ��..._..,:,c� ,� _ � � c a+ice • .. t 0 ol 6 ot to to In AAC fAr-r JFK toc, 6A %p owl ...........I at it oo go to oi to sow .001 SO A I to. of A S.6 cv, to iwto- vc ..of to % vn Nr t VC) It 16 t 1 60 16 r) Olt- ®r', Am 0 Ar Cl) We to to ............ t ✓. i ` J/ '•./ `,o�:. 1 ,/JJ� •: 006 1p. 1poit, v IM > IV to to. \L Oki. c ........ w!h a .� `` 1 !I.^:!( i J \C � ` •I 'e+,� + \ t'^" 1 `�, .8_\`, '`�� �/ \r�i�•• QF '� �' •�f r kyr �I�� � 4� L:� \ +/'-.+ ,^`•.. ` .1k , .�-' r n.� \ �!. �' A nvw rc PAW Vi 7 NI to to "p Y-1 V& IF. IL r to :L Obf, --f :11 \ tk lip �olll sli low Ol ­_ .91 V 6r% PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTAIENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: September 8, 200' TO: Candi Wensley, Project Planner, Conm-iunit7 Development FROM: Lawrence Gossett. Consulting Civil Engineer, Engineering Services Llo SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION MS 03-�-0015 STAFF REPORT & CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RE,VISE (Lionsgate/warren Rd. L Boulevard Way/Saranap Arca/A-P� 184-15 0-02 9) FILE: MS 01-001-- Wtl, have rntt with the applicant and field reviewed the site with regards to the creels sti-ucture setback rtquireinents. His conccn-i is that the structure, setback standards defined i:n the County Ordinanc-El, Code will encroach into the proposed buildinc, envelope on Parcel C. The required setback would extend ws.241 into portions of the lot that appear to be stable, noting t1 presence of well established trees and vegetation and no Lii-nt of soil M* stabil.Ml. Some erosion protection has been installed along portions of the creek bank-. bu-t other areas. primarily at the outfall of the existing storm drain traversing the site, haile experienced substantial erosion. As we, exexplainedWetd to the applicant, , Would ol-A�7 allow encs achnient into the structure, setback area based on findings from qualified civil and creotACahnical c�ncrinecrs that the supporting soils and creek bank will not be undermined b-v erosive forces. Such an anah'sis 6-' would h-iclude. an evaluation as to the, condition and serviceabillt�7 of the existing 1=PT0Vcme..ntE, determination that *d the dts'pi flow in the creek. and if not, that the a det said improvements contain %.� I Jlelocit�7 of flows that are, bcvond or above the linaits of the existing improvcments -will not scour or erode thr.-I cref.-,h' bank and cause- It to fall, potentially undermillu' lcy facilities constructed oii the above embanicnitnt. In cases where we have allowed for an exception fi-oin the structure setback r,,c--.qia1rCments. w,,-- have required such an anah7sis to be reviewed along Nx\71th other proposed creek 11-1-1pyovellicilts i.e. the reconstructed storm drain and outfall within the subdivision itself) at the tu' llt-1 of the improvement plan and parcel map Our prior recommended conditions of approval may be inodifitd as foho-v\7s tc) allow for a possible. exception f-roin the structure scotbach requirements provided certain to.,,nauitermc-,, findings and construction measures are,taken: Creek Structure Setback: Applicant shall relinquish "development ri-ahts", over that portion of the site,, that is within the structure setback,- area of the creek along the,noi-da,propeM; line. The structure setback area shall be determined using the criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14, "R-i2lits of Wad; and Setbacks" of the Subdivision Ordinance. "Development rights" shall be conveyed to the Count, bN7 grant deed. The structure setback area ma)? be reduced subject to th e reviev, of Public Works and review and approval of the Zoilincr Adininistra-tor, based on a hvdrolog3l and hvdraulic stud37 and Geotechnical analysis of the soil which sho-Vt7S that the creek banks will bg,-z,. stable and non-erosive with the, anticipated creek flours. The hydrologry and hydraulic study must be, based upon the ultimate devedc)pinent of the. watershed. An31 existing improvements in the creels shall be e-\7aluated and corrective actions taken as deemed ntcp.2sai-3,-to assure their continued pec.,rfonnance as designed. GAGrpData\EngSvcU_aM,Gossett12003\Sept emberMS03 0015b CP- H.Balicnrcr,Engineening Services LIonSgHTt Deveicipment Corp..P.O.Box 400,Alamo,CA 94507 Jim Diggin-s.De-Boll Civil Engineenng,811 San Ramon Valicy Bivd..Danville,CA 94526 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT n r-, P,i .-2.55 GLACIER DRIVE, MARTINEZ, CALIEFORNIA-f DATE: -August 5, 2002') TO: Candi Wensley., Planner, Community Development Department FROM: Paul R. Detjens, Associate Civil En2n1ter Flood Contro SUBJECT: 30-Day Comments—Lionsgatt Development (MS 030015" K-LE: 1003-0015-03 (AP-NT 184-150-029) 'Ne hkave revif,-wcuc' the revised vesting tentative map for the Lionsgmte Development (lviinor Subdivision 15-03)) located M' the Walnut Creep area,which our office. received on July 17. 2003. submit the following comments to you: 1. The proposed project is located within Drainagt Area 121 (DA 121), an u-nformed Flood Control District drainage area. No drainage area fees are required for this project. design and construct storm drain facilities to adequately collect and The developer should in facihIti convey stormwater runoff,without diversion of the watershed, entering or ori-emating within the development to the nearest adequate man-nude drainage facility. The revised tentative map shows this project will drain to a relocated 15-inch storm drain Ise %.I line which ties into an existing 10-inch pipe e.that discharges over the bank of Las Trampas Creep,. The bank in this area has severely eroded and has been partially armored using construction debris. Without apT0p$,.=.T]y-enm,'neered outfall, this area is expected to further erode. Before accepting the application as complete,please have the applicant ShoMrthe location of the existing outfall (includi.ng topoerrapby) and shomy an engineered outfaD 1= eIr & {including dimensions)at this location. AD=1woutfall will be required to adequately satisfy the project's collect and convey requirements. The. impacts of a neve outfall need to b%- identified and addressed by this project's CEQA document. ,. The applie-ant will need a Counnr Drainage Pe=*t for anv work in Las Trampas Crt.1A11.. Thp applicant may contact Bob Hen" cirY of our Pe=t Center at(925) ."35-1375 for an application. P11", tim &,. 5. Esp....�_.Iabkr for cross-section we disagree that the creep bank qualifies as an 'improved channel." As such we do not agree with thr..-, delineation of the crttil.,__ structure setback lint shown on the plans. The developer's engineer should r1elvist.1,the, cre-ek structure. setback,11DIC to be in accordance with Section 914.14.0 12 of the Ordinance code. The st-ructure, sefoacil, lintz,for unimproved channels should"m 45-feet away from the top of the barb when hplicrht of the tor) of bane, a'oove the channel invert is bemit-.an 40-feet and crteh. A sTru,c.ture scAbach. limit should be revised on tht tentative map. 6, The submitted cross-sections of the creek bank should shoe r the topography for the eastern creek bank. The design storm water surface elevation of Las Trampas Creek- should also be shown. 7. vie recommend the applicant be conditioned to dedicate development rights over the creels structure setback area to Contra Costa County. Please feel free to call me at(925) 3 13-2394 or Hannah Wong at (92 5) 313- 2381 if you have an), questions or concerns. PRD:H'Vl:cid G:\GTpData\F1dCtl\CurDev\CITIES\Walnut Creek\MS 0015-03\tentativemap�-Lionsgatr Dev.doc C: E.Whan,Flood Control 1.Fah},,Engineering Services Lionsgate Development Corp.,P.C.Box 400,Alamo,CA 94507 James Diggins,DeBolt Civil Eneineering,B 11 San Ramon Valle),Blvd.,#201,Danville,CA 94526 Clint show, 1430 Boulevard Way,Walnut Creel:,94595 7 r1 m ! 1�"1 s M.Barry, AICP V 4l 1 1 1 %..1 1 1 L X10 r� ra ,r Community Development Director Development Department County County Administration Building G.AE 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez California 94553-00c,35 Phone: (925) 33-5-1210 . ~ sr�C660 August 7, 2003 DeBolt Engineering Attn: Sim Diggins 811 San Ramon Valley Blvd. 4201 Danville, CA. 9452E Dear Mr. Dlgglns, I have reviewed your revised map, dated Jule 7, 2003, and detemained that it is still incomplete. Hanna Wong with the Public Works Department has informed me that the creek structure setback lines are not located correctly,. It would be beneficial for you to meet with her and establish the accurate location of the setback lines, so that vie may continue with the processing of your application. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincere]},,, �i Candida Wensley Project Planner cc: Li ons Date Development NIS03001� Office Hours Monday - rrday:8:00 a.m.- 5:0o p.m. Office is ciosed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT C O INTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: IVI arch 18,2004 TO: Candi "Wensley Project Planner, Community Development r FROM: Eric Whan, Senior Civil Engineer, Engineering Services SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION MS 03-001 STAFF REPORT & CONDITIONS OF APPRO17AL- REVISE11D Pons gate/Warren Rd. �.Boulevard Way/S aranap Area/AP' 184-15 0-029) FILE: MS 03-0015 Subsequent to our amended staff report comments of September 8, 2003, we have had several meetings with the applicant and supplemental infomnation submitted by neighbors and the local homeowner's association to consider in our final analysis and recommendations m-eaarding this minor subdivision. This staff report presents a compilation of this information as well as responses to the issues raised for consideration b},the Zoning Administrator. Issues raised b3l the Saranap Homeowner's Association (SHOA) in response to the Initial Stud3l were addressed in our merno of February 4, 2004..Subsequentl3l, we received coZnments frons Clint Shaw and Lisa Ryan, neighbors of the subject property, also expressing concern with regards to the Initial Stud,. As with the SHOA, Shave;-Ryan have raised many valid concerns over the proposed development, mostly related to drainage and soil stability issues. But as pointed out in the response to the SHOA, the Initial Stud3l and CEQA process is not the proper forum to deal with these issues. Most, if not all of them will be mitigated through compliance. With existing County Ordinances as the project further evolves during the maprovement plan preparation and reviev, process and ultimately construction. This will include the surface watel- problems that have plagued the Shan--Ryan property, over the _years. As we have stated M' prior con-espondence and which Mr. Shaw has paraphrased i1 his letter, the drainage requirements of the County Subdivision Ordinance will require all stonn water entering or originating on the subject property to be conveyed to an adequate drainage facility. This will require that the storm drain facilities currentl)l traversing the property be upgraded to accommodate ultimate aevelopMew of the co7ztr-ibutb7c wate-shed. The sheet runoff frons Boulevard "Jay will bt. intercepted bbl the frontage improvements (curb and sidewalk) required along the frontage and tied into this storm drain systein as well. W Tile only issue(s) raised b-\, Shave-Ryan that falls outside the purview- of the Public Works Department and is more of a civil matter, concern the possible conflicts with their easement along the south property line. They may need to discuss this matter with the Fire District and ari attonne3I to protect their rights. Note that these issues are not neccs sari] related to the- subdivision hesubdivision and are certainly not within the realm of CEQA. . The most significant issues raised over this project by the applicant have been related to the creels structure setback and drainage outfall structure into Las Trampas Creek, which is adjacent to the applicant's propei-ty. The creek structure setback line plotted on the tentative map is not correct based on the topo graph�7 shown on said map. The line, as deternined by staff using the County Subdivision Ordinance requirements, encumbers almost all of Parcel C and about half of Parcel B. The applicant contends that Las Trampas Creek should be considered an improved channel due to the fact that the former owners of the Looney propert37, which is immediate)y east of this property, constructed a soldier pile wall within and along their side of the creek to provide a measure of protection against severe erosion the bank was experiencing at this location. The applicant feels that based on his interpretation of the definition of an improved cha=-itl provided U1 Title 10 of Count�l Code and because of the existence of the wall, there is no lora ger a need to '.1.11P1 6_11^1 G.._ll�i �L11 G Mf-15-el,1 5tI1 c sur C setback requirements since the creeK should novlbe considered an improved channel. Public Works has maintained throughout the revicw of this application that even though measures have been taken to stabilize a portion of one of the creek banks, the remainder of the creek at this location is still in a natural, unimproved state. The creek channel bottom as well as the banks upstream, downstream and across the creek from the wall are therefore subject to the influence of flows within Las Trampas Creek. The applicant contends that the portion of Las Trampas Creek iz7 question falls under the definition of an improved channel as defined in Title 10. Section 1010-6.014 states "h-nproved channel" means a watercourse vvhich has been modified through man-made construction including (but not limited to) increasing the width and/or depth of it, straightening its alignment, or stabilizing the banks of it through grading, concrete, nprap or other means. Public works interprets this to mean that an improved channel is either man-made or a natural channel that has been studied and undergone significant improvements such that the entire channel will adequately convey the design flow and is not subject to the erosive forces that are typically experienced u7 a natural, unimproved creel: channel. Also, improved channel channels are usually inspected and maintained as necessary to insure their continued function as desired. This portion of Las Trampas Creek is privately owned and not maintained by the Couml or other public or private orgaiuzed entit'v (i.e. HOA). In the case of Las Trampas Crech, the desicYn f�ou7 is a 50-year event with additional freeboard and a 100-year event without freeboard. Title 10, Section 1010-6.026, defnaes an unimproved channel as a watercourse, which has been left as much as possible in its natural state. Construction of the soldier pile wall, such as ,was dome at this location, is an isolated erosion control project and does not automatically classi r, this segment of creel, channel as an improved charuzel as contested bythe applicant. The wall only protects a small portion of the northwest bai l:. not the entire creel,: channel which remains substantially in a natural state. The County authorizes thmse types of projects at locations where it is appropriate and consistent with the surrounding conditions, but not necessaril�� in a location that will contain a 100-vcar storm event. Because of the existing site conditions (deep channel, steep bank) at this location, the creel: structure setback line has a sizable encroaclunent into the property as noted above. The uZtent of the creet: structure sefoacl_ requirement is to unsure that future homeowners within this development, if approved, are protected from the natural forces that influence Zas Tranlpas Creels. The applicant does have the right to request consideration of an exceptiori to this code. requirement. However, three findings must be met before any exception can be wanted by the County: l) That there are unusual circumstances or conditions affecting the propert3,,; 2) That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the applicant; 3) That the granting of the exception will not be nnaterially detrimental to the pub]-ic welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property, is situated. If the applicant can prove that the channel has the capacity in its present condition to convey the l 00-_year storm and the erosion repair plus the adjacent bank are stable, Public Works nnay recon=end that the hearing body consider reducing the structure setback line. The burden of proof is with the, applicant. Public Works will recommend that the structure setback line be, adhered to unless appropriate back-up analysis is provided indicating the creels bad and wall are s-table and not subject to the influences of Las Trampas Creel: This was explained to tlhe applicant in a revised staff report dated Septeinber 5, 2003 to the planner and copied to the applicant and as well as in a meeting with Community Development, Flood Control and Public Works on September 30, 2003. It was pointed out tliat the creels structure setback line as shown on the Tentative Map, was incorrect and if the applicant desired a setback line that was less restrictive, such as was proposed on the. Tentative Map, then he, must provide the necessary supportuhj studies and analysis to justify the exception to the Code requirement. The applicant indicated that he felt the Iine should be less restrictive because the bank and wall were stable. It was explained to the applicant that it is his obligation -to adequately demonstrate that the proposed setback line is reasonable. Public works asked for a detailed geotechnical analysis of the soil as well as a hydrology and hydraulic study to determine if the bank is stable and non-erosive with respect to anticipated creek flows. The applicant agreed at the meeting to provide. the requested information. Since that meeting, the applicant has provlded an additional geotechnical report for the site dated February 11, 2004, suppl emtnting an earlier report dated September 23, 2003. A bank stability analysis was submitted dated February 17, 2004 as well as a calculation of the 100-year water surface within Las Trampas Creel: dated October E. 2003. The conclusions of the applicant's geotechnical engineer state that the channel bank; is stable. However. these reports provide general conclusions based on site reconnaissance, to aging of four exploratory bonnas and limited laboratory testuha. Public Works has asked on numerous occasions for the additional information but the applicant has been very slouch in forth corning with the requested information needed for staff's analysis. The applicant has repeatedly/ challenged our stance on the unimproved vs. improved condition of the creel, and, irk his opinion. feels that it is unreasonable for the County to be asking him to submit additional information, especially after his engineer has determined that the creel: banks are stable. Public Works supports the County's consultuhg geologist recommendation to have the applicant submit a final aeotec''='cal report meeting the requirements of Title 9, Section 94-4.420. The Public Works Department, which is tasked with implementation of the creel: structure setback requirement, must insure that the information provided by the applicant is coinplete and contains sufficient detail before it can reco=cnd any proposed modiucation to the creek: structure s=1--tbach, linp.. to the hearing body. Our continued concerns over this matter are based on the following: 1. Although erosion protection measures have been installed, the northern porton of these improvements have failed, filling portion of the creek with broken concrete rubble and distorted steel I-beans. This partial failure, calls the stability of the entire structure into qut,-,stion and is on#.=, of the sources of our concern and request for the supplemental hydrology, hydraulic and geotechnical analyses noted above. 4� A soils enacrinet,:,r for the property owner that constructed the wall indicated that the site is susceptible to possible landslide, slumpilicr. Additional know) and charactcrizatiola of th,-. 4.-- #-- balk geology is needed, If it could be determined that the soils and rock are stable staff may support a modified creek structure setback line. 3. The drainage E!e swal, 1=tdiately upstream of the project where the existing drainaare, facilities i clischarLye, has created severe, erosion along the creek bank immediately adjacent to the end of the erosion protection along the Looney propert�7. Over time, this escarpment could allov, for erosion to take place behind the soldier pile. wall, potentially undemurunzo:, the facility. Bank insure that the, bank is no longer susceptible to protection measures should be implemented to i- sur erosion at this location. 4. The wall does not extend high: enough to protect the natural channel bank from erosion during the "design storm Las Trampas Crcth, by County Code, should be designed to accommodate a -50-_year event, with additional freeboard and a )OD-year c,=--vent without freeboard. The applicant's consultant submitted a simplified analysis in attempts to verify that the lining)was high-enough to contain such an event. Their conclusions stated that a 100- v e aT storm event would be contained below the top of the wall. However, the, storm on January I of this year, which statistically was only a '-')-year event (based on analysis by County Flood Control), raised the creek level to C e: %.,� just over the top of the wall. A.- more severe storm would exceed tl-ds flov, depth and potentially erode the, creel- bank- above and behind the wall. The,bottom of Las Trampas Creel: is unlined, allowing far possible erosion and undercutting of the slope protection over time. A hydrology and hydraulic stud), and gtottchaaical analysis of the soil is needed which shows that the creels banks will be, stable and non-erosive with the anticipated cr=,--.=,,,h flows. The, hydrology and hvdraulic study must be based upol-a the ultimate, dtvelopmtnt of the watershed. Any existing improvements in the creel: shall be evaluated and corrective actions taken as deemed necessary to assure their continued p=.-n.,n`o=anc,.r., as de s J*wed. As for the proposed outfall structure, Public Works has never been supportive, of the facility! p'rODOS,%=.4d by the applicant. There is concern with possible erosion behind the soldier pile wall or erosion at the to;.-=., of the wall from water cascading over the wall face, durn' -I,cr lov, floe. The proposed dc.,sicp could also be susceptible, to damage from debris OT water duru'lcy hac.-rh flov, conditions. To bbea good steward of the, riparian habitat, the number of outfall structures on L constructed into a creel should b,.1 minimized. It would be prefer abip.., to reconstruct the CXISIME 4- outfall on the Shav;-Ryan property to stabilize the t}:istincy erosion takinc, place at that locatioll. rather than possible create a seconda-�r problem almost immediately downstream. Note that any wore done m this area would also be, subject to revitw and permits from State and Federal regulatory agencies and would require coordination with the owners of the adjacent propcMI, As a result of these numerous meetings and correspondence, attached are our recon=tnded conditions of approval far the subject property. For ease in incorporating into your staff repolL, they have been reprinted u1 their entirety rather than redlined from prior correspondence. EW:LC::ew G:1GrpDatalEnt-SvcU-am Go9setV20041March1MS030015e cc*. H.Ballenger,Engineering,Services E.'Whan,Engineering Services C.Lau,Engineering Services h-Fernandez.Aecowiting(via a-mail') Donsgate Development Corp.,P.U.Box 408,Alamo,CP.94507 Jun Diggins,DeBolt Civil Engineering.81 l San Ramon Valley Blvd.,Danville-,CA 94526 LIONSGAT'E DEVELOPMENT COR POR,A"T1ON Malfing Address: F. 0.Box 408, Alamo, wifornia 94507 Teiephone(925) 831-8500 Fax(925)831-8502 CERTUUD MAM RETS RE tri*REQUESTED her, John March 8,2004, President., SARANAP HOMEOWNMASSOCIATION, Post Office Box 2506, Walnut Creek CA. 946-9195. RE: SA RANAP LE k(S"" DATED ANE 18,20039 A"JANUARY 28, 20"o Dear Mr. zek Deference is made to the subject letters which were d under your signature as President of the Saranap Homeowners' AssocMon to Gong.CostarTmter. 't-14-4rd 1-11S brass— These leers are nwr"e with ,.,,Ae false SS M— esentations and MAI_H unfounded la-rX I ory charges PIM1 -!--1116 to the business operations of Licm9pte Development Corporadon. It is most t4mg thatyou made no effort whatsoever to reasonably check-the veracity of any of your s=ements with our company, nor were any professional studies made by you, or Sarauap, that might lend some credence to your assertions. Furth ore, although you were promptly notified of these defects,you have continued with a �op�ex'lyEM—reckless disregard for the trutk and fair play, and thereby haveuneu ed vvith"--- our business operations, and defamed Lions to Development Corporation. Ad 9 liomMy,it has been reported to the undersigrmd that you have personally raaade similar e and defamatory vmbal to the County, and Others,, with the obmicus mous intent to unreasomblydismedit Lionsgate and damage out business. Lioussate My adlmo*lctes your ri&to fairly and accurately report on our pending minor subdivision apptcation, and we do not seek in any way to limit that right. However, Mr. Ruzek,thu* right not provide an arbiftry game to be abused by you to satisfy your ego,nor does right provide you with a license to make multiple false,misleading,and 4efamatory statements,that improperly interfere with Lionsgate's business operations and ftsmeilffly damage our company.. Mr.Ruz*these are inatten of the most serious Idnd for which heavy damage awards,punitive damages ,and legal fm,are Aowed to Lionsgate by ithe Courts. A=ordi4y, 'in a sincere, good faith effort to resolve Saranap' unlawfW conduct without a lawsuit,Lionspte offers Saranap the following mandatory course of t-700-7 T b wdvc* C', B�� OTS T J 01-4 action. SpecificaUy: ]By no later than 2:00 p,m March 22,2004 provide acceptable written notice to Contra Costa County Co 0 Development Department, with a copy sent to Lionsgate, your subject letters have been withdrawn. Alternatively, provide specific detailed written corrections of the same.Lionsgate has previously provided you with a detailed list of your false and nu"slea&g statements that require cormctioti along with 4 cant s rcgarding Saranap's abuse of the MM' or subdivimon review process. Be hereby notified that any Wure on your part to proceed in good faith and striWy comply with this reasonable dem=d by the time and date get fourth above, ghall.eause Lionsgate Development Corporation to file a lawsuit M Superior Court againA the Saranap Homeowners' Associafiot� and against W. John Ruzek personally, for the ftnages mentioned above. The undersigned may be reached at 9.2.5-831-8500 if you wish to disomg the above noted matters, sincerely, Kenneth.Bawrker, President, Lionsgate Development Corporation r. ; 'd i W MaU No. 7002 2030 0006 6947 8204 -),R-7 0 Tr. r.'J'• H T•aHVI 'IV-J Saranap Romeo :krs' Association S A R A N 't, P Post Office Box '1506 Dt% . Walnut Creek-, Calitorlua 945c.,115-253-9 Historical Comm Costa Railroad Sinhon sign W alone Sacramento Northern Railroad in the .C -) 946-91 S5 vidnii))of 0i.vinpic and BoulevardaY. T=,eIephonx,.:.,: (9-r�D June 18, 200-) Ms. Candi Wensley, Planner Contra Costa County CoAmnunity Development Department 65 1 Pi-ne,Street, 4th Floor NIA' Martinez, CA 94.5 -0095S RE: County-File MS 03 0015 0.91 Acre Lot Split @a�) 2 5 01 AAT arren Road Assessors Parcel Number 184-1-50-029 (D jr Dear Ms. Wensley: W We. are. in p receit of your AEiencv Co=ent Request dated May 77, 200' rt,3,questincy conmients by our "community orcranization" representincr the neighborhood in the vicinity of this property. Z� L-11 4- Our comments that follow start out with some background on this parcel that vie have pieced I. together in our discussions with nearby and adjacent property owners. B ackarround Assessor's Parcel Number 184-150-029 of the FloTaland Tract is characterized as a down-slopu'lcy lot Down to have many drainage problems over the years. Rain water traversing the lot, either through the subsurface drain system or on the surface., runs down to Las Trampas Creek at the east ap=....)., of the parcel where, it meets the properties OWDcd by the Looney and Shaw/Ryan families. There is a subsurface drain lint on the, proper, and shown on the applicant's "Vesting Tentative Map" dated 05/12./03 prepared by DtBolt Civil EncriDeerular. This map shows ara existing 161! Pipe Corrugated Metal P' runnin�� from the StonStormDraffiCollection Bo-.N,- at the, comer of warren #.- %- Road and Boulevard Way to a Drain Irilct on Parcel "A." At the, Shaw/Rvau PTO'P=,.Ml Il'DP,-. no-vvever, this line is only 10" in diameter (Exhibit #I) There is apparently a transition DICCe narrowi7iz the didiameterof this storm drainpipe as it runs down hill. It this lines also not is apparent to the neighbors that besides not being des' properly, th' has &I- I- A.- been maintained for years. On Parcel "A." the existin-a 16" CMP has appami-itl.v collapstd. allowins! escaping water to flood the basement of the ,)Iristin-cy house on ths.:.� sitc, tvc�= winter with p Cr nt.,,.av"�, rains nahbors have v7itn%.-..sscd vondino. outside thr.--, housr.-, and fo==.--.r residents had to sandbag tlie area by the Zarao.rp in orci4,.1,r to vrevent intrusion of floodwaters. "Dedicated to PreSeMYZ710' the Oualln.; of LiT'e in. the Samnar KoIoIlboril o o d s 177.c 6 1-996" Ms. Candi Wfnnslev June M2003 Another situation worth noting is the, discharge of water from the storm drain line at tlie most down-hill (southern. end) portion of the line into Las Trampas gee Due to a combination of waters emanating from the drain and the sheet-flov, off the property, a lanze sink-hole" has developed below the, outfall at the apex of Parcel "C" at the intersection of the property lines with the, Looney and Shaw/Ryan parcels (Exhibit 42). The erosion from all the., water off the applicant's parcel has created a hole somewhere between 8 — 13 feet deep (Exhibits #3 and #4). Already, this large undercut has undermined the, private retainima wall built along Las Trampas Creek (Exhibit 9.5). At the top of the property, we earlier referred to in this letter the existina, Storm Drain Collection Box (noted by the Count m Exhibit #6) The DeBolt vesting Tentative Map shows that bo), be*mg fed by two separate 16" CIVP drains. One crosses warren Road from the north and the second crosses Boulevard Way from the, west. These underground carround drains are crushed, d 1 n elliptical al. c- section-ss:-ct1OnC. There are 'lapidated and c-Tene-raliv in- poor condition noun haNrL'_,cr ell' tic 6.0 ft... Lh%WA 61 f.-' �j apparently no leaf covers over the inlet structure and accumulated organic debris tends to collect inside the collection box.. A layman might also ash, why a hydraulic system that has two mcornmor 16" diameter feed lines was designed with only a 16" diameter outlet that them transitions down to 10" diameter? It is also of historical interest to note that there was formerly an Olympic-siztd swimming pool built on the site. decades ac.-ro (Exhibit 47). Tads pool was in use until the, early 1980's when it #-I - was ii in filled Apparently., the storm drain line mentioned abovewas laid over the, top of the pool. There still exist a fev7 remains of the porcelain sides of this large swunrning pool that had been dumped (most likely illegally) into Las Trampas Creels belovr the property. It is not known how much of the pool was demolished before fillincr In recent vears, a previous owner of the applicant's property, Flavia Meredith Zaro, Grantor, entered into an Easement Agreement with Lisa Gail Ryan and Clinton S. Shaw (access easement agreement for maintenancc/ropaiT of drainage, roadway and pedestrian use'. I.- a.- � �_O) This has been recorded by the County Recorder's office, as document .2.001-0248819-00 along vrith Easement Grant Deed document 2_001-0248820-00. Th#,.=. DtBolt VestingTentative Map does not shDV1 any of the, easements that now exist on APN 184-150-029. In the body of the. Easement Agreement, the second paragraph in section 15 reads as follows: Not -mlithsta71dina the above P7-0111SZ072S, grantor and their assiorns or SUCCeSS077S including- any Pur-Chasers, shall be 7-eqU17-ed 10 C0772ph;with all 7nandaiory reauzreMeWS to the Cin" Of Tflah= C7-eek andlorCOUW)) Of C07717-C Costa including ani) oth67' CrOV07-77772ent entities, as to grading and dra Inacre. C� we are uncertain as to how sewaort-, from the existing structure on the site is removed. The D=..Solt VCstina Tentative Map shows a sewage pump at the southeast corner of the ex'st' i erlv pumped up to the sanitary lines runmnc, m either Warrelp house. W ce trust that sewage is prop.. pumped Ro ad or B oul=,.IV and W ay Ms. Candi Wensley June 18, 2003 Recommendations: The Saranap Homeowners' Association requests the following recommendations are implemented as conditions of approval for the requested subdivision of APN7 184-150-029 and prior to the issuance of any building permits: 1) The drainage line crossing the property must be rebuilt to contemporary engineeruzo standards. The design of this system must reasonably take into accournt the planned future developments in the nei Qhborhood upstream of the property. `or- example, the current application by Cathryn M. Richard for a Minor Subdivision at 13 84 Boulevard Way (MS 02 0007). It is understood that there are currently at least 17 parcels/homes in the nei ahborhood whose rainwaters drain into APN7 184-150-029. It is c 3 ear to us that V this project has to allow for other future developments as the absorption capacity of the earth will be r educed by fu cher upstream ho'tl"sii j mil ad—cent properties -- d Irl the fu irr- we,will see even more run-off. 2) As a part of the dra'mao, system to be installed on this property, the County should require anyJ necessary upgrades to the drainage lines crossing both Boulevard Way and Warren Road. 3) At the downstream (southeast) corner of the property, the County should require that the new outflours to Las Trampas Creek not cause any erosion of the creek banes, through use of approved energy dissipators of sufficient capacity. These outflows will increase for three reasons: (a) from the existing and anticipated upstream water flows onto the property, (b) from the corrected upstream water flows (replacement of darnaaed piping) onto the property, and (c) from runoff from the subject parcel due to construction of three new homes and their attendant paved driveways, patios, and walk ways. The Count, should also place adequate approval conditions to ensure that the stabiliq and functionality of the existu7a retaining wall is not further Compromised by water emanating from the applicant's property, or require the. applicant to build a proper retaining wall. 4) Measures must be taken to insure that any facilities installed in recornmen dations #l, .' and 43 above are properly maintained in the future. We recommend that the County require a special taxing district be set up (possibly along the lines of a Liahtin2 and Landscaping District) requiring the owners of the future three subdivided parcels to fund any and all maintenance costs of these facilities by the County. We do not believe that the County should rely on either CC :R's or any homeowner's association for these three new parcels to take responsibility for such an important undertaking. 5:) Rubble from the former swimming pool that has been dumped in Las T-Tarnpas Creel: should all be removed, provided that an engineerina analysis deten-nines that such removal does not cause. further erosi on of the banks. 6) The applicant should revise the V estinQ Tentative Map for the subject parcel to shoe, all existing easements and requirements. 7.) The construction of tin-ee nevi- homes will require sewaaa Lift pumps for ail three homer (there beim no sewer line downhill at the Creek. As such, a sewer Iine. easeMent would need to be created from the lower lots; uphill across the upper lots, if a. Warren Road sewer connection is to be used. Ms. Candi Wensley -4- June 18, 200.3' Lastly, we suggest that the professional staff of Contra Costa County perform an in-depth held review of the subject property, and interview neighboring property owners to ascertain the veracity of the statements made in this letter- and to better understand and appreciate. the erosion problem at the outfall of the existing I 0-inch diameter drain on the applicant's prop erty. we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the subject applicatioia for a Minor Subdivision on Warren Road. We trust that an)T development on the property -�.vill result in eliminating problems for the neighborhood as opposed to creating any more. Sincerely, LJWhD B. Ruzel;, President SARANAP HOMEDVrNERS' ASSOCIATION Attachments c. (w/a) Supervisor Gaye B. Uill-ern a County Planner Ryan Hernandez Mr. L Mrs. Ronald Looney Ms. Lisa Gail Ryan Mr. Chnton S. Shaw c. (w/o a) Deputy Director Catherine Kutsuris, Communit�1 Development Saranap Homeowners' Association E; A R A N A PPPost Offic- Bo),,, -')506 Walnut Cn..,Ck. California -c.)4.'9'- 0506 Hisiorical Contra Cosin Anfirond Sinhon sign nionc, Snri-nmento Northern Rndrond in the Telephone: (9) 946-918 1)cinin:OfOlmIDIC nnd.Bottievni-d Hinit. U A4 7. January 28, 2004 Ms. Candida Wmslcy, Plamicr Contra Costa County Community,,Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor N-W Martinez. CA 94505.)-0095 R-L: County File MS 03-0015) 0.91 Acre Lot Split('a') 2501 Warren Road Assessor's Parcel Number 184-150-02-9 Dear Ms. Wcnslty- Thf-:1, Saranap Homeowners" Association (Saranap HOA) has received a "Notice of Public Rev*lv and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Ncc.-rative. Declaration" tiled b�, Contra Costa Count, Corrimunint "�-001 -D T'- Development Department on December 29, ?~00' for thtl, referenced County Flip, MS 03 1*11S letter addresses several of our concerns rcm,-crarding thlr-I adequacy, of the mitigation mt,>.as-ur=,.,spropostd for the Minor SubC11171sion. In PTOVI'dinc- the comments presented herein, the, Saranap HOA Board of Directors has met with and had several conversations vrith representatives of the applicant, Lions ate Dt12$-v,%c..-1oPmcn-t Corporation. to discuss their proposed project and have intcrviewed and discussed the project writh neighbors including Clinton Sham,, Lisa Rvan. Pauline Angell and Bill Dinchart. In addition., we hav-,--, reviewed the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration document and other documents in our 'Jp p ertalnin cT to to P prof o,-.c B ased on our research and rpl-N)'=11WI, w,,:, are of the opinion that additional study needs to be completed before any Mitigated Ncuat*vr- Declaration is issued and the project is allowed to mov,,=- forward, At the. crux of our concerns is the adequacy of the environmental discussion of the cirainaut, issues and the adequacy, ol'proposed MitiEatiou rnt:.,,.asur=,.,,q viewed currcritIN, to satisf /, tht, CEQAT-eQuiremx,,Mt to A reduce environmental impacts to C- "Less than Sio-mifil-lant" =Vim' A l. Private Storm Drain System A.s discussed in our previou.--, rt,-Sponstcf ]=.tt,,T aai=,d .lune IS. 20021. the Saranap HOA- is f mim ii ar wi P the. sub),.n.-C-t proper v and thr.-- various sion-n drainage issues that havt., inundated the Dropg,,I-T-\: far OUII,- sometime. Many on our board are Mumaicl-v fan-iihar with the conc-pL of PTiv a tSstorm= Gra' 11-1 sy, tr---mLc:,-. and tht thetl-on,- that maintenance of theprivate bvst-rn i Stht r-spoas'b of the residents who purchas'Moj thr- =-nanr,.-.r,-- propene tn' roucrh w'n' Ich ti-ir.- system -P as sc It the maint of Utmos - til sysut"nas that st,.42M-i to fullclispultl-b among-` ncicarhoonl, and vet it 1, of IMPOMA tract n', Cr YI: 10 PF to Mid ani=-na�blr- solution for all. nDOTES W 0 %..1 n%.-�,1 %.0 3 e 17?C1 )ea1cczted 1c; Pl-e- 71) the C)ucz'zTi- ol'L 77 t"' e Sa 7-a n ciT, Ne o 7-700 " S'77C:Cf, 1996 17C z /7 1c,h 0 G z Ms. Candida Wens] January 28, 2004 We appreciate the time County staff has I'DVeStCd in evaluating the, drainage and creep issues for this property, as well as other properties in the. Saranap area. We, however, are concerned that this =AM Ij applicant has been able-, to begin the replacement of their "private storm drain systc and tie their .L 46-' completion of the systcm into the proposed subdivision Dlans. Th:c.�, system rt-placement began A 4 without a pen-nit on Septernbtazz- 16, 2003 and as of now this work has not been completed. The lacL- of completion has ro.=-.su1ttd in additional storm water flow darnac.re in the area including floodi Ms. Candida Wensley January 2S, ?004 (3) the level of survey completed to date has not properly, located various improV41.21hill'ElInts and features including the the exisuncr retaining wall that is to serve as the foundation for the outfall, and the natural outfall location all of which are cn'tica'] omissions. VlailE-1, this level of design and detail is required through the proposed Mitigation Mcasuncs, the timing of completion seems to be, after project approval vet before the final map is recorded. Th..T.., is no indication that Mr. Detjens and the Count�l Flood Control department will ever b e involved in thereview of theoutfall to check. engin=.crin-a calculations and code COMDharicp issues. Given th,, importance of the adequar.-,�, of the outfall and connected pipelines to the.prof ect's "collect and coiiveil requirements", we judge that it would bx,--, prudent to require that the applicant provide MCI em d Dcb al-irri-jel-11 IOT ifltlT ,rint,c,rincr ciata and ar.'siarn to T-ne ,_,0U1-1TV 1-i 0 0 ontio 1 6.0 L P -1 It fl T,E.,vitw and that their co=ents incluac., appropriate Wilt]*c-rail on Tvif,,,asun,.�.,s to beincoiT)o orated o-y ine Co=unin, Development Department into the Ml'tl_cratP,-.,,d N,,-.Frat1va Declaration and its associated tDi1roental documentation for the prof ect. linim'Droved Las Trampas Creek Another concern rco-rardino, the proposed project st.=-.ms from a comment made by -the Lionsgate representative during our recent January 2004 meeting. Vac-ii asked if he could explain why there are two creel, stn..-tbach lines shown through the property, Mr. Paul Bark cr of Lions gate D ev elopnici Corporation indicated that there is ongoing discussion with the Count), over the required crtel. spl-tbacl: distance based on whether the crAte:-1: should be. considered "improved" or I.L.-tiriimprovcd". Based on our rtvicv; of the,records the Saranap HOA has on 151c, this do=.-.s not St.= to be a question at all. The County has been vcnl cltmr that Las Trampas Creel. is an unimproved crt-t-ek. Mr. Stan Matsumoto, County Senior Engineer in a I ett crdatcd February- 13. 1997 to Ms. Lisa R-van indicated- "Las Trampas Creek- is a natural unimproved creek...". +1 rV ^ 41 ;1 �'-h r VT !\Arr. T-�n ' '" ;,-� A iiryi1vt I A i +• %W 1 0%.0 A..LO 1!.1 XJL 0 a vO IL "Especially for cross-section AA, we disagree that the creek- bank- In qualifies as an improved channel". rurthffl, in a lever wntt,,:I:brl uv Lionsc-rate _Dcv=tJopm=,..-nt Corporation on Olctobcr 9. 11 00-' to Davie' Swartz of Community D=,_.­Vo,=.,1opm=t Dtpabrtmtnt, t1it-, applicant inc1ir,_-.atCd that the-v understood fna4i V d -v virtue of the attachment W-. Matsumoto'-s lg�- tht creel'~ was uluni-pro 1 letter) to th 1--lir own Itn'tit-T. Mr. Paul Bark=,-.-r also st..-,t-mcd to infer in our meeting- that the success of the Project runcres to a ccrtair . 1, . I 7h,=, Crabjm' - - L %_� 6.1 aal I ,I -, , banf* Cxt=, on the a-DDhCant's a"oihn` to SUDGIVId and dcvclop two a' "t'onal parc,-'.. r c- th L,,":l t 1 n g i as shown: oil t, =ntaiiv,:-- map dated 0,-tobp.,r -')00^) for th" .DroPC:)S,=.d Pa 11 f, appears to take up the rna*oritv of the parcel. It.-laving what appears by inadequatespacct::� io'T nf,,V, single.r- Tamil`, residence. If the CounTN; has made, a concession to ,:&cr tht applicant raTc1i= thr. sctoa-]* A j TCOUIT.mcnts it should be so 0`01CIUMCnted in tht lViiii(Eatt'-d Declaration. Thg.., County si=16 A - - - Ms. Candida Wensley -4- January 28, 2004 clarify this or provide fui-ther detailed discussion on this issue. Ownership Interest and Level of Care The proposed Mitigation Measures do not address requirements for the legal responsibility for the maintenance of the constructedP rivate storm drain system. There is a growing concez7 rthat once the property is subdivided and the parcels are built-out and sold, there will be no binding accountabil'Ity mechanism in place to safeguard against system failure and lack of proper maintenances. The Count; must recognize that this applicant does not plan on living on the propert}� and will be attempting to ass along County conditions of approval onto future propert}7 residents/owners. The reality is that P � �' T. fuiur prope�rt`;r reslid�ilt 'o��Tn�?'J ��il no, �I13r C tlli� S3I71� 1`1�C1 of C;011tnlit ]zilt an uilQ�rsCanull7g of the private storm drain system. The fact is that it has taken this applicant several months to understand their imposed responsibility and civic duty for the private storm drain system, and then will need to complete the replacement of the system. However, once the property is sold others must take up their commitment. Factual Representations As an aside, Item 9 on the Environmental Checklist Form indicates that: "Tbe project is boardered isicl on all sides by siable family homes. The northeast corner of the property is bordered by Las Trampas Creek." This is not the case. The property Imes do not touch or cross Las Trampas Creek 1n any manner, whatsoever. The applicant has secured, through private negotiations with the Looney family, access as necessary to the edge of the creek for their proposed outfall. Cl osin Q We tryst that the Countz� tiv ll carPfully colislclP-- the., noint:� �.��e hay.: a'&Cc:sed i.Tl tlZi S letter before adopting the proposed NF..-,L Declaration for County File NIS 0'-0015. Vv e appreciate the 0 ortuninf to rovide comments on the subject application for a Minor Subc�ivisi on on Warren PP _ P Road. w e trust that any development on the prop erns will result in elirnin at1n g problems for th neighborhood as opposed to creating any more. incoc, To B. Ruzx.-. President -AP HOMED WII R_S' A.S S 0CIATI OIC' Ms. Candida Wensley ->- J anuary - ?oC04 C. Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkerna Deputy Director Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Department Mr. Gregory Connaughton, Assistant Public Works Director, Flood Control Mr. Laurence V. Gossett, Consulting Civil Engineer, Public Works D ep arim ent Ms. Lisa Gail Rvan Mr. Clinton S. Shaw Mr. E Mrs. Ronald Looney, Mr. VITilliam Dinehart Mr. Kenneth Barker, Lionsgate Development Corporation PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT` CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: F"lebr-uani 4, 2004 TO: Candi Wensle3l, Project Planner, Community Development FROM: LawreDce. Gossett. Consulting Civil ED M'D ot.=60r. "Fmane Engineering Serv1,1'.'10','.:."s SUBJECT: SUBDI471SION MS 03-0015 Response to Comments from Saranap Homeowners Association (Lions qateFNA7arren Rd. &Boulevard Way/Saranap Area/A.Piftit' 184-15"4-029, FILE: MS 03-0015 Per your request, we, have rev1cw=,.-,d the response prepared by the Saranap H.<:)mt`owners! Association (hereinafter referred to as "Association") with regards to the Proposed Negative Declaration prepared for the subject subdivision. The Associations letter dated January .2S.-2004 refers to past correspondence., that has also been forwarded to supplement their case. I The purpose of this memorandum is to review the Association's concerns point 7by point and do:,,you with the, appi-o P-rmrl priatt response from the Public Works Depart rntnt'sperspeativt. Most of th., issues raised by the Association are legitimate concerns, and will be add-ressed 111t'nCT through compliance with existing County orainanccs or added as recommended conditions of approval for the pending subdivision. The general co=ent we have is that the CEQA process is not the appropn*attl forum to address these ISSU6S PriNvate Storm Drain SN7stem W Several issues were brought up under this heading. The Association discusses thf,:- storm drain improvements that were installed without County inspection last Stptemb=,..-..L. At this point. t'nos,,- faci t inv. existing radii 1 1,, 1i ti werg, rcplac* t' #o cd't'es also installed years or pern am decades ago without 6- bcn;tfit of permits or inspection either. The, work, that was don= has no real 0,anno_ on theI V. - SUbC11vision and would be treated no differently that any other, private homeowner irlstalling yard Grams. Howcver, if the subdivision gets approved and the applicant intends 1 s to use tha,,se facilities as part of the on-site, drainaae, systtm to comply with thgtl� "collect and conve-V' requirtmmis of the .4 - 64 tnt Counn, Sut)Qlvlslo-n Ordinance, he will need to either v 'f�l the adequacy of th' i s storm Grain (both hydraul]'C'al)v and srrucrural)y) or remove and reconstruct th., facintics under pm-oper Counry insp c M1 on. w 1n the, context of fne. (,.'_,.EQA review and preparation of the. Initial Stud-% rtquire -th,,-, appliCant submit preliminary design data, such as stoma drain ali=ent, to determine if the proposed facilities will disturb riparian vegetation, trees or habitat for threatened or endarnger-ed species. It would be unrealistic to expect final engineering drawings for a speculative project. If it appears that the proposed project or appurtenant off-site infrastructure may have adverse ez1vironmental impacts, these impacts and their mitigation are identified. That is the point we are currently at in the overall development process. The excerpt quoted from Paul Detjens memo of August 5, 2003 was prior to several meetings we had with the applicant, as well as several visits Staff made to the Sit,-. The next phase in the process is to take the enviromrnental data, along with County Ordinances and other issues and concerns and prepare the staff report and recommendations to the hearing bode (Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission) along with recommended conditions that must be complied with prior to allowing the filing of the Parcel Map (which is the; actual act of sub di t Ti din g the proper J��. hn b e Vv eeri the t entad y✓ rn ap apprc)V aid tl e K lin] o f th e F arc e] Map, the applicant will be required to submit detailed improvement plans to Public Works for road and drainage facilities, take out a 69.1010" permit from the Flood Control District for the construction of outfall facilities within the creek, provide storm drain easements through off-site properties in the farm of recordable documents with metes and bounds legal descriptions, and obtain any permits needed from the State Department of Fish and Game as well as any other state and federal regulator) agencies. Not... that the actual corastructim of improvements typically occurs after the filing of the. Parcel Map. Said improvements are, guaranteed through the execution of a Subdivision Agreement with the County a-nd posting of bonds. In short; I can assure the Association that there is still a long bureaucratic gauntlet the applicant must negotiate prior to consummating the actual subdivision of the property. Unimproved Las Trampas Creek The County has made no concessions as to the status of the creek being considered an improved channel. We have been consistent with our recommen dati ons that this be -treated as an unimproved creeh. Ownership Interest and Level of Care Section 914-14.020 of the County Ordinance Code states, "The subdivider or propert�J owner shall be responsible for the maintenance of such private systems." we disagree with the Association's contention that "future resident/owners will not share the, same level of commitment and understanding of the private storm drain s�Tstem". under the preexisting and current scenario, the homeowners of this property appeared to only,be concerned with protecting, the existing structure from darnage from storm water runoff. There yeas a whol� halms acre of property downstream of the structure and the fact that the rudimentan1 storm drain system that was installed wasn't functioning to a level that would be required If properly permitted was apparently of little concern. If there were two additional houses and developed yards being threatened due to lack of maintenance, those homeowners would have a vested interest in making sure the storm drain facilities were functioning properm We. intend to recommend, as a condition of approval for this project, that a disclosure statement be recorded against the property to put future homebuyers on notice that they will be responsible for maintaining the storm drain facilities that traverse their respective prop erties. The reconstruction of these facilities under review and inspection of the County as part of the subdivision process should correct the deficiencies of the existing system and hopeful)�I, minimize future maintenance needs. Factual Representations Neither the Association nor the Environmental Checklist are technically correct. Based on the Vesting Tentative Map, a small portion of the creel; bank encroaches into the southeast corner of the cub cr.t -n o P � �, If north v�rere at tl:e for of the sheet, as t} :e t'ICIIlI j map. �I1d�Cat��. the ^?"���: �..].�... r 1 p r+� F would appear to be. at the northeast of the property. However, the enlarged -por-tion of the tentative map is oriented with north being to the left, rather than the top of the sheet thus, the creels is at the southeast corner. The retaining wall and creels flow line however are outside of the subject property. Note that wort: to construct or repair outfall structures, erosion protection., etc. will require rights of entry from other private property owners. The applicant has been negotiating with 2MY. Looney to secure, nchts for the outfall proposed on the Vesting Tentative Map. W.P. have not approved the outfall as proposed, and will recommend alternatives. The final design will be somewhat dependent on approval from other regulator_, agencies and securing access and eas�mcnt rights from off site prop ert�' owners. LGA-: G:1GrpLata\EngSvc\Larry Gossett\2004\Fcbnmrv\MS030015d cC: H.$allenge,,EngineeM* ,r Services E.Enan.Engineering Services C.Lau,Engineering Services SEIDELMAN' ASS OClATES, INC. 242,7 CHERRY HILLS DRIVE IAFAYE=, CALIFORNIA 94.1549 (92-151y') 930-0646 (925) 930-0828 TAX) Marcli 3, 2004 Kennerh B,-lTkc-.r 1-1011503-tt Development Aiarna, CA 946507 "n RE: Channel 11mvprovaments at 1499 Warren Rid, DL-:1T Mr. b2rker, This letter will veri�y riiar we wt-Tc the ellgille'CTS uii rhe ck-.11-1ne-1 imprmeincm rhar was consrrix-n-d in 1982 at rke liftsc of die property locare-d at 2499 Warren Rd. Ar riiar rime, tilt TITOPCM'was crwneLl bT Vir. 0yrev Mr. )ones, and lii-r, net9kbor, wkwqe rwiv,- I cantio[ renimbirti, criduTed 11 SignifiCallt 1;Lr-XdS1i6,'dtlTillg the vcry wet winter of 1981-1982. The,landslide eric-'cached from thc creek- bottom all rhe wa.-Y to ri-tt,housc pad anc,, tit' fact, cxEen6ed onto thc.knuse pad -i distarxre of abow,tete feet.. AfucT the flood 51 xbsidcd, IT W111S clear that rht, properties were at r1sL Tile, p1roi)err), owtv-n filed cialnis with Fr-:MA and' "wm ;;w:irdcd grams and Iaaris to s m.b1hic and repair the creep b:u%L. I loclit-ve- y0L1 ii-avt copies, of clic. I)i;Lns we prepared. Thc.b;uu*C derztvn urilt'ze-d a steel soldier-pile wa.11 t6ur war,6asc.d in Z CUTICrette pj(r kale and 11;,Ci tie-b26- T01- diar extender{ Into a dead-roan behind r1ir,wall. Tlir.fill W,,Ls elat=ed t-irigillul[y at _:L- Th iiortiieriy of, tile two ProptrTits WaS cyVeT-filled by tilt PTUP-I-rt)l CW.FlItt. I was it-, runcact wirli cht! Counry Cr r-ading OfficP0, objecting to the MeT-fill, but anything CL-jUjd I)- 'One -j'601jr T., tjjC nearly y , d -I _arly 1:1 fill at tit norrii r-rid or tiie wall collapsed tht,w.-dl into 'me channel. T`is Soudwrly part of the wall, belov,rlie lanes properry, li-as bc-c.n U-1 servict- for m-nail years The WOTIZ Wa!� urigimilij, C.011MUICCC.d under -i permit granted i-n, Elie couutT flood rurirrre-n-, Pr* cle�12irrm L I C-)T to dcs pninry the pro.ica, I mcc with Mficon Kubtchek, Hit direcrot-of fluod control. Jr was ar rk-1 cm-sirc rr-wetincr rhw WIL- reached agrernict)t w; to rhe. nature Of rhe FrabihZlatit)n �ITUJC-C-T, rilat I W01.1id 601--slull. TI-i,- pruica was construcred with rhe prof-terry owner's acring -Ls cimir nwu gr-nt-r,-d coixtracrons. I nd'vi lual we I cl 1-)eT-(L1T11le.d by si-1crMity coritTacror�, tiricludinr drificv:, wcldc-r!, and grartirignracrars K i!!!tTa" coi Ln.c.- ltupplie.d thc.concrae lagglag and Sierra Pacific Sttel Slippiled [tic 1-6earus. i irU1;Pcctcc7j rice P) and dric-dead-=R. Aftc-.r the wall was comi-Aet9l, concrete rublilt and h)Mkell TOCA-,WUS Plarr(i :11011v dv. (last, of rke wall frour to nunin-iLiz-1. bant-1 3cuur and underciv.. To the best c-)( mil knrywleuigr-, rk!- 1jurrion c)(rllc t ' , til'-' Wall 'I$- OVT wall iocutcd keiLmr the prapc-rn, was correctil, in-rralile6. C OVIDUS11, prc)perry w-a--t ov=ioaded. With tile information YOU 1)e.ed W I-1170C-eej il-I ri-Lr', 6,juld you 1'1101vi I allyPa q Ltrs;4�i�; b" % t ncsiray.- to pivt its u call. 3 1—C-7 fit. Pr rt—c14 c; b- SEIDELMAN ASSOCLATE,1z, INC. *OU LIONSGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VIA FAX AND U.S. MAILMailing Address: P. o.BOX 408,�1am0, California 94507 Telephone (a 25) E3 f;PTSD O Fay. (925) 831-8502 I t 1.I Ms. Candida Wensley, March 4; 2004 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Communit,7 Development Department; 6 5 1 Pine Street; 46 Floor. 'North Wind. Martinez, CA 94; 3 RE: NIS-03-0025. & 2501 Warreu Road, VV'alnut Creep.-- Improved Channel Creek Set Back Distance. Dear Candida, Reference is made to our previous correspondence, wherein Lionseate has complained that the County Public Works Department has unlawfully refused to comp137 with County Ordinance Sections 1010-6.014 and 914-14.006 for establishing the correct creek set back distance of twent�l one feet (maximum) from the top of the improved channel slope. We have repeatedly made the point, that the County Public works Depar'rnent does not have the authority to unilateraDy change and/or ignore the above noted ordinances. Such County conduct is not only a capricious violation of County pi oiicy, and State lain, it is aiso a flagrant violation of Fifth Amendment to the Constitutiori of the United States, because the County's action will result in the County seizing Lionsczate's private property for public use without just compensation. With respect to the history of the improved channel for the subj ect minor Sub- division application, we have attached a self explanatory letter dated Larch 1% 20x4, from Mr. Paul Seidelman, Geotechnical F.n�ineer, President of Seidelman Associates who was the engineer for the Las Trampas Creek channel improvements. You will note that Mr. Seidelman states that the channel improvement design followed an on site acreement with Mr. Milton Kubechek, the Counter's previous Director of Flood Control. Additionall-v, all wort: was constructed under the County permit process. Furthermore, we recentl17 obtained copies of the Seidelman construction pilins from the County files for this channel improvement work that was completed in 1982. Mr. Seidelman has also graciously agreed to meet with County staff if any further information is needed for the subject channel improvements. AacorcimgJr v. kindh, J promptly advise if further information is deemed necessary. Sincerely, Kenneth Barker, President; Lionsgate Development Corporation. Attachment: Seidelman Associates Letter dated March 3. 2004. Copies-. All Supervisors. LIONSGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vlaiiing Address: P. O.Boy, 40B, Alamo, Califomia 014.507 Telephone {9-25} 831-B500 Fav,(925) 831-85-02 aAND DELnTRED Mr. Eric B. Whan October.)0, 2DO-) Senior Civil En-aineer Contra Costa County Public Works Department, 2 5 5 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94_553- 482"' RE: MS- 0'-00 15. a CA.. , 2 5 01 W arren Ro ad, W alnut Creel DP...-ar Mr. Whan, This letter responds to the County letter dated Oct 16, 2003.vie note the. continued unnecessary delays for the approval of this two house minor subdM*si on from this=-,. Counties continued failure/refusal to follow the applicable County ordinances for Improved Channels. Specifically, Contrary to the County letter Lionsc.-rate has not requested, "... an exception from the creek structure set back requirements... No exception was requested, nor :is one required, because the Improved Channel... conditions-that exist do not require creek- set backs. This was confirmed by the Count3l Fay, dated 10/02/03 from Ms. Hanna Wong to the undersiamed (cop), attached). The ordinance cited by the County letter (9)4-14.01?) is clearly inapposite, because it deals with an entirely unrelated condition for a creel: set back for unimpr4--wed earth channek...". However, County Ordinance Code Section 1010-6.014 for an "Improved Channel". voverns this nu'nor,subdivision. It states Improved channel" means a watercourse, which has been modified through man- made construction including ('but not limited to) M' creasinp the e vndth and/or depo-th Of it, straightening, its c-diame-,nt or stabihzm* g the banks of it through uad]ncr,, concrete, nprap or other means. (Ord. 89 —'1207) 7-1 There is no question that the existing major"Improved Channel section, which abuts the adjoining Looney property, meets the County den"Bition for an "Impro-ved Channel". The improvement consists of a massive, professionabN7 designed crib ­%vall structure, built by the Federal Government Soil Conservation Services in the mid seventie.2, and was designed to handle 100-year floods. We_. estimate it would ccs st about Sr.). mil on to install a similar crib wall at present day construction prices. From sit%., inspeqcion. the crib wall structure is in excellent condition, (photographs have 1 a ve, b ee.0 n provided to the County' . Accordin.crly, the improved "Improved Channel" orci=ance is applicable, and not the unimproved earth channel" ordinance. In view of the abowt.facts" we art.., troubled and concerned b3o thin.., Counties continued unsupported assertion that Lt... sefoack hues mes for unimproved earth ohiannels, applies for the subject."Improved Channel," section. The Counties deternation is not only clearly wrong, it constitutes an arbitrary ever moving target of expanding ...straw man...7' approval conditions, which are unsupported by any known County Ordinance requirements and which conflict with Ionia established professional engineering practice. Lions tate has previously provided the County with all requested information, and has fully answered all questions that are set forth in the Counties letter dated Sept 8, 2003 from�&. Larry CTDssett to Ms Candida Wensley.Generally stated these items are: 1) Revised tentative map prepared by DeBoh Enaineering Inc. dated October 6 2003).This map shows the planned new location of the storm water pip i-ng and outfall structure with the storm water entering into Las Trampas, Creek over the existing crib wall structure on the adjacent Looney property. Notewor-thy, this plan will end the more than 60 years of County caused creek- slope "gully" erosion problems, and hopefully, will also put an end to the ongoing protracted disputes between the various homeowners and the County as to the responsibiLit y for the disposal of the County storm water drainage. 4-1 A letter signed by Mr. Ronald Looney confuTnincr his agreement for the use of his property for the relocated storm drain system, dated October 2003. 3' A Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Diablo Engineers, Inc. dated October 8 2003. This report confimed that the project site generally consisted of massive Sandstones adjacent to the creek- slope as Trampas Creel, and that the slope was competent and stable. 4) Las Trampas Creel:Flow calculations prepared by Diablo Engineers, Inc dated October 9, 20033.This calculation confirmed that the existing crib wall structure,_ that was designed and built to Federal Government standards,'was designed to handle a 100 year storm flow in Las Trampas Creel:, and therefore, the sons above the, crib wall were not subiect to erosion from storm creek flows. D) Several photographs of the crib wall and trees above the crib wall. One large oal: tree, at the top of the creek slope is estimated to be about 150 years old, which further confirms the longstanding stability of the creel-, slope. above the crib wall. Additionally, a full description of the details of these matters was provided to the County staff at the October 9 2003 meeting held at the Counties Glacier I:)rlvll:." Offices. i 'n the Counties October 16� With respect to the latest series o'1 questions set forth 2003 letter, we respond as follmArs: a. As explained above. the correct orclinance., is for an " Improved Channel", and not for 1-1 ...an unn' nproved earth channel... Accordinial�7, creek set back,-s for an unimproved channel are, ffiapposite and do not apply to the subject project. b. The requested fio-%7 calculations supporting data(i.e. survey records of the creeh- 4­1 bed) are attached. c. The stability of the creek bank-immediately-upstream of the end of the vying wall has been fully investigated and does not pose any known problems. (Se:e attached letter from Diablo Engineers). Furthermore, without any support the Cc)unties assertion, that "--.severe erosion that has been encountered in that regi on...." is not only clearly inaccurate, the factual basis for this statement is not unczierstood. This creek section is straight and the slopes are stable. It appears that thae. County, without any onsite *inspection, has confused the storm,water dram' aae gully on the Shaw/Rvan property with alleged creek slope, erosion. Noteworthy, thtt Shaw/Ryan erosion gull is located about '35 feet above the creek- and was caused by at least 60 years of uncontrolled County storm water ficrvv runoff, ar,-ard not. b-,,, J erosion of the creek slopes, from creek (See Item 1, above) d. The proposed storm water outfall structure at the existingretaining crib wall, "tee" combined with a standard- consists of a standard energy dissipating" reinforced concrete apron under the last approx. 6 feet of the outfall pipe. This standard design conveys storm water flow directly into the creel,.-, and tEus P revents any erosion of the creep slope or damage to the existing crib wall. We trust that this response, and attached information, will allow this Mi-nor sub- division project to be promptly approved by the Count�7 withoutt further- delay. Also we repeat our request that if there are any Issues outstanding that thev bein resolved by telephone calls and/or timely meetings between us rather tl�e Counties ongoing unwieldy and time consuming process of writing letters back and forth between the parties. To this end, this letter wiU be hand delivered with follow up telephone calls, SInCerel3". Kenneth Barker, President, Lionsgattf.,Development Corporation. Attachments, As Listed Above.. Copies Candida W=,,.-nslg,:3.,y,-Co=um*ty Development. Grey. Connaucrhton, Flood Control Larry Gossett. LIONSGA.TE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Mailing Address: Fl. 0.Box 408, Alamo, California 9450-7 Teiephone (925) 831-85 GO Fax (925) 831-8502 0" 0 4 Pr"i Ms. Gayle B. T-T&ema, October 8, 20D.*3 Contra Costa Count�7 Board Of Supervisors District No. .2. RE: IvEnor Two-House Sub Division No. 0-3-00 15 at 2501 warren Road, Wal=t Creaexl� CA Dear Supervisor Udkerna, We are in receipt of a letter dated Sept/25/03 to you Grom Ciint Shaul and Lisa Ryan (copy attached) pertaining to the subject proposed two hou&e minor subdivision m an unincorporated area of Walnut Creek-. The permit for this deveic:3pment is presently working its way through the Count-)7 approval process. We recoam*ze that Public input is an important part of the review and approval process, and therefore, unless requested, we normaby do not respond to public comments. In this case, however, because of material misrepresentation by the Shaw/Ryan letter, who live next to our development, we are making an ex=ptiom to our normal procedure. The,above noted Shaw/Ryan letter is not only materially inacci-irate, it is grossly misleading because., it faiis to disclose that Shaw/Ryan are responsible fc>-r the ongoing uncorrected creek slope erosion problems, about which, they now misrepresent to you. We provide the following comments on the Shaw/Ryan letter--. Nfisrorp...-sentation.No I The Shaw/R- yan letter states in part-. GC In preparation for construction (for the 2- new house subdivision) they (Lionsgatre) have begun grading the hiUside and instaffing a new drainage system". Fact This is not true. No work has been performed on the new subdivision. Nor has anN, '. grading work-been performed On the new subdivision. The only site work- has been landscaping, driveway repairs, and the replacement of a section of broken storm gain pirnn,a to County standards, m order to prevent the flooding problems that were... A experienced in previous vears. Ylisre-D-riE.-sentation No.2 They (Lionsuatet) have installed an 19 inch pipe that collects water from the intersection of Warren Road and Boulevard Way..- and the water has caused severe ,erosion of our back yard including a sinh hole approximately I I feet deep P act This is not truee. Lionsc.rate., has ovmed the subj,,,2.,e.-..t property for about 6 months and th,.- 18-inch storm drain pip,, repairs were,made about three weeks acro. Tht2.-re, has b".....in no flow whatsoever through the, storm dram' piping since Lions=crave has owned thc,,.- prc)pe..m-. Most critically, the Shaw/Ryan letter, fails to address the County letter to Ms Lisa Ryan dated Feb/13/97 (i.e. 6 years acro; copy attached*) regarding the required 1997 re�pairs that are the.., responsibility of Shaw/Ryan, By letter the County notified Shaw/R-yan that the storm drain outlet that was located on their property was a rc...private... storm drain system., and therefore, Shaw/Ryan had "... maintenance responsibility ... for the storm drain outlet. Additionally, without the required permits, Shaw/Ryan have subsequently diverted all storm water rainfall run of from their house, driveway, and patio area into the eroded "...sink hole..." via a new 4-inch storm drain pip..,, thus, making the Tong standing creek bank- erosion problems even worse... The root cause of the present creek slope erosion problems, is that despite 6 Years of County written notice, Shaw/Ryan have not only not maintained/repaired the stDr n drain outlet, they have made it worse, by adding a second 4 inch storm drain pipe outlet into the unprotected eroded area. As a result, winter rainstorms continue to erode the creel-, banl,- resulting,in "sink hole" about 11 feet deep in the creek slope... (See attache--.d A photographs) Shaw/Ryan have materially misrepresented the facts, and ironically, now complain to you about serious creek slope erosion problems which are of their own making, and for which they are required to correct per the County policy pertam* m* 9 to private drainaze, systems. (See attached County Letter dated Feb/13/97) Nfi sreDresentation No.3 Over the past 6 years we.have installed over S 100,000 in retaining waus to protect our property '". Fact This statement places the creek- slope erosion problems in a false light and raises an unrelated issue The Shaw/Ryan house was built about 51)0 years ago,end is imprudently located perilously close to the edge of the high steep unimproved creek slope of`Las Trampas Creek. Because of creek slope instability concerns, County building codes nov, prohibit this mode of construction. In order to meet-present Counter codes the house- must be set back: at least 65 feet from the top edge of the unimproved creel: slop,.-.. The S 100,000.00 expended by Shaw/Ryan was for constructing rqaln*mowalls needed to prevent the defectively located house from collapsing into Las Trampas Creep- by a failure of the unimproved creel: slope. Thsn.1se, problems have no connection to tnse-, proposed minor sub division and, again, Shaw/Ryan misrepresent the issul.1.31S. Inaccurate Statement No. 4 We have made over two dozen-teiephone calls over several days to various county officials vet the developers (sic') has been allowed to continue wo 2 without -F I a installation plans or puts." ...1 U ts (Emphasis added) Fact Puts have been obtained for all work requiring a pen-nit. Countir inspectors have 37 inspected and appro-ved the.work complying complyinwith County standards. Addit'onall from discussions uscussions with Counter staff, they confirm that they have had to put up with multip I e irrational phone calls from Mr. Clint Shau7, who was advised that there was no violation of County regulations. There are more misrepresentations in the Shaw/Ryan letter, but for economy of your time we shall not address them here, and our comments should provide you with the cc feel and flavor,171) of the Shaw/kyan allezations. We plan to contact your staff in order to arrange for a tour of the proposed two house minor subdivision, and for an inspection of the still unrepaired I O-inch storm drain out let, and newly installed 4-inch storm drain outlet on the adjacent Shaw/Rvan prop ert�,. Sincerely, ee Kenneth Barker, President LionsateDevelopment Corporation. Attachments-. Shaw/Rvan letter dated 2-5/Sept/03 Counter Public Works Letter To Lisa Ryan Dated Feb/13197 Photographs of Unrepaired 10- inch Outfall Line and Added Shaw/Ryan 6- inch storm r. Cop* Ms.Candida Wensley, Count)7 Planning Dept. Mr. Greg. Connauiffiton, Assistant Public Works Director, Flood Control. Mr. John Ruzel:- Saranap Homeowner's Associatior) Contra Public Warks Department Maurice M.Sitio Public Yorks Director Costa __ R. Mitch Avalon :nulacie,T Drive Deputy Dixectol County N aranp C A 94 j� SZ^ .,. - Telephone: {9 }31�-2OJulia F..buere o0 . w' r n r �: g2� 3Z - �� i 1;: Deputy Director { 0 Patricia R. McNamee o'Ctober 16, 2003 DepUtll DirecTor 1vh-. P aul E ark er Lions nate D tvelo-Dmtnt Corporation P.O. Box 408 Alamo, CA- 94507 rile. MS 0'-0015) D eaT I`'L. E ar ktr: Tip e letter is a su.nu-n ary of mil revi e xt and co=ents re u-arain- the fo llowin o ao;tun ents recenti v submitted as pal of your minor suoaivisi on application: 1. tentative neap prepared 'ml DtBolt Civil EnMneerin� dad Octobca- (S. 2003. Report of Geoteclualcal ln�festiQation prepared b)J Diable} �naineers, Inc. dated Septcnzbcl" 3. 2O03. 3. Las Tranzpas FlowCalculations prepared b), Diablo ,naineers, Inc. datedctabet S. 2003. It is ou'l" unaerstazain cT this infonnati on was forvarded to us as technical data to ace-.ornpanti{vour request for alb exceptiorl t37 the creel~ structure set acl: requirements set forum ur.�der Sec 91�'- 14.01" of tht Coun t 01-din an.cel Code. Iii the- course of tht Departnient's revitfv; of tlzi.s data... a feel omissions have peen noted tn' at need to be ad cir Isscd before wt, can cons)*dcr the. information complete. Speciflcal)v- L. The "structure setbachline" based upon an uumprov,d chaintl at S ectior C-r' is still not plotted correcti A:• The line appro�,imates tip A ?. :1 slope from tl�e creel: floe, line, 10 to-D of ba-ll_. but does not include tht additional 50 foot setbacl: beyond th "catch voin`' required for a creel. of this acpir7. The1-e is not sufflcien4 detail to p erfonn a simii ar cls eel: at S ccti oz� P�- . b. T 114 flout calcuiations are laldn2 an,\l sunniei-ntntal topo Lrm-D 1 to venn,7 that tize chamic-.1 slope assullned as a basis fol-the anaivEds is correc,1.. The Geoteciuv cal �n�j estl ati ox7 does not sp cciz3 call�j cadres s t tz e st abilifi\) o tip �. crt.=IL Gail:. in�eaiatel�� unstrcani of th= end of tine wincvall and n oteniial scoui" at thus location iri 122111 of the sevcl-e erosion that has alTeac-\1 occurred 111 this rParlon. We hav,- a concern tha# edares and/0-j- ,]-osiVe EDVISD could DossiblY un o ernzu�L il�e v�rin�w all, causing f aluI`t S1I7111 ai" io tl�a EXU� :n C eCi ftll�l��," ._ aowr',.sir�an. Thf-- rerol t should olti-i T make tht ianaill crLs ttZa; ti]cs� Paul Biker October 16, 2003 Page Two events s ayo= not a-cly to occur, or make rtconmendations of remedial measures necessary to assurzo, the future. stability of the wall and cratth banks. (a. W hailt-I concerns with the proposed outfall stricture to be constructed at the. top of the.- x,.,.x-Isi1Dc'wall. 'What provisions ai-t-, to be tal,:tn to m-tv4cnt tyos3 on above. and C, satumtloii b,hind the-wall? looh forward to rtctivinu ththe requested informatim. so viemaymay continue processing vouT application. PICast- contact Mt if you need to meet and discuss an), of th=.,s,- issues In orap,-.i, to 0 l expedite tht VOUT-project.. Very truly yours, ------------- LawrtmrU. Gossttt.' P.F. Consult= Civil r.,nzinttir LG:4- G:\GrDData'\---n-'S-,,r.U-am,Gc)sseti%3003\C)-.tober\KIS030015-. cc., H.Bahengm,Engruleering Services "L Wnau.Encr.icerum Services G.Connauentmi.Fiood Control F.Det ieju,Fbod Control W ensiv,Conummity Deveiopment INA r,-N 4r, e t L X:Z) L, L; Sit 4u adMO L3 tai c o.Ou em) nu z- AL If Aj Lu LLQ CI tr alum V4 :.roc oil C) I J, le, T < k V4, juj it W L 1LJ a 41 W, I < lb C,� JL.LJ CN < 10� uj m LLJ T.T -16 -------------------------------------------------------------- fat o �`o• r• r�► P '� •'�1`,-i `a qy t�t'�' ��i � r A�i tial SID ts ro ' ¢ M. z Y.� .�► Q• o lOL "am om V 1 Sor l tHr !p + a D �uJ d �W mi t•C�' �tZ t6sJ"� ZCZ tl t W ti.t t 1 to +� t ...�11u J ���,_:,J•;f. y 1� •'.��"'_*`'\ r �,,,..••"•-"`•'•� 1 ! �r,. � �� ..•+1 LL1 c Uiti 7 yr• \. 1,.. Lr ' �' t� �'1 t � 1f �•'��.r)5j��.1rt y�� tom' , '``,,,.-""�•. � •�rt>�"'""^f'f may_•, .! \ �� � �� � � �+ ,.., r, �'- �D.vt}}••.ts'' '•.1 �:\' v =,-o --�. -C,? to ,� vy �t kj��I'(�k.. ��,G,`!d'!•, C.C•�`{.� �?, iiY7 y,�„'µj...du \.^, �, 1 1'•`t.` ` ! ('''�'� flit •+'''•,,,;L ��� t'+"�'1; �CS t ""lam; ! �,.�• a s✓ 4 '1 o. sR+` cc �••t �, ! •t t� i+ n is+ (r.�. .1,•ti� ' W r~. t1 � ' /`�^, U cr ! Jry •5 , tz rD r. tt o 1:•t � ', ''• 'OD -••• V"� .i � i• Imo" '�N ` t.t.�/ `1 It , Ir•/'�/""' oil '� //i •� 1 4 'L"�'`G �}Cy `^i S�„t�.�iAt�••�•r..s't.''f ,s..+rt+f����C y �ri•t C',` �'� � � ', In 1 � � � ' -�J7 u�G�,tt;� � Il�.�r' �,,,:_•�' �! ' `' tom" _,y,C�7,1.1.•� �1 '� �` .� � 3t y 11'!,'� " ��iC (,', i.1 i C u 1 1 t"'� iv►"" 3d(1- I�tS � � � 1, 1 c "i � -'• •Y.,"�t�L�"`. �.•Qi.'''�-•-•> �� _ •`;c�~.: 1_,�,�� rz �G � >!� ' G c :" � t" :::+"'' ",.•'.-•-� r1 ,o'.r.X o _ •�t�eta t+1 i! -��7' ` �+. -�r � Ktc �j'J 'i ,,,tir:-^-'-^-•• ort.ti'7�- y G.�,." 0 1 I a"'t !!sem %'reR JQ hy1°s 1F a,'uz jai jjw,pt W; �. ' i• \'''" .:: .-1--� yf�. `r'f�a ba'm 6w Nt.ct r.r.f." !G C tV .�.0 .11' - •y"`ks•'''U;V,.1.�`{l2,,�.►'T �,. 'pttilr++nt.1++W+ •' �npDTs t ,,,.r t.,,,r'--�:• '�:' LY►wt73T'F"_ C G y �= a •:t 1• i %�6�r •t �1 _,�;..... �j�tt^ '�'.c-"` _�. .•t.�ti��P�b �•�„J �. 'lE e`.. L ` ' 7 t,. 1. G` �'t:� �t• ..�y..�:^'"1\+•-�'�^/'y11 tL �"1`^-•-•. 41 •+S .�.�r�► _ `` 11 it �'' �', �; 1 !�, 1'''1 .' ,`i`l � i •��Y• �""r� .�.Tb�CfJ' i I ►•���'' �1 �• G i `� 1 fir", Z 1 'i l....- .1"'•...r•�..�' [ 'r•t r•�+' 1'tYA,a t i it 191 I' !. ' i I`•�t O� •, ..a 1 :t ,.,.rt•�, �t4d c �+��.t�'!�-N� �j,. ,t ! ! . An 1 � 1 E W-� ��.; ,.�; ,... •:tom .spry..; 71/11 !1 .t .•t� 1 t�t.t. -1}:+YJ.S•'•'+`•: "J CD r. O TE a B2 w gap CL u #nod l 1z 0 0 a H o ar tve XS tiwar0 iestoo Rwit140,,n UJ6 AN r.J d o � '` c3. } WV- > cr uj le W LU 1FIC w in q�aw 40 K ML or CtW tiW �s �tgqJ1 vu a C W •w ? .tri'Mill .... .. ' iC Q v,K Ch +4CZ+ 1 !;Z3 rz w ,. kin Zv (} { s cmM ,• � I Q 1. rr 1r}.�',x�k• ,J i 1� i.►'OA 4.06f :. ut ''�i,r wta ! Lai K• it �.}? �� +;` ��. (/'' a���, rr•'4 d�l. . ,�,��{� Z�- up CLL-P Le !1t 1 ry j,�/ / ,. - tta Tl'.i �1I1 •,: t �� +��' � '� { ... t/�rr/}\I ILL /!,,♦� ` 4•.y J, / � i! ti"'e Wl'3 �r r��ay�� 1 ,1 t• r .r. _. •�' 1. �t� '.�,�`." •• �j �(�1�. �� '� ••!r'F.:� 4th G t a.C� J ZiaLLJ Ir tv it i,a w Ids L�.— c - -"z t ) '!Ic ' Q 1, iy CD be -, / N et 6 r1C71` 1 N1N /� r�� ^r �W , < ID .116 ui ax �, _ �i�t' �= '' 1_0 I , � jj j I s> % , Mme... �! 1(. m� __c♦-•-� �: �� r" _I ! i i V,�„ ' � �•�IjZ�,....'`..^""fit--� `'�r `.' KlNE3 135 � ' d► � `� x i ♦.�'• � I .''• AVIMAO,r s o G C C w .' ♦- 1 f gj 1�fi1� SSii+,:.u.rw,,.,C +e t�'.. 1. 1 , t IJ } � •�'_.�.. to i �, -•Ff`c 1� I^E �1 i•c�s•Q� ', rF L-_y�-_�`'�v � _ .. °��t Irl-�,, t�+ I �r: z l�99f" _ - �•. �= It brlC.'Yrr �5' � •i+t , UJ I j I Q 1 b c Iob9T�/. �.,,.�^... b� _.^'- �r'+t A •,,,�•,\ '}„tt�ar++•rrw. 1ft MAJ d3 tr LU J000l' j k ; i"�� w� � LI01qSGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Mailing Address: R 0.Box 408, .. klamo, California 0.4.507 Telephone (9 25) 8-31-8-15 Cha Fax (925) 8311-8502 HAND DELTVERED- RECEIPT REOUESTED. ' rJy County Planning Commission, April 2206) 2004 Contra Costa County, Cornmunitt7 Development Department, 65-)1 Pine Street, 46'Floor,North veins, Martinez. C"A. 94553. RE: MS 003"-0015-NOTICE OF APPEAL. Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the County Planning Commission, Pursuant to County Ordinance Section 94_2.10. Appeal, this letter is an ,Appeal by Lionsgate Development Corporation (Lionsgate ) from the verbal decisions rendered at the April 19,2004 Public Hearing by Mr. Dennis Barry, (Barry), Director Commu l ity Development Department, pertaining to a three 3 } lot Minor Subdivision Application. It is respectfully requested that this Planning Commission vacate all rulings rendered by Barry. The basis of this Appeal is as fbhov�Ts: Item No. 1 Abuse Of Application Review Process- County Failure/Refusal ro Comply with Ordinance Section 94-2.606. The Community Development Department, (CDD) failedlrefu.sed to timely provide- Lionsgate rovideLlonsgate with a copy of the Staff Rep art. Ordinance Section 94-.2-.606 requires that Lionsgate be provided with a copyr of the Stall Report"... at least three calendar days ..." in advance of the hearing date. T'he Staff Report was received by Lionsgate at about 10:30 a.m. on April 19, 2004, and the Public H arincrl was held three (3) hours later at 130 p.m.. the same day. LionSLxate was materially dammed because it was not criven reasonable time to review, and comment on the multiple errors, omissions, and def ciencit-s in. the Staf-t`Report. Despite Lions-czrate's reasonable request for a two weep continuance to May 3, 2004 to 4- revie�r the unacceptably late Staff keport, Barry denied the request. Page N o. 2 of Appeal Item No. .1. Abuse Of Application Review Process- Further Coun"7 Failure/Refusal To Comply With Ordinance Section 94-2.606. The above noted Staff keport was not only provide unacceptably late, it also negli-crently failed to include reams of-vital documentation that supported the Application. Additionally, the Staffkepr.)rt had no Table of Contents, Inde—, nor page numbe-.ring system, Therefore, it was unprofessionally prepared. Furthermore, the omission of reams of vital information from the Staff Report which supported the Application is an inexcusable violation of Ordinance Section 94-2.606 Most nc)tewc)rthy, although Barry Granted Lionserate until May 3, 2004 to provide the missing documentation from the Staff Report, Barry subsequently reduced his X the Application without considering the reams decision to an absurdity b-- ruling on JL or . Y I U ":I e5 of vital missing records from th e Staff Report. Lionscrate will still supply the missing e5 e� M Staff Report information by ')May ' 2004, to the Planning Commission. r_% Item No.3 The County Lecral Opinion Was Improperly Omitted From The Staff Report. Despite charging Lions-c-rate for its preparation, the CCD also negliorently orrtitted the. *.- 4-1 County Legal Opinion in the StaffReport. Clearly, if the County Legal Opiniopm had supported the County' s position it would have been included in the Staff'F'oeport. Additionally, the County now seeks to conceal the Coun"7 Legal Opinion, by its uniawful refusal to provide it under a Public Records Act Request. Barry also refused Lionszate's reasonable request that the County Legal Opinion be.. included in the Staff Report. Item No. 4 Couno, Failure/Refusal To Include Vital Material Records In The Staff Report Pertaining To Count-IT Ordinance Sections 1010-6.014-, 1010-6.026; And 914-14.006. Concealed County records confirmed very major channel improvements were made in 1982 to the Looney property Section of Las Trampas Creep. The Looney property is located bcA% ween the subject property, and Las Trampas Creek. Lionsarate estimates it would cost about S2 million to construct similar channel improvements at today,S costs. Ir Tellingly, for more than si, ( 6 ) months the MAD concealed and repeatedly defied that it had any records of these major channel improvements. However, under a threat of a Lions.crate,Public Records Act Request, the PVTD belatedly disclosed the concealed channel improvement files via a series of seven ( 7 j exhibits, and placed them in thtc_-, PVTD files on October 27, 2003. where they Were later discovered by Lionsuate. The concealed County records consisted of the following vital rs.:1.-cords- I.- Page No. 3) of Appeal Two lanve(2) detailed channel improvement construction drawinas entitled " Stream Bank Erosion Control Project Specifications; a site Geoloazical Hazard Evalua.-tion Report prepared by Mr. Don Protzman, Consulting Geologist; a large creek watershed drawing prepared by the Count-; hydraulic studies and calculations for storm wa-ter flows in Las Trampas Creel: (,prepared by the fount T dated 7/..3/81, and by an outside Consulting Engineer); Counter Construction Permits, County Construction Inspection Reports- a County Project Acceptance Certffir-cate.- and various related correspondence on the channel improvements between the Count)7, Seidelman Associates (the prof e--ct designer) and the Applicant. Negligently, none of the concealed vital channel improvement records were included in the Staff Repo. Moreover the applicable, ordinances and reie-vrant correspondence were also inexcusably omitted from the Staff Report. As a result, the Staff Report is incomplete, woefully deficient, and devoid of vital supporting records. The CDD's willful omission of multiple vital records from the Staff Report constitutes unlawful bad faith, and a breach of the implied warranty of croo,c] faith e�l and fair dealings. Item No. 5 Barn-r's Decisions Are Not Supported By Evidence, And Are Contradicted By County Ordinance Sections 1010-6.014; 1010-6.026; 914-14.006. The above noted Ordinance Sections, clearly define " Improved Channel Unimproved Channel 7t; and " Open Channels-,-Minimum Width Of Easements The indisputable concealed records in the County files confmed that the Las Trampas Creek channel had been materially improved. Nevertheless, Barre arbitrally ruled the channel had not been improved. Barrel used this erroneous determination as the basis to unreasonably den37 the minor three.(-3) lot subdivision application. Of particular note, five ( 5 j Soils and Geoloaioal reports were made of the site. All reports deterrnm' ed that the site was creoloaicaDy stable. Additionally, the detailed Diablo Encrineerincr Report on Slope Stability dated 1:� t"- February 17, 2004 determined that discounting ani-i support from the existiricr L retaining wall. there was q "... factor of safety greater than 2.0 for both case--s. Therefore, and unquestionably, the site is suitable for the three lots as set forth in the application. Bam7's illogical and arbitrary rulings are clearly un-r%,.>.asonab1e and changed the entire legal basis for Ordinanceinterpretation. Furthermore. and contrary to Barry's stated opinion, he,has no authority whatsoever to interpret County Ordinances in any way that T. meaning of the Drainance, changes the,unambizuous Page No. 4 of Appeal As the proximate result of Barnr's defective arbitrary rulings,Lionscrate's V tz property rights have been damaged in the estimated amount of more than one (1) rights dollars.( S1,000,000.00) Item No. 6 The Counter Vio1&a&tx%.3-,d The Fifth Ame-aidn, ent To The Constituti on Of The United States. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, mandates in pertinent part, the fohoWM' .CT* "No person shall be ....deprived of property, without due process of la-mro, nor shall pri'w'Vate proper-t-y be taker, for public use without J ust compensation. B "s,arbitmryL.DZY-1-1-1 W WT_U X---7-- arr),,: -nu-s-mterpTe-tatiaR-of +; Improved Channel that the materially improved section of Las Trampas CreeLz channel was unimproved, will result in Lionscrate's being deprived of the use of its private property without due process of law, and the property being used for public use without just compensation. Barry's arbitrary ruling is not only an wont to reason, logic and County Ordinance it is also a violation of the Constitution of the"United States. Item No. 7 The County Staff Gave Incompetent Testimony At The Public Ey-earincr And Imposed Unreasonable Subdivision Approval Requirements. Inaccurate, and incompetent testimony was provided at the Public Hearing by 1Yk. Paul Detlens, Assoc1ateD,.Engineer PIAT, Flood Control, and by Ms Heather Ballencrer, Deputy Director PWD. A) Detiems provided incompetent testimony pertaining to the, design and ptlrfornaanct of the Looney retaining wall structure durino, periods of Iii-arh creek flow Sivnifica-ntly, DetJs,:.3.,ns is neither a structural engineer, nor a geolozical enginEfer, Therefore, he was not professionally qualffied to provide competent testimony on the design and construction of the existing retaining wall which had been designed, and inspected, by the noted Consulting Enaineerfficr fm of Seideiman Associates, Inc. Noteworthy, Detjens gave testimony to the effect that the. subject Las Tranapas 0.- Crea,,,h channel section was allegedly ()n)�,- "... relatively— improved, and the en2ffiet.,,Ted 4- rock backLE behind the retaining wall structure was placed for the,purpose of on137 controlling RTound water. Dt-tjens testimony was not only particularly incompetent, it was absurd. PaPre No. of Appeal B) Similar inaccurate and erroneous testimony-was also provided by Ms. Heather Ballenger, Depute DireCtDrPVTD, pertaining to traffic safet)r and side walks along Boulevard Way and Warren Road. Ms Ballenger is not a Traffic Safety Engineer-, and therefore, was not professionaDy qualified to provide competent testimony on traffic safety=. Lionsgate's detailed tray safety study indicated the construction of side walks soiely for this minor subdivision created highly unsafe traffic and pedestrian Cory ditions. In order to provide safe continuous sidewalks along'Boulevard Way and warren Road multiple existinghouses would have to be demolished in order to obtain the nece..L,ssar�l road widening and side waEr-right of way. Ball enger/VNIan./Gossett have previously notified Lionsarate that it is highly unlikely the County would ever fua(3 the multi tens of millions of dollars needed to demolish numerous existing houses ire order to widen the roads and co-ns-,u-ru--- full length connected side walks on Boulevard -VNIcr-ty and Warren Road. Accordingly, the County permit approval condition requiring side walks soleiv L- f-M for the subject property is totally unreasonable, and punitive. None of these subdivision approval conditions had ever been required, or enforced, in the Saranap area, nor in any known minor 3 lot County subdivision of similar scope. I Item No.&. The County Improperlycr Improperly Rejected Lionsate's Compliant Tent&five Map And Required Multiple Soils / Geological Reports Not Required by Ordina-mce. The Tentative Map prepared by Lionseate reasonably met 0 County requirements including channel easement width, site drainage requirements and side wall-, and IdghtiT Liz %-1 requirements. Furthermore, the proposed relocation of the existinp, storm drain cutlet structure to the adjacent Looney property constituted an eleaant " Cadillac"' solLxtion to IkI- the present creek bank slope erosion problems on the adjacent Shaw/Ryan prope!rte. Also, the County erred b�7 classifying the County storm water drainage from u--p to a quarter of a mile away from the site as a private storm water drain wstem, The Count), A has no legal right to utilize private property for storm water drainage plp*m,without an easement, which it does not have. The County's requirements for multiph.-, soils reports, hydraulic storm Dow stu- 'ies 0 f a Las Trampas Creel;, and Geological Reports were not required for this Applicatic)n ba; 6- County Ordinance. Moreover, and inexcusably, this information was already in til 1EII County's possession via the concealed PWD ffles. Item No. 4, above ).Barr--r's rejection of the... Tentative Map violated County Ordinances and was an unnmsona-bito., violation of County Ordinance; and punitive. Item No. 9 The Counter's Engineering Biliincr Ls Defective. Grossly InflatedL,And ProbabilT Fraudulent. Pacre No. 6 of Appeal. The County billed Lionsgate in the amount of$14., 466.49 for alleged engineering service work performed on MS 0..3-001.5. Tellingly however, the vast rnaiorit�, of the = 5 alleRred County engineerinc, costs were for evaluating an alleged Lionsgate requested for: exception from the creek structure set back requirements...".( See Count3,- I - I *_1 200"' ). Notev�lorth:3 Lionsgate...never requested ane except' See letter dated Oct 163 &-r -1 11 - Lionsgate letter dated October 20, 2003). Furthermore, the creep set back requirements are inapplicable to this Application because the channel had been materially improved. Therefore) the twenty one foot ( '02.1 ) wide channel easement width mandated bvr Ordinance Section 914-14.006 clearly applies. Most significantly. Mr. Eric'YNThan, PWD, stated at a Count7 meeting that the basis for these improper enzineeringcr chanve!s was his erroneous assumptioribased upon. an undisclosed inference on the Tentative Map that an exception from creek back requirements-.." had been requested By Lionsgate.. See Lionsgate letter dated March 2004). Inasmuch as the County Ordinances were arbitrally ignored by the County, the L-1 County's subsequent defective billincrt:� to Lionsgate for its known invalid en4crineerincr r= tn charges, is unquestionably improper, and probably fraudulent. Item No 10. Unreasonable Appeal Time Requirements— Ordinance Section 94-2.10 Ordinance Section 94-2.10 allows the Applicant only,ten (10 ) days to file an Appeal. This time limit is unreasonable short because at the time of writing Lionsgate has not been provided with the requested copies of the Count,? s decisions, in vmtlnp,, nor a cc:)pNr of the hearing recording. Therefore, this Appeal is made without prejudice to amend it when these salient records are final)17 produced by the Count37. Conclusions Y) Lionsgate*s minor three Q 3') ) lot subdivision application has brought into Ver5.7 sharp focus entrenched and lonar standing, Gross rriis-management within the Count37 Public Works and Community Developrnent Departments. These Count37 D7,, artrnents conduct the,Public's business without effective over sight from the Board of Supervisors. %I- 2)Barrer's decision is rife with multiple arbitrary violations of Counv Ordinances, serious procedural errors, and numerous factual inaccuracies. Additionally, the seising of Lionsgate's privatct,, property Without just compensation via knDWM' 0,r]N1 Contrived mis- interpretations of County Ordinance Sections 1010-6.014; 1010-6.02 6 and Q14-1 4.006 is a violation oftho'c', Constitution of the united States. These material deficiencies provide th'.0.1 basis to vacate all rulings madE.-,b)7 Barra,. Page No. 7 of Appeal '1-\ 11 the Bar,—N7�s refusal to allo-"- Lions a reasonable time. period to review the -Isina unacceptable late, and defective Staff Report, and refusal to include reams of vital mi3 records in the Staff Report for consideration before makm' p, a decision on the Application, is a flagrant violation of due process in order to arrive at a pre-conceived conclusion 4)Barr-'s undeniable hiorh handed, arbitral. capriciol.I.S., and abrasn.,,E, conduct frc>i-n a Countt�7-Public Employee, is unique in the undersigned's many years of experience. BarT�I conduct not on13- constituted major violations of Countl Ordinance and LaA7, it also reduced the Public Hearing to an Ur)-American Kangaroo, Court trpepMceedina Sincere)37, Kenneth Barker, President, Lions,gate Development Corporation. ��' Copy. All Countl Supervisors Attachment-. Check For S125,00 For Appeal Fee- Payable to Contra Costa Count7-. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORTS X 11� Acrenda Item tt Community Development Contra Costa Count, BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY PLANNING COI\BESSION TUESDAY. JULY 13. 2004 — 7:00 P.M. I. RIRDDUCTIONT LIONSGATE DEVELOPMENT CONIPA2\rY (ADDellant. ADDlicant L Ow County File :#MS030015: This is an appeal of the County Zoning- Adrriiiiistrator's approval of a tentative map to subdivide a .91-acre parcel into two lots and allow the removal of up to nine. (9) trees, includingtwo valley oak trees, as v-.7ell as work- within the driplm* e of two (.2.) additional oak trees. The site address is 2501 Warren Road and is located on the southeastern comer of the Warrem Road and Boulevard Way intersection, in the Walnut Creek area. (APN ; 184-150- 02 9)(Zoning: R-I 0)(GcDeral Plan: SM) (Census Tract: 341 0)(ZM: P-1 3-5) 4 suly.�Y The public hearing for the application was held before the County Zoning $= Administrator on April 19, 2004. The applicant was requesting approval of a I tentative map to divide the .91-acre lot into three parcels, but the Project was. approved for two, due mainly to the encumbrance placed on the property as a result of the "creek structure setback" requirements of Title 9 of -the County Ordinance. Per staff reconummdation.3 the Zoning Administrator approved the prof ect for two lots instead of three. Section 914-14.012 of the County Ordinance (Structures Setback Lines for Unimproved Earth Channels), requires the establis=hment of a "structure setback area" that is to be dedicated to the County upon recordation of the parcel map. The proximity of the property to Las Trampas Creep makes the, property subject to the creek structure setback requirements. The eaten.-t of the, I'Me depends entirely on the classification of Las Trampas Creek as an improved or unimproved earth channel. The applicant argues that the creek is iMPTDvcd but the Public Works Department has classified the creel: as unimproved. The recommendation for two lots was based on the location of the creek structure, setback line as identified by ffic. County Public Works Department (PWD' . The A applicant had submitted a revised tentative mal) c-r identifvina cTe=-k structureA setback line, but the Public Works Department did not acknowltd-c—rtf,, the lin.- because it was calculated using tht=,�- formula for an "improved"' charinel, which 'hen the creed, structure Trampas creel- is not., according to the PIAM. Vv A-1 setback I'MCis applied to the, project, as required by ordinance it encumbers almost all of the. proposed "Parcel C", renderingthe proposed Parcel "C" unable to be developed. The, applicant, who has consistently opposed the Public Works Department's interpretation of the Creek Structure Setback Ordinance, filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision on April 26. 2004. I.- EE[. RECOhDvIENDATION Staff rtconuriends that the County Planning Com mi'ssi on adopt the Miti gated Nes-rative,Declaration, deny the appeal and uphold the ZoldnoC7 Administrator's decision to approve the tentative map for two parcels. B7. r,-TENEP-AL nom'OPJVIA.TIONI a. General Plan: Most of the site is designated Single-Family Residential it- Medium Density (SM), (3.0-4.9 units per net acre). A small portion of the site, in the southeast comer, adjacent to Las Trampas Creek, is within the Open Space General Plan Designation. b. Zoe cE: Single-Family Residential District (R-10), 10,000 square foot Urn lot Size. c. CEOA Status: AD h-iitial Study was prepared and , a mitigated negative declaration was noticed ODDccenibcT 29, 2004. The co=ent period ended on February 2, 2004. Staff has received two letters in response to this necRative, declaration. A discussion about the initial study is included In the staff analysis portion Of this staff report. d. RsETulaton,PTOcgrams: The property is not located within aflood hazard zone or an Alquist Priolo Special Study Zone. �7. APPEAL In a letter dated April 26, 2004, the, applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve the IM'noi- subdivision application of two lots as opposed to three, as requested by the applicant.. T'ntl appeal was based on the following points. Appeal Point No. I Abuse Of Application Review Process - County .1i Failure/Refusal to Comply with Ordinance Section 94-2.606 The Communiry Development Department, (CDD) failedirefused to timely PTOVI'dt Lionsc-rate with a copy of the Staff Report. S [f Response —At the request of Mr. Paul .Barker-, staff faxed the final draft of the staff report (without attachments) on April 2004, ten days before the hearing date. The staff report (with attachments) was completed and available f07- the applicant, 96 hours P7-iO7- to the tiMe of the public hearing, as required by ordinance. . copy of the staff report (with attachMOMS) was sent to t7-2-e applicant at least 96 hours prior to the hearing, Appeal Point Na. 2 - Abuse of Application Review Process - Further Count l Failure/Refusal to Comply with Ordinance Section 94-2-606 The above noted Staff Report was not only provided unacceptably late, it also nearlic,.Nmtly failed to include reams of vital documentation that supported the L- #-1 Application. Staff Response - Staff determined that it was not necessary) to zttach everj,, document in the fizie to the staff report. Only the most relevant infm-Tnatzon and correspondence was attached to the staff report. I f the Z072incr Ad7n1'?-z1'St7,*ator, or anyone else, wanted more information regra7-ding the pro'ect, the file is readii)) .1 lt� -7 available for review 4y anyone and all of the documents refereMced by the applicant are part of the fate. Appeal Point_Na. 3 - The County Legal Opinion was Improperly Ornitted from the Staff Report. Staff Response - The "County Legal Opinion YJ referred to by Mr. Barker- IS M reference to charges indicated on a billing statement for his p roject. The statement includes a charge of 5346.61fo 7- Work per formed by County Counsel staff relevant to this project. ne appellant was told on several occasi ons that the .Engineering Services Division had not contacted Counol, Counsel wed therefore no records existed in Engineering Servicesfizies. It was later determined that the Construction Division of Public WorJu and the .Department Di7TC107- had contacted Count), Counsel staff, via phone, to discuss storm drain work perforrned on the minor-subdivision.property, 077 or about September 2003, by the appellant without permits and the actions that were ultimately take7-7 by Public Works. In recent correspondence--, M7% Barker has stated that the County Cou?-zsel charges relate to the pre.Daration 0)-" a "legal opinion regarding the definitions andl"07'IMPrOV6 requirements contained within County Code pertaining to ci channeir, unimproved channels and n7z*nzmun7 easement widths for open cl-2annei.S% As discussed above, the charges b.),- Counn.) Counsel were solei}; for their work P07-f0r772ed with respect to the drainage violation 071 the D7-0jeCtP?-0,De7-n. Appeal Point No. 4 — County Failure/Refusal to Include Vital Material Records in the Staff Report Pertaining to County Ordinance Sections 1010-6.104; 1010- 6.026; and 914-14.006. Staff Response — Following the initial review of the submitted application and site visit, Public Works recommended in Jul); 2003 that the applicant observe Ordinance Code requirements with respect to Creek Structure Setback. The appellant, having received a copy of staff's initial recommendations, contested the creek structure setback requirement because of the existence of a soldier pile wall aiOncr the creek bank077 the Looney property adjacent to the project site. The appellant claimed that because of the wall, the creek should be considered an improved channel. Staff was aware of the wall's existence. Staff understood that the owner of the Looney PrOper`Z)1 at the time constructed this wall as ai? erosiol? control pr 0)*ect. 77i.e wall and creek are privately owned and maintained, and the 01),07- this area of the creek. This information a" well as the has no land rights *-.0 A, L.,1 0 a) 6 the department's position that this was an unimproved channel and therefore subject to appropriate creek structure setback requirements was C0771-)eved to the appellant. In subsequent Meetinas in late September and eariv October 2003, the a 'i -aise the i -eek being improved versus appellant continued 10 7 1 issue of the creek I Unimproved as well as the location of the creek structure setback line. DU ri 77 these meetings, staff indicated that they were i77 disagreement with the creel,- .J-, structure setback line as depicted o77 the Tentative Map. Staff advised the appellant that if he desired a setback line that was less restrictive than what was required by the Ordinance Code) as was proposed on the Tentative Map, an exception-to the creek structure setback requirements would be required. The appellantforewas also advised that in oi-dO7- staff to recommend a77 CXC11077 10 P the bearing body, the appellant would be required to submit additional studies C� appellant and analvsIs to support the location q the reduced setback line as was depicted by the appellant 077 the Tentative Map. Y7?e appellant agreed to supply the additional information. Public W07-1zam-eed to research departnzOW flies tO determine what in�07Mat1077 existed regarding construction 107of the soldier- PdC wall. It was at this time that the Flood Control 1)iVisloll of Public FT/76 7-ks begai? their .file search. The documents were located, i copied and placed pi 77tO 2003 where they have beer? available Eno, Services JUes 077 October N, for reVievill. Appeal Point No. 5 — Barn,- s Decisions ane, not Supported b�' Evidenct.. and are Contradicted b�, Count- Ordinance Section 1010-6.014; 1010-6.0'26- and 914- 14.006. Staff Response — The Zoning Administrator's decision was based onfact, a 07? L*) an 'the MeMtS of the appl'IPla77 cat1071 177 terms of compliance with the COUntl� Gene7-al and COUnn Ordinance. In order 10 approve a77 application, the Hea7lncr Boa'V must Ve7ifi) that the r-equired indings for the p7-qject have been Made. In this case, the Zo77zncr AdMini3t7-ator dete7-7771yied that the only wai.,, 10 772ake the required A-4 subdivision Jindings was to approve the P7-OjeCt for two lots instead of the proposed three. A,Dpeal Point No. 6 — The County Violated the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the UDited States. Staff Response — the resulting decision to approve the project for two lots, instead of three, is the result of the County's n7inor subdivision process ('due process). The minor subdivision process is a discretiona?y process that entities the County to conditionaZly approve n7inor subdivision applications. The "creel~ structure setback line)) restriction that the project has been encumbered with is f Ordinance. Die purpose of required per the requirements..o Title 9 of the County Ord* the creek St7-UCtU7-e setback area is to P7-01eCt the safety and well bei??g- of people and structures within the County. Appeal Point No. 7 — The County Staff gave Incompetent Test=' ony at the Public Dearing and Impose Unreasonable Subdivision Approval Requirements. Staff Response — Several of the I'SSUOS raised bi; the appellant regarding I. testin7wn)) given kJ) County staff at the Zonincr Administrators hearing are the opinion of the appellant. Therefore, staff is unable to respond to mane of the specifics noted 4)) the appellant. The appellant expressed objections to the 7-equireMent offrontage inTprOveniews along both project frontages. Frontage improvements are required by County, Ordinance fora new Subdivisions that meet certain 0-110-ia. Developinents within Toning districts of P-1-7 or denser are required to provide side-walk. Also AC) I Boulevard Way is a road of general county impor-tance and is shown as an art erlallthorougZ fare 077 the MqJ07' Road Flan of the County General Pla1z. Boulevard Wqy also provides CirCUlatio?i for vehicles and pedestr1c-z?zs between? the Lqfqvette area and SaranaplWainut Creek. Contrary) to what was stated 177 the appeal letter, staff has not received a traffic studs?.from the appellant. COU71tl staff "id revie-o) the site. The propelery .f, including the County's Traffic Engineer, a slopes away fron? the pavement ed(,ae along the Boulevard Wa)) prol.Oct frontage and there is Ver`V little shoulder area for pedestrians to walk. Requirl7-icr sidewalk along the Boulevard Wa) project frontage m combination with the level unpaved shoulder area along the property to the South will provide some pedesn-imi access along the east side of B0UieVa7-d Wal.)'on? War'ren Road to Boulevard Court. J7^ Appeal Point No. 8 — The Count, lmproptrl�, Refected Lions(E-rate,s Compliant e) A.- Tocntativto, Map and Required Multiple, Soils/Geological Reports not Required 'DV Ordinance. Sta Respons — YhePublic Pf/o riuDepartme7lt has C077SZ'StentlY maintained the P05111077, that the creek structure setback line as depicted on the Tentarl-ve Map and as requested bY the appellant is not correct based on the iopograpi,�y shown? -1 A-5 and existing site conditions. The appellant's desired setback line is based on the fact that there is an existing soldier pile wall along portion of Las Trani as Creek. Die appellantfurthe7- argues that this places the creek into the classification of an, improved channel. The appellant claims that this is an. unproved channel and, as such, should be subject to the easement requirements specified in. the Ordinance Code for- open channels. The appellant contends that Las TraMpas Creek should be considered an Improved channel due to the fact that the former owners of the LoOnel-I propert), constructed a soldier pile wall within and along their side Of the creek- to provide a measure ofprotection against erosion the Creek bank was expe7-ioncirzcr at this location. The appellant feels that based on. his interpretation Of the def 7ZitiOl? Of Gaunt an Improved channel provided in Title 10 of"ounz)) Code and because of the existence of the wall, there is no longer- I a need to 'mplement the creek structure setback requirements since the creek should now be considered an 1772P 7-OVeCl channel. Public Works has maintained th7-0U,0rh0Ut the 7-eVieW of this app lic atIO77 that even though measures have been take77 to stabilize a P07-11077 Of 072 e Of the creek banks, the remainder 0f the creek at this location is still in a natu7-al, unimproved state. Die creek bed as well as the banks upstream, downst?-earn and across the creekfi-ornthe wall, and possibly the wall itself, are subject to the in fluence off within Las Trampas Creek. Die appellant contends that the portion of Las Trampas Creek In questi'071.falls under the definition of ar improved channel as defined in Title 10. Section 1010- 6.014 states "IMProved channel Yi means a watercourse which has been 777odified through man-made construction inciudina- (but not limited to) increasing its width and/67- depth, srraightenina,its alignment, 07-stabilizincr its banks through concrete, grading, co -ip7Aap07- other means. Public Works interprets this to mean 7 that an improved channel is either man-made or a natural channel that has beer? studied and undergone szanifcant improvements such that the entire channel will adequately COnVel) the designflow and is not subject to the erosiveforcesthat are typically experienced in a natural., unimproved creek. Also, Unproved channels rypicali)) have an access road 071 one o7- both sides to allo-vvfor inspecrioll and I IS maintenance, as necessa7D.,, to insure their desired function. 771' P0711071 of Las TraMpas Creek is privateii) owned and not maintained b)) the Count),) 07- other- public 07-private organized entity (i.e. HOA, GHAD). In the case ofLas TraMpaF Creek, the Ordinance Code specifies the designflow to be a 50-year event With additional freeboard and a .IOD-year eVent without freeboard. Title 10, SeCt1071 1010-6-026, de Ines an unimproved Channel as a watercourse, which has been left as much as possible in its natural state. Construction of the soldier-pile wall, such as was done at this location, is an isolated e7-OSI'077 control P7-01'ect and does not automatically classifi; this segment Of Creek as a77 Improved channel as contested bv,thea -thwest bank, 77 0 t errant. The wall 0niVPr0TeCtS a 377laZIP07 1077 of the no7 tile entZ7-e Creek channel which remains substantially in a natural state. The County authorizes these types ofprojects at locations where it is appropriate and consistent with theSU7-7-Oundl*770' Conditions,, but not necessarily in a iOCatIO71 that 6 A-6 will contain a 100-year StOT'rn event. Because of the existing site conditions (deep channel, steep bank) at thYs locatioii, the creek structure setback line has a sizable encroachment into the pre-Dpertv. The setback line as calculated by Public Works using the method specified in the Ordinance Code, determined that the line encumbered almost all of proposed Parcel C and about half of Parcel B. The intent of the creek structure 4.z etback requirement is to insure that future structures on the parcels within this development, if approved, are protected fi-om the natural forces that iii Ue7 L I -,7'L ice as TraMDas Creek. .1 The Ordinance Code does allow an applicant to request consideration of a77 exception(s) to requirements stated in the code. However-, three finding-is must be 7net before ani) exception can be granted by the County: 1) That there czre unusual !fo n 17 e eXCePt*CDn is or conditions afaffectingectintheprGper`Z)�,- 2) That I necessary)for the preservation and en' t o a substantial right of the 7 oym en f I applicant; 3) That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious toother proper'tV in the terril0r" I In 14,7)7'Ch the Property is situated. The possibilit)) 01'considering an exception to the creek structure setback requirement was explained to the applicant in C revised stafirepOrt dared September 8, 200.'3 to the planner and copied to the applicant and as well as in. 0 meeting with Communin)Development, Flood Control and Public Woria 077 September 3 0, 200-'3 and again on October 9, 2003. It was pointed out rhat the creek structure setback line, as depicted by the appellant's engineer- on the Tentative Map, was 1*11COrrecr and if the appellant desired a setback li 71 gethat was less restrictive, such as was proposed by the appellant on the Tentative Map, they he must provide the necessa7D)supporting studies and analysis tojustifv" the exception to the Code requirement. The appellant indicated that hefel t the line should be less restrictive because the creek bank and wall were stable. It was explained to the appellant peliant that it is his obligation to adequately deMon..sirate that his proposed, less restrictive setback line was reasonable. At the Meetf,710r 077 October 9, 2003, Public WO rics asked Jor-a detailed geotechnical anaiysls of the soil as well as a hydrology and h-ydraulic study to determine i f the c7-eoj-,-bank is stable and nor?-erosive with respect to anticipated creek flows. The applicant agreed at the meeting to provide the requested informatiO77. Since that 7-neerinc, the applicant provided an additional geotechnical report dated FebrUa 7-1 2004, supplementino,an earlier report_for- the overall site dated Septenzbet 2003. A bank stability analysis was submitted o77Feb7-ua?-),, 17) 2004 along with a calculation of the I00 near water surface within Las TraMpas Creek dated October- 8, 2003. The conclusions ofthe applicant's geotechnical engineer'State that the creek baiik is stable. However-, these 7-CV07-tS provided general conclusions based 071 S1161 reconnaissance, logging of fOU7- CXPl07-at07-V' borings and limited iaboraton; testing. None of the documents provided discussed the relationsIzip between anticipated creekflows and velocities and their- effect, if any, 077 the stability) of the soldier pile wall, and the erodibility and stability of the creek bank upstream, downstream and above the wall. Public Works has asked on numerous occasions for the additional hnforiniatiOn regarding the relationship -eek and C) p between the c7 overall bank stabilize but the applicant has not been. for-thcomincr With the requested information needed for staff!s analysis. The applicant has repeatedly challenged the Department's position on the unin7 n W. z D7-Oved vs. improved condition of the creek and, in his opinion,feels that it is unreasonable for the COU721)' to be asking him to submit additional informahonespecialiv qfter his enmnee7- has determined that the creek banks are stable. Public '91orks supports the Count)s consulting geologist recomniendatiOn to have the applicant submit a final geotechnical report Meeting the requirements of Title 9, Section 94-4.420. The Public Forks Department, which is tasked with in7plementation Of the creek structurto, setback requirement, must insure that the irk formation proidded b)) the applicant is complete and contains sufflCie77t detail before it can recornmend any proposed modification to the creek structure setback line to the hearing body. If the applicant can prove that the channel has the capacity in its present condition to convey the 100-year storm and that the erosion repair (soldier pile wall)Pius the adjacent bank are stable and non-erosive, Public W07-L mai) recornmend that the hearing both) consider reducing the,StrUCtUrC setback line. Die burden of P7-00f is with the applicant. Public Works Will recommend that th e structure setback line be adhered to per the Ordinance Code unless app-op-fate backu 4 v analysis is Provided indicating the creek bank and wall are stable and not subject to the influences of Las Trampas Creek. Tfl"ith respect to the public vs. private ownership Of the V07-rn drain systenl that traverses the project site, there are 720 public drainage easements 07- rights of wale oJ C=:) for this drainage system outside the road right of way, therefore the Storm draln across the property) is privately owned and maintained. The appeRanr 's propern) is at the ver v downstream end of a small watershed and therefore receives water, frroni upstream properties within that watershed. The Counn) is Just one of the Property owners within this watershed. The Count} is responsible fo,7- collecting storm water that enters or originates 071 its property and convevinc, it onto the next pr`Gpert)) dOWnstreal7l. Die County oniv maintains those storm drains that lie within road rights qf Wal) Or within some other public land right (i.e. easeMe77t). Water that enters, then leaves a public road right C) of way as it-flows do-,wn through a watershed does not automatically make the water "public" and fi-tere fore the responsibility of the local public agenM). The 07211) way the stor177 a7-aln system across the minor' Subdivision property could become a public drabiacre system is i f the County Were to CXe7-t control over the system and assume responsibility;for maintaining it. The County has 1701 Maintained the systen? aCrOSS the Oppelianl',r PrOP07-n) 7707- desires to do so. Appeal Point No. 9 — The Count,- s Encari-neerm' cE Billing is Detfectl-vt. Grossh, inflated, and Probably Fraudulcnt- A-F Staff ReRonse — to this pr Charges 0 eCt area result of work pe7for7-2-2ed bit staf , - Y' frO777 va7-IOUS County Deparm2ents or all tasks requir-ed to P 7"OCeSs this applicati071. Public Works tI-772 e Was spent revi'e�;ijjc, the Initial �:zpplication, research, site visits, preparation of 30-dav comn2ents, response to cc)m7nents 017 the environmental document, preparation? of staff reports, handling phone calls, attending numerous 777eetings and the preparation of res -7-espondeme C) p072ses to C07 submitted ky the appellant, Appeal Point No. 10 -- 'Unreasonable Appeal Time Requirements — Ordinance S ecti on 94-2.1 0. Staff Aespoiise The Count) Ordinance specifies a 10 calendar ciqll, appeal period j`67' tentative Maps approved by the CoU71r),,' ZOnincy Adminzs-gator. TIC appellant was made aware of the appea.I process durincr the hea7'1*77 C, and was at the hearing, where the Zoning Administrator render-ed the decision. hearing, C) Irl. CONCLUSION Staff has determined that there is insufficient evidence to overturn the ZoIII*nC-I %-I Administrators decision and that the Plan-nincr Commission should uphold the Zomncr Administrators decision to approve the minor subdivision for two lots instead of three.. C:r:\CurTentPIaD=' cr*\Curr-planlStaffReportsMS03001A-PPEAL-. ' 00C RLH A-9 Agenda Item Community Development Contra Costa County CONTINUED FROM JULY 13, 2004 MEETING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY., AUGUST 24, 2004—7:00 P.M. INTRODUCTION LIONSGATE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (Appellant, Applicant & Owners, County File #MS030015: This is an appeal of the County Zoning Administrator's approval of a tentative map to subdivide a .91-acre parcel into two lots and allow the removal of up to nine (9) trees, including two valley oak trees, as well as work within the dripline of two (2) additional oak trees. The site address is 2501 Warren Road and is located on the southeastern comer of the Warren Road and Boulevard Way intersection, in the Walnut Creek area. (APN: 184-150-029) (Zoning: R-1 0)(General Plan: SM) (Census Tract: 341 0)(ZM: P-13) SUMMARY OF CONTINUATION At the July 13, 2004 Public Hearing before the County Planning Commission, the applicant informed the Commission that significant of vital information was missing from the staff report, and that he had additional new infonnation relating to the project. In order to provide the applicant with the opportunity to supply the additional missing information, the Planning Commission continued the project for six weeks in order to allow the applicant with sufficient time to prepare and submit the information. On August 17, 2004 the applicant submitted two volumes of information to staff for review. According to the applicant, he delivered the same package of information to all seven of the Planning Commissioners prior to delivering it to staff. LIONSGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Mailing Address: F. 0.Box 408, Alamo, California 94507 Telephone (925) 831-8500 Fax (925) 831-8502 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Dennis Barry, August 26, 2004 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. Co iunity Development Department, 651 Pine Street, 4t`Floor North Wing. Martinez CA 9455.3-0095. RE : MS 03-0015 APPEAL —REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. Dear Mr. Barry, Further to the Appeal hearing held before the County Planning Commission on August 24,2004, this is a Request For Reconsideration of the Commission's decision. The basis for this request is that subsequent to the hearing, a meeting was held between Lionsgate and the County Public Works Department which served to identify pertinent information that was not brought to the attention of the Commission which would provide the basis for resolving the issues raised at the hearing. Additionally, in the interests of saving time, Lionsgate would be prepared to provide the above mentioned pertinent information, for review by the Commission on the same date as the Request For Reconsideration is granted. This request is accompanied by the required $125,00,00 fding fee which is attached. Sincerely, 'Ile Ss Ir Kenneth Barker President Lionsgate Development Corporation. Copy: Mr. Eric Wban, Public Works Dept. i=r Agenda Item 4 Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY. SEPTEMBER 14., 2004— 7:00 P.M. 1. INTRODUCTION LIONS GATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (Applicant & Owne-x). Count}i File #MS030015- This is a request to reconsider the County Planninc, Commission's denial of a subdivision request to divide .91-acres into three, (3) parcels. The site address is 2501 Warren Road and is located on the so-Litheastern corner of the Warren Road and Boulevard Way intersection, in the Walnut Creek- Area. (APN: 184-15 0-02 9)(Zoning: R-10) (General Plan: (SM) Single-Family 4-1 Residential Medium Density)(Census Tract: 341 0)(ZM: P-13) H. SUMMARY A continued public hearing for an appeal of the Zoning Administrators decision to approve a two-lot subdivision was held on August 243 .2.004 before the Count), i� Plariffincy Commission. The Zoning Administrators decision was to coraditionallv approve the subdivision for two lots instead of three. The applicant, who had originally requested approval of a tentative map for three lots, appealed the Zoning Administrators decision to the Planning Commission. The initial hearing arina before the Planning Commission was continued to August 24, 2004 tD allow the applicant to submit additional information to the Planning Commission. At the continued hearing, the County Planning Commission, after reiriiewin!� the - 11-D information submitted by the applicant, made the decision to deny the appeal and dem, the subdivision application without prejudice. A number of is sues were brought up at the hearing by nearby residents and the Commiss' ioners. The key issues were related to drainage and slope stability of the proposed lots with respect to the creek structure setback requirements. The, Commissioners discussed the numerous concerns such as geotechnical issues. stability of creek banks and drainage issues. After much deliberation, the Plannin,�, Commission determined that there was not enough informa.-O 'n the &.� ion 1 file to support approval of a two lot subdivision. A motion to denv the entire application without prejudice was approved by the Commission 5 to 1. III. RECONSIDERATION In a letter dated August 26 2004, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of the project before the County PIaxining Commission. In the letter) the applicant 'indicated that a meeting was held between the CoLinty Public Works Department and the applicant. In this meeting, the Public Works Department identified for the applicant the pertinent information that was missing from the file. The applicant indicated that he is willing to cooperate with the Public Works Department and provide the pertinent information to the County. The County Public Works Department has confirmed that the applicant has agreed to provide conceptual improvement plans that would address creek structure setback issues for the subject propeMl. Accordingto the Public Works Department., the proposed improvement plans should address the creotec,hnical and slope stability concerns of the Planning Commission. R COMMEND A TION Staff has determined that the applicant's willingness to cooperate with t1he County Public Works Department and provide conceptual improvement plans that would address the creek structure setback issues related to the subject property is a pertinent factual matter that was not brought to the attention of thF=-- Planning Cornrm'ssion during the last hearing. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission Grant the reconsideration request and direct staff to schedule an additional hearing. The new hearing date should allow time for preparation and review of the additional reports and documents A.crenda Item FILE COPY Z� Community Development Contra costa County BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY PLANNING COIC/MS SJON TUESDAY. JANUARY 25, 2005 — 7:00 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION LIONS GATE DEVELOPMENT CONTANY (Almellant. A pplicant & Owner),. County File #MS030015: This is a reconsideration heu*mcof an appe,--al of the County Zoning Administrator's approval of a tentative map to subdivide a. .91-acre parcel into two lots. The applicant has provided plans for construction of a buried retainiric, wall that provides evidence for allowing an exception to the creep structure setback requirements of Title 9. Approval of the exception by the Planning Commission would allow staff to recommend approval of the tentative map for three lots due to the reduced creek structure setback line. Construction of the wall will require approval of variances to allow reduced side and rear yards. Approval of the, subdivision and related improvements will require the removal of up to eight (8) trees, including two (I) valley oak- trees, as well as work within the driplimtf., of two (2) additional oak trees. Required frontage improvements along Warren Road and Boulevard Way may require removal of up to eleven (11) trees and work within the drip line of up to eleven (11) additional trees., including a 50" oak located near the front of parcel 'C . The site address is 2501 Warren Road and is located on the southeastern corner of the Warren Road and Boulevard Way intersection, in the Walnut Creek area. (A-PN: l84-150-0'29)(ZonM' g: R-10)(General Plan: SNI) (Census Tract: 3410)(ZM: P-13) H. RECOMMENDATION Public Works staff has determined that an exception to the creek structure setback requirements of Title 9 is fcasible with the proper construction of the proposed buried retaining wall. Upon the Planninc, Commission szrantinc this exception, thoz.- tentative map for three, lots can be conditionally approved. Staff has also detcrm.M* =,..-d that the previously prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation iton Mo ni * ncr Proaram is still valid and appropriate for the three lot subdivision. Therefor.-, staff is recommending that the County Planning Commission grant the, exception to the creek structure setback, approve the variance for construction of the retaining wall. adopt the min'c.ratcd neaat've declaration and m't'oat* 'to 1 1 ior) moni nncr program and conditionally approve the tentative map for three lots. R-i Hi. R-ECONSIDERATION cr Co=* * On September 14, 2004 the County Plan=,,, 1sson (CPC) app-roved the1 applicant's request for a reconsideration of their decision to deny the subdivision application without prejudice. The reconsideration approval was based on the new information that the applicant agreed to supply regarding the c2eolocr 1 of the creek banks and aplan far mitigating creek bank stability issues and safety cone erns of the Public Works Department and the requirements of Title 9 (Creek Structure Setback Requirements). Since the last hearing the applicant has submitted neNNI information and a new proposal addressing creek bank stability issues. The intent of the proposal is to provide significant evidence for the granting of an exception to the requirements of rovi 1 Title 9; specifically, the structure setback requirements identified 'in §914-14.012. of the County Ordinance. GENERAL INFORMATION a. General Plan: Most of the site is designated Single-Family Residential Medium Density (SM), (3.0-4.9 units per net acre). A small portion of the site, in the southeast comer, adjacent to Las Trampas Creek , is within the Open Space General Plan Designation. b. Zoning: Sinale-Family Residential District (R-10), 10,000 square foot Minimum lot size. c. CEOA Status: An Initial Study was -prepared and a mitigated necrative, declaration was noticed on. Decmber .29, 2004. The comment period ended on February 2, 2004. Staff has received two letters in response to this 1 e negative declaration. A discussion about the initial study 's included d in the #6_ staff analysis portion of this staff report. d. Rezulaton, Programs: The property is not located within a flood hazard zone or an Alquist Pn'olo Special Study Zone. �1. BACKGROUND re the Zoning Administrator on April 19, 2004 The project was initially heard before and approved for two lots *instead of three. The foremost reason for approval of two lots instead of three was the placement of the creek structure setback line, as identified by the County Public Works Department. The structure., so,--_-Aback linc.,, encumbered almost the entire, proposed parcel 'C', making development of the4-1 proposed parcel not possible. The applicant appealed the Zoning. Administrator's decision and the appt-2-1 was heard on July 13., '20041 before the County Planning Commission. AT that hearing the per the. Planning Commission continued the project to the August 24 dfime M04 meeting per applicant's request. At that meeting the, PI Cy Commission denied the subdivision without prejudice. The Planning Commission based their decision on the lack of cooperation of the applicant in providing additional information on the stability of the creek banks. The Zoning Administrator's decision to approve the project for two lots instead of three was based on the fact that the creek structure setback for the subdivision encompassed most of parcel 'C , creating a lot with no development potential. The applicant's refusal to provide the geotechnical and hydrology studies requested by the Public Works Department led to the Zoning Administrators decision to approve the project for two lots, and eventually led to the PI 9 Commission's decision to deny the project. Safety concerns relating to creek- bank stability and the desire for 03 the property to be subdivided in accordance to the goals and policies of the County General Plan were two of the reasons for the Planning Commissions decision. 6-1 After the Planning cr Commission denied the project, the applicant submitted a request oJ for reconsideration. The applicant indicated in his reconsideration request that he was ready to provide a plan that would provide evidence to support for all awing an exception to the creek structure setback requirements. Throughout the application process the applicant has contested the applicability of the creel- structure setback line and has objected to providing any additional information relating to creek bank stability and creek hydrology. According to the applicant, the need for an exception to the creek structure. setback requirements uirements should not be required because the applicant contends that the creek has been "improved''. The County Public Works Department has classified the creek as "unimproved", therefore subjecting the property to the standard creeLstructure setback requirements. The Planning Commission approved the reconsideration based upon the applicant's proposal to submit additional information rclatfficr to creek bank stability. V1. REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Orn September 2, 2004 the applicant submitted a conceptual improvement p]an for the construction of a boned .retaining (caisson) wall with the intention of providing evidence for the granting of an ex to the creek structure setback requirements vi in exception of Title 9. After reviewing the information, the Public Works Department determined that the proposal was feasible. If built correctly, the proposed retaining --.wall could provide sufficient f the creek banks and permit and exception to the creel,, support o structure., setback requirements of Title 9. The preliminary plans shove- the wall near the top of the creek bank-, at the rear propem, Iffie o i f proposed parcel "C". The wall is comprised of I V diarntntter drilled piers placed at 6'0", on center along the alignment indicated in the submitted R- rr" conceptual drawing. ine piers will be cast-in-place steel I-beam and cernent. The plan indicates a total length of approximately 92-feet, some of which is located within the required side and rear yard of proposed parcel "C". Variances will be required for the establishment of the wall within the rear and side yard areas, and have been made part of the revised project description. If the Planning Commission grants the exception to the creek structure setback requirements of Title 9, the Zonincr Administratar"s reason approving only a two lot subdivision, is overcome. Accordingto the Public Works Department, the precise location and design of the wall cannot be determined with the information supplied by the applicant. Additional information will be required by the County Public Works Department and Building Inspection Department prior to construction of the wall. A condition of approval requiring that the wall be constructed and finalized prior to issuance of a building permit for any of the residences within the subdivision has been included in the revised conditions of approval. VE. PUBLIC WORKS COMIC NTS In a memo dated January 11, 2005, the Public Works Department provided some background for the Project and detailed the process-by which the exception can be g structure requirements. The memo indicated that the ,,ranted to the creek structu ' setback requ' solution proposed by the applicant is feasible, but final approval of the dc,-sip of the wall would be contingent upon the applicant providing additional information (memo attached). The Public Works Department has also provided revisions to the original conditions of approval for the project. The revisions to the conditions reflect the changes to the proposed subdivision, and provide for the proper construction and timing for the proposed burled retainingwall. VIE. STAFF ANALYSIS/DISCUS SION A. Site Plan Analvsis: A marked up copy of the on*c.q*nal vesting tentative map was submitted to the County Public Works Department on September 22, 2004, The marked up map included preliminary drawings for the proposed wall. The wall will be located near what is identified as the "top of bank" of Las Trampas creep. The wall will begin near the northeast corner of parcel 'C' and cut diagonally across the rear portion of that parcel towards the southern property line. The PTOXIMAl of the wall to the rear and side (south) property line requires the approval of a variance to allow a structure within the required rs,-:-.aT and side yard of parcel 'C'. The alignment of the proposed relocated storm drain has not been modified fin.the marked up copy, but chances to the alignment may -need to be made to acco=odate the proposed wall. R-4 B. Proposed Wall: The proposed piers (wall) will be buried near the top of'the creek bank, and will have a minimal physical impact to the property. Tl-xe Count), Geologist recommends a minimum depth of 20-feet but the actual depth and spacing of the piers will be dependent upon the geological information that will be required of the applicant prior to issuance of a residential building permit. The piers may or may not protrude slightly above grad..., but if they do extend above ground their visual impact will be minimal. Installation of the wall may result in impacts to two or more trees. Mitigation for the possible removal/death of these trees is discussed below. C. Tree Issues: The proposed wall will not have, any additional impacts on any trees except for tree 424., a twenty four inch oak- near the north cast comer of parcel `C'. The wall will be constructed within the drip line of that tree, but placement of the nev, storm drainis much closer to the trunk of that tree and will have a more Sicrnifficant impact to the health of the tree. After further review of the arborist report and site plan, staff has determined that approval for the removal of eight (8) trees and work within the drip h-LDe of two additional trees is appropriate. Removal or alteration of additional trees on any of the parcels will require approval of a tree permit, pursuant to the requirements and finding of the County Tree Protection Ordinance.In Additional right of way dedications and improvements have been required as part of the conditions of approval for the project. The required construction of curb and sidewalk along Boulevard Way will require removal of up to four- trees and work within the drip line of up to six trees., includinv, a' 50" oak- located on the subj ect property. D. Shaw/Rvan Concerns: The property owners to the south of the site have raised numerous concerns about the proposed subdivision. Their property is tlae propelm, that has been most affected by the existing drainage of the subject site. For years. an outfall at the rear of the, Shaw/Ryan property has eroded the creel, bank with water collected at the roadway and carried across the subject property within an improvised drainage system. They have voiced their desire to have the eroded bank repaired, but the burden of the repair cannot be placed upon the, applicant. This.-, proposed improvements for the subdivision include installation of a nev, drainage system that will relocate the outfall and prevent further erosion of the #.- w Creek- bank behind the Shaw/Rvan property. Another concern of the Shaw/Ryan hs involves the setbacks as labeled on the Vesting Tentative Map. According to the Shaw/Ryan~s, they have a recorded access easement on the Parker property. Th,.,-:,- tcntative map identifies the Side yard setback along the southern property oc-anc., taken from the property line 4-1 - 4 and not the edge of thtcE,. easement. Staff has informed the neighbors that setbacks #.-, I.- are always taken from the edc.-)rgt- of access easements for lots of this size- However. R-5 staff will condition the map in a manner that reflects the easements and removes the misleading side yard measurement. 4- E. CEOA implications: The proposed change to the project does not substantial)), 4- 0) alter the project description. The proposed changes to the project will not have 0) 4-W 03 any additional impact to any of the environmental resources on th=.-.-. site. The proposed wall will be located at the top of the calculated creek bank, which is more than fifty feet from the edge of the creek. The wall will be located within the drip line of an oak tree that is to be preserved, but the proposed sto= drain s-vstem for the project is located much closer to the trunk of the same tree and will have a more significant impact to the health of the tree than the proposed wall which will barley encroach into the drip line of that tree. Staff has determined that the previously prepared Miti2ated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the revised project. F. DrainaLye line/outfall: The revised map shows the proposed drainage line crossing the proposed wall. The Public Woks, Department has indicated that the location Of the drainage line and out fall may have to be altered in order for the wall to worl- properly. If a significant realignment of the drainacre line and outfall is required a re-evaluation of the storm drain systems impact to environmental resources on the site may be necessary. G. Fee Status: At the last Planniffip, Commission meeting the applican-t's billing account was brought up. An invoice requesting payment of S48,027.00 was sent to the applicant on December 21, 2004. Current charges as of January 11, 2005 total more than S-55,000. Multiple, invoices have been sent to the applicant and no payments have been received. FD\TDINGS In addition to the tentative map findings made in the original staff report, the revised tentative map application requires that findings to alloy, an except-ion to the requirements of Title 9 and variance findings be made prior to approving the project for three lots. The Planning Commission may grant exceptions to the requirements of Title 9 once the, required findings have been made. In arantinc-, any such exception, the Planning Commission can designate conditions under which the.... exceptions are granted. #..- 4- A. Excerin on to Title 9 Reouircments, Findinas Relauired Firiciin-o 4,.,'1: That there are unusual circurnstanctcn or conditions affecting the prop le-Tty. Prosect Finding: The proximiry of the subject prope771) to Las Trampas creek I . - and existing ropocyraph.v of the site have resulted in a situation Where the R _(5 calculated creek structure setback line encompassed alMOSI a ZI Of the proposed parcel 'C . The site conditions that have resulted in, this lczrae creek St70'UCIU7-*e setback area are not typical throughout the County. Las Trampas creek does not ph'ysicaZly encroach onto the subject property, but due to the topograp4)) of the creek bank, the calculated creek structure ser bac, line places an unreasonable burden on the applicant's abilin) to subdivide the parcel into three lots. The burden of the creek structure setback line will be s i c-rnificantly lessened with the installation of theproposedburled wa 11. Reouired Findin-a 42: That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enj ovinent of a substantial property n'-o-rht of the applicant. Proiect Fi Granting the exception would allow the applicant to P7-OCeed with the subdividing r of his lot. The PrOPOSal 10 subdivide the .91-ac7-e lot into three lots is, not possible without granting the requested exception- The .91- aC7-C 101 is located within the R-10 (10,000 square foot minimum lot sZ.7e) zoning district and wIthI?? the Single .Family) (SM) General Plan dc..signanon. The minimum lot size that would be allowed within the SM Gen eral Plai? I'7eS designation is less than 9.,000 square feet. The proposed 101 SZ _fc:)7-parcels A. B and C are 10,000, 11,800 and 17,800 square feet respecriveh.). Required Finding #3: That the 2ranting of the exception will not be Tmateriallv 4- detrimental to the, public welfare or injurious to other property in th e territory, in which the property is situated. Project Finding": The intent of the creek structure- setback requirements in title 9 of the Counn) Ordinance is to protect people and structures f7-on7 being damaged by the possible.failure of the existing, creek banks. Granting of the exception will onli; be allowed after the applicant has demonstrated that the safetv factors_f07- the stabilization of the creek banks for the proposed wall meet the requirements of the Counti) Geologist, Building 177spectio,7i and the C� Public R'07-ks Department. The p7-eliMinary sketches along with the supporting greoiechnical informatz'077 indicate that the proposed vvall could provide the c-eek bank stabilization. If the C-1 project is approved by the Commission and the exception 0,7�anted 7- .1 -fo the reduced creek structure setback, additional submittals such as technical data, studies, calculations and engineering analysis nia)", be required as part pf the applicant's compliance with the conditions of approval. B. 171 &- 'ance Findinas Reauired Finding #1- That anN: variance authoI7I'z-,2.,d shall not constitute a rant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in tn�.- P vlcinitv and the respective land use district in which the subjectPT0pCnNI is located. R--7 Aflowino,0 the construction of a buried retaininc, Wall within Proiect F C� the rear and side -vards will not constitute a grant of special privilege. P ApplicationsfO 7- this type ofproject are reviewed' On a case-by-case basis and decisionsare made based on the whole of the prCject. Reciuire:,,d Findincar 42: That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size. shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of fights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinitty and within the identical land use di stTi ct- The o subject property to Las Trarnpas creek Project.Fin proximity f the and the topography of the C7-eek bank have created a situation -where the calculated creek structure setback requirement would encompass a majority, of the proposed parcel 'C In order- to obtain an exception to the requirements of Title 9, the applicant has proposed the construction Of 0 buried wall, which will encroach into the required rear and side:yard of the subject propern;. If the variance request for the wall is not granted, the three lot subdivision would not be feasible and the applicant would be deprived of his right to pursue approval of three lots out of the .91-acre property. CD Reauired Findincar #,3: That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. ProsectFinding: Approval o the variance to allow a burled retaining wall _ �r C, within the required near and side vard in o7-der to prevent possible erosion of the creek bank in order toprotect people and property will substan tialii� meet the intent of the P-10 zoning district in which the subject property i.s located. X. CONCLUSION Staff has determined that the findings for allowina, an exception to the crce,-1,- structure setback requirements can be made and the applicant's request for an exception should be approved. Upon approval of the exception, staff rccormnends, that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Mitigation Monitonncl Program and Mitigated NrCTrative, Declaration and approve the subdivision for three lots as shc)wn in the Vcstino Tentative Map and Marked "Up Tentative Map with the attached conditions of approval. GACurrent Plarming\curr-plan\Staff ReportsWS03001-5)Rconsd Appe-al.doc-1 FILE R-S PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNT ' DATE: Janua.7v 11, 2)005 TO: Ruben Hernandez, Project Planner, Community Development I FROM: En'c Whan, Senior.Civil Engineer. Enm*nee:,,n*ncr Services SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION MS 03-0015 STAFF REPORT & CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—RENTISIO-N CAI (Lions arate/W arren Rd. Lr Boulevard Wa-v/Saranap A-rea/AP# 184-15 30—029" FILE: MS 03-001-"'-) 0n Jul), 13, 2004, the applicant's appeal of the Zoning Administrator.s approval c)f a two lot Tentative Parcel Map was brought before the County Planning Commission. The Commission took testimony and continued the item to Auaust 24, 2004. After further testimony and deliberation the Commission denied the project without prejudice. The applicant subsequently requested a meeting with Public Works Department staff on August 26, 2004 to discuss outstanding issues relevant to the project. At that meeting, the applicant expressed concern about creek bank geotechnical and stability considerations as well as site drainage. Public Works reiterated its long-standing position that due to the, proximM, of Las Trampas Creek to the property and the significant encroachment of the, creek structure setback line, consideration of three lots at this site would require the applicant to pursue an exception to the creek structure setback requirements. To pursue this course of action, the applicant would have to either appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors or submit a Request for Reconsideration before the CoAmnissl On based on the premise that an exception to the creek structure setback requirements would b e requested. With either course of action, the applicant would have to provide supporting info=atioln such that findings could be made to allow an exception. Public Works restated Its d�sire for the applicant to submit a detailed hydraulic analysis that evaluates and determines the level of erosive force Las Trampas Creek would have on its bed, bank- and the existing c.Y. soldier pile wall in order to determine the overall stability of the creek bank. Based on that information, a determination could be made as to a possible modification of the creek structure, setback Im' "t'. The applicant was not in favor of providing the information. During the meeting the applicant proposed a concept for construction of an intermittent retaining wall to stabilize the development site immediately adjacent to the crech. Public Works asirted that the idea had merit and requested that a sketch plan of th,,,-:,, concept be submitted. The applicant proceeded with filing a- Request for Reconsideration with the Co=um'nl Development Department that afternoon. On September S, 2004 the applicant submitted a Conceptual Improvement Plan for consideration by County staff. A Request for Rt,-cons-lderation was scheduled before the Corrun*ss' %1.1 %_1 1 101) on September 14, 2004 and subsequently granted. County staff met with the applicant ori September 16, 2004 to discuss the merits of the submitted proposal. Numerous issues were discussed and additional requests for *information were provided to the applicant at the meeting and in follow- up letters from Public Works and Darwin Myers. County Consulting Geologist on September '?1. 2004 and September 72, 2004 respectively(Attachments A &B). In the letter, Public Works agreed that the applicant would not have to consider the Ordinance Code requirement for detenninincr the creek structure setback that is based on the design storm water surface elevation in Las Trampas Creek. This is due to the fact that the opposite bank is significantly lower than the adjacent bank. The applicant would only be required to consider the 2.5 to I slope method as defined in the Code. The applicant was asked to provide a detailed design of the intermittent retaining wall, prepared by a registered engineer that assure.es a "worst- case.1131 scenario of a complete bank failure on the creek side of the proposed intermittent retaining wall. The failure would occur along a hypothetical 2.5 to I failure plane beginning at the toe of the existing a soldier pile wall in the creek and extending up to the face of the intermittent to--) retaining wall. This situation would cause the structure to act as a retainiffic, wall. To support the soil loads behind the exposed wall, the piers would have to extend a sufficient distance below the 2.3 to I failurp.., plane. The applicant agreed to provide the requested information for staffs review. Additional supporting M' formatl'012was submitted for consideration (date stamped received) on October 7, 2004 (Attachment C) and forwarded to Community Development and Flood Control for review and comment. Public Works staff has since had the opportunity to review the supplemental information and discuss it with each of the reviewers including the Building Inspection Department. Comments were received from Darwin Myers in a letter dated November 8., 2004. (Attachment D) While the documentation submitted by the applicant provides additional relative to the design roposed structure, 't does not answer all concerns information re , of the p I initially raised by staff nor does it guarantee the granting of any entitlement or the, approval of a reduced creep structure setback. If the project is approved by the Commission and the exception granted for the reduced creek structure setbacl,-., additional submittals such as technical data, studies calculations and engineering analysis may be required as part of the applicant's compliance with the, conditions of approval. Public Works issues that must still be addressed during condition of approval compli-ance include an understanding of the relationship between the proposed intermittent retaining -wall and the hypothetical 2.5 to I failure plane. Assuming a complete failure of the creek bank along this Z-) Z:) plane ("worst-case scenario"). the, piers would have to support the remaining soil load behind the wall thereby requiring the piers to extend below the failure plane a sufficient distance. The applicant's engineer has assumed a pier depth of only 10-feet with no correlation between the I v P" E might be considered depth of piers and the location of the failure plane. An alternative approach m*, I soils are assumed to be competent sandstone and the bank would wnereby the deeper underlvm' cl Sol theI = not necessarily "fail", along the, failure plane from the tot, of ban.11-1 to the intermittent retaininc-T wall. Soil failure could be assumed to occur along the hypothetical 1.5 to I plane up to a point where- competent sandstongl-,, is reached and then would follow the top of this layer up to the intermittent retaining wall. The depth of overburden material on top of the sandstone and behind 1-n A the Piers would determine thst', required pier depth into competent sandstone thereby potentially eliminating the need to consider the depth of piers below the .2-5 to I failure plane. Tnis assumption hinges on the soil characterization of the site: depth of overburderi; depth to competent sandstone; location of sandstone layer bevond the intermittent retaining wall towards creek. Additional fieldwork would be required to make this determination if this assumption is used. A Building Permit will be required for the intermittent retaining wall. Before a pe=t can be Z:) 4:> issued, certain requirements must be satisfied. Some of which include, but are not limited to, demonstrating a safety factor of 1.5 or greater, determining appropriate pier spacing s- .ch that the soil supported by the intermittent retaining wall can act as "lacrmng" between piers, and determining the distance to which the intennittent, retaining wall should extend onto Parcel B. Additional soil profiles along the alignment of the wall will be required. Submittals -will also be subject to a peer review by an independent soil engineer. EW:LG::eu, G:\GrpData\Enc,svc\F--rir-\2005\Januarv\MS030015m L- - cc: H.Ballenger,Enagineening,Services B.Balbas.Engineering Services E.Whan,Engineering Services Soen Thun-'Building InspecnOT) L Darwin Myers,Community Development 1'...Fernandez,Accounting(via e-mail} Accounting Lionsgate Development Corp.,P.O.Box 40E.Marna,CA 94507 Jim Diaptis,DeBolt Civil Engrineening,811 Sall Ramon Valley Bivd.,Danville.CA 94526 AT , �A aurice M.Shia Contra1 ablic �`/��orks Departmem PLablic Works Director Costa ��_ Glac'or Drive R. Mitch Maim Dt--Puty Director 94553-48125County Martinez,CA 9455 Telephone: (97)05)312"Q000 H e—eather J.Bahenger FAX- (025) 313-2333 Dtaputy DI'TeCtOT Web site:www.co.cc)ntra-costa.ca.us/cievartipm, September .211, 2004 lu 11a R.Btieren Dcaputy Director Fa tricia R.McNamee Dea—puty Director Kenneth Bark,,-.,i- Lionsgat..,D,,=V=,..lopms,=,nt Corporation P.O. Box 40S Alamo, CA 94507 Our File: MSO�-)1-00115 Deal-Mr. Barker- Thanl: voLi for meeting with County staff last Thursday, September 16. 2004 to diSCUSS VOIAT conceptual improvement plan to address the crstek structure sctbach issue. I would like to summarize th outstaTiallicr I,SSI-Ics and remaining tasks that wci-e, discussed at the meeting. Dai-win Myers will talk to the Building hispection Department to d.F.,te-m-unt. if?- Building Pcim-ilt will br,,--, required for construction D f the cast-in- place soil stabilizing structure. lit will also prepare a su=ary of any addltl*onal information needed from VOU for his rcvIxI!,.IA/ of your proposal. haddition to providing the, information requested by Mr. Myers, you will need to provi6p, 2 detailed p�d I n of the, soil stabilizing structure. (drawina.,,-� assumptions, analys*s, -s of safety, design sol I factors calculations, etc.'} stam1Do,-=.d b�/ a resristered engineer. We aur-ed that you would not have, to consider the L Ordinanc,t, Codt, requirement of dttenninlng the design ston"n water suriace, elevation M Las Trampas Crcel<. due to existing site conditions. The opposite, banl: of Las Trampas Creel, is significant l y lower than the adjacent 'banI,,-. Therefor: it is i-casonable to eliminate this requiTCM.0,71t and use only the 7.5 to I slope M0.1thod as defined M Division 914 of Title 9 of the. Ordinance. This F,-Ilmlnat=.I-s the need for any further analysis of Las Trampas and Its effects on the adjacent creep bank. Vi- also asked that In the C,sI'r) the proposed so*] sta, *I'z* 0 structure that you assume that then- Is complete. banl: failure ori the creel-, of 1 Di i in-, stru tcll side fail.UTC.� 1 (beginning %-1 1.., %.0 s) I- of the structure a'onLy, the . to plain (bcrY*nn'nE at the tor- of Px'stffiv soIdI=.--r plit wall iii t h t creel: up to the proposed wall. In this cast the structure would act as if it were a rf,=&taininLT wall. Therc.ioi-r.--, tnr,--' calculations and factors of safety should aSsume., this "worst-case" loading situation. The 20-foot cretin structure sl=ltbacl: lint seems appro,0riat,.=I,, subject to thr--, recommendations of final d,..S]C_Tyj submittal. The s-tbacI, lineshall be measured perpendicular to tide al" -,nt of the sc)'I stabilizing StrLIC-1,turr.t. A giant deed of ds,-.Ivg,.,Iol)m;,.-,nt rights shall be. placed ov,,:.,r that area that falls. within thr.-I &.- 4 L- I sti-i-iciure sttbacl: lint. Also, Q),.m.,ast submit a preliminary layout far the proposed storm drain. We would ilk,-, to see, r) SK,21tcl] planI o ow the new T 'p- will pass through t* DroDos=d SolI s+ abilizin- KiLC111tS well a- the- aIi-nm Pnt and jocatiorof the out-fall astructun- as dlSCUSStd. YOIMere DTOVIded WI 'n 2 CODNI of tIlt Coulitv's stancard outfall detail 'D-50i so that vou can incorporate o:at tthrfeatures 0na, standard into vou7 outfallQuin:, discussed the possible, n,.=,.,5d for 2 splash r)ad at tilt t)as,.=I- os the 1.-IxIsilnLT wall to T)r,,--,vp..n-t erosion ane undermining of tile,wall. tf Mir. B aTkei- September 2"1, 2004 Page-2 One issue discussed at our August 262004 meeting but not at our most recent meeting is tine invoice for processing VOUTdf,,v=,.,1opment application. To date, you have an outstanding balanct, due of about 549.000. At Our mt.Cti-no in August, you indicated your willingness to pay tbe, outstanding charc-r=,.,,.Q- To continue with the reconsideration of your project additional staff timIrl, will be required to rf,-vitm, your submittal(s) andpi-c-Dart a nev, staff report to the. County Plaiining,Co=isslon resulting in additl'Dnal charges to 'vou,j- r all county project. The Board of Supervisors has mandated that all developers be. 100% accountable fc) pro)ect costs associated with their developments. hi order for County staff to continue with YOUT DrO)e2i you will ri...ed to remit the balanct.due for Your project. If you have any questions oTwould like to discuss this fi1fth',0-.r, lease contact me at (91-1 5) SIS-?242 Very truly yours, Eric B. Whan Senior Civil Engineer Engineering SO,=;'TV1ceS 1-7 W:r n i u:\GrpData\EngSvc\F-ric\2004\SeDtcmbcr\MS0300151,1-.boc CC' M.ROSC,Office Of SUP.Uilke= WA.SbIL,Director Pubilc WDTkS H.Baliengei,Deputy Director Public-Works B.B21bas,Engineering Services P.Detiens,Rood Control R.Hernandez,CDID D.Mvers,CDU 1).Althoff,County Counsel r'z A Dennis M. Barry,AICD Community Contra Community C)eveiopment Direclor Development Costa Department un t County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Marfine.-7, Cal4ornia 94553-00915 Phone- 1) 33 5-12 10 CO S tptembtr 2)004 Ktn Barker Lionsgat.e.D5-vrelopment P.O.Box 408 Alamo. California 94507 Subject: %,Xeo-LechnI'ca'J &Enagineei-Incr Requ1iremerits loll, "'aisson'Nall MS 03 00 15 /o.9 acres APN 184-150-029/2501 Vla-rTtm Road Saranap Area, Contra Costa. Count)7 Ii D,.-.aT Mi. Dark-ti, Followingour meeting of SeptcmbeT 160'at the Public Works Department. I was tasked with. outlining Ivzt vou-r request fOT al e:tcep�irn�to tho- the information required by Contra Costa County to fully ana standard creek struczurr, seftbacl.,_. As we discussed, tlit infonnation being requested herein must be JDTOA'1 before staff will schedule v )0 ouT project for public hearing. The construction of the,PTOPOSCd 'DUn*ed caisson wall at the top-of-slope (and anchored into TOOk-) Will require building iini-,riDeniul. Thai prcmnitwill require boti geo-technical pammettrs and c,-cilculxtions from a licensed Califon-na enc-rinte-i. It ma)x be.prudent to secure the senlicts of a licensed structural enar1IIF%.I*ItI3IT for the detailed design work to ensure that thr.,. analvsls meets t1i'l-I expectation of thr%.-I Buildm' L' Inspection Dt-martnitryt. The l'ollowinry reports, plans, Typical sections. emaineeTina analysis and calculations are to be provided to the pro tct plann"I. R-Libcr Hemandc.z prior to takinpthe project back To public h.,-.arina* 1. _S oil Rei)ort Yo-ti M' Chc.-:Lts.-d at our meeting or, St-ottm"OtT- 16' that you had information doc-Lu-ncntini: please providt. a cov'v d tont btlund the t�astinp wall ('located at the tor.-I of tll't slop pir of sandstone 4 the Ttl)OTI/docuincanation. G e,ote. -chnical Rt-DoT*. • TM' M' iomaatiou that you hay....&D. wall is concm-tual. I"o,,-htv-.I vou provided on the buried caisson I ' I have indicated a caisson STac*MEof 7f"Zt (on cen Al- 0 ehev- that a mores stazldazd s z'm d c� piers this amounts to 4'r h,. btvx1,s-,= T)3,,-,.-,rLs o, 6 ft. r'rorri -o a !2 is S diameter:. P 0 M 3 'D I f,T TO 1DIP.T C."MICT 1In,,,r-,,'). Wrix, tomp'l-leMng analvsis supports ca spazuig. fir:atcT titan, thT., diam s"LETS Office amours Monday - =rida�,,,- B:00 a.rri- - -'J:DCj c).rr,.. 0.11fiCe IS Closed tne is".. 3rd S 5th FrIdav-s. of =-a,,-.h month ProiiM.. justification 1^01 the proposed 20 ft, peer depth.. The secticm vote PTOITICM d Md1cated perhaps 10 ft. of overburden "severely weathered siltstone) over dense sandstone. What if this assumption proves to be incorrect? ATe there circumstances that would require pier depths.A. greater than 2 0 ft? Provide creoteclmical parameters rffiTthe,wall design. Outhne thi..-I details forMsp-, s by the geotechnical env_M' Pler and precautions (ecr. airoldinc Aclion 1-1 loose material on bottom ol'hole;handlu'lp- of anv water infiltranon problems: etc.) L According to the Soil Survt,-), of Contra Costa County,the, soils on the sit,,,-, (Tierra- loans) are Cr characterized as bp,'m' _.highly corrosive to uncoated steel(Table 5,page, 97). Addre=ss the need for chemical testing to determine the level of corrosion protection required for Ste-,,I and concrete materials used for construction of the caisson wall. Desian ol'Wall b�) Bnogane:,,3T Assume no support froin the upper 10 ft. of weathered rocl,, (on the downslope, o:F the wall) Analyze stability of caissons for this scenario, • Provide calculations of a California licensed engineer, delsiQla confonTLing to the 2001 CBC,includingwet st=prd calculations. ProAridt a Sit... Plan for the PTOPOS(,-d wall, along with typical sections and other details on tht design of caissons (diameter. Steel TemifoTcernent. etc.) P1(,-ase note that if review of materials is deemed inadequateby the,County, supplemental data inai,' ' the evaluation and comments be required prior to proceeding to hearing. "W,- trust this letter PTOV1 "d,--S _,. that you requested. Please call if you ha-ve any questions. Sinc=])", Dare,111 Myers, CEG 940 Peer Rein ACIV,Ge,olop,st ccRuben Hernandez, C oi:Tm-iumt.`, Development DT=ItMbnt Brian M Balb-")c., Public Work's Department Eric'Mhan. Public Works Dear=-,-,IT I "Paul Detiens, Flood Control District Soon Thung- Building Ins-ps.-.ZLion D-,-,1)art:rnen-t Gari;Farla, Building Insp-.0alon Department Ed Scar'b)7. Diablo Engineers �V LIONS�ATL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION marling Address: P. 0.Boy 408,Alam cD, California 94507 Telephone (9251 8.3"1-8500 FaX. (9.215) 831-85042 P PEUEW-0 HAND DELI��RED OCI 2 12 erin�Svc_ Engineerig 4 E Svc, )P0 CF .� t. Puibi October 7, 2004 Mr. Eric Whan, Senior Enm'neer, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Public Works Department, 25 5 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94.51 5 3-2 3.33. RE- MS 03-0015 Project Documentation. 0J Dear Mr. Whan, Further to Lionsme s September 2, 2004 conceptual plan, and our subsequent meeting of September 16, 2004, please find attached four(4) copies of further suppo-rting documentation that was requested by the County and Mr. Darwin Myers. This additional information is provided in compromise and without prejudice m* a sincere attempt to resolve the long standing delays that have been incurred for approval of the subject m'nor subdivision application. The attached additional information is as follows I Submittal By Diablo Engineers consisting of Plan, Section Notes Drawing,- NuTnber I and three(3) page report entitled, &- p Desimi Calculations For Intermittent Retairdna Wall At Development Site - Warren Road At Boulevard Way" [The above information has already been reviewed by telephone by Diablo Encinectrs with Mr. Darwin Myers, Letter report by Mr. Don Protzman, Consultini-T Geologist, dated October 26,1978, entitled GEOLOGIC HAZZARD EVALUATION, 2499 Warren Road, Walnut Creek, CA" This r that the formation uncerlvmcg tne. site 1 report connrms ne t s primarily a medium to fine rained sandstone." [ We understand from discussions with Diablo Engineers that NL-. Dar-win 10v-Crs had not se--en this report] i i r t c t s Page No. ? - Letter to Iver. Eric whan -October 7; 2004. i 3 ) A marked up Tentative vesting Map dated October 7,2.004 which shoves the dimensioned location of the relocated storm drain out fall line. No trees will be removed since the outfall structure has been relocated to an area on the creel: slope where the existing brush is generally less than two (2) inches in diameter. 4 )The marked up vesting Plan also shows the location of the reinforced concrete drainage apron, and provides EL 186.00 as the Invert Elevation for the relocated out fall line. This elevation is about three(3) feet above the highest possible flood water level in Las Trampas Creek.. [ i.e. Higher storm water flows would top the other creek bankl We trust this submittal fully provides the information that was requested, and we respectfully request that approval of this application be expedited. Kindly call if there are any questions. a i Sincerely, r r Kenneth Barker, President, Lionsgate,Development Corporation. .Attachments: As listed Above ---4 copies NOTES: i.STRUCTURAL STEEL-ASTM A36. CONCRETE-250OPSL. 2. ENGINEER TO INSPECT PIER DRILLING PER CBC 1701. 3. ENGINEER TO VERIFY PIER HOLES ARE FREE OF LOOSE MATERIAL,WiDs ARE CENTERED IN HOLES PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE, 4. SHOULD ANY UNUSUAL OR UNFORESEEN CONDITION BE DISCOVERED IN THE FIELD, NOTIFY THE ENGINEER PROMPTLY. ri 1. ED FILL W/CONCRETE iolnee{ll n% SOLDIER RE"S cp 610" o Wl0x39 o SECTION (A lie I p Nal,20210 exp. 9-30-05 civ OF CA FE LIONSGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Diablo Engfumeers, Inc. SCAL—E, DWG FILE P.O. Box 2092, Onncia, r"alifomia 94563 AS NOTED (WALL P.O. BOX 40B %..A ALAMO CALIFORNIA 94062 925 2844000 FAX 925 885-3176 DRAWN BY, DVVG NUMBER EPS CHECKED BY. EPS INTERMITTENT RETAINING WALL PLAN,SECTION, NOTES REVISION NO- 10/6/04 A, QATc: i i 1 t , E r I a t t 4 t Y t F r �4 Y ti i t t t , t t Jnn r `''—tee+ � .... ��►�' �,�4 �° C , 1© 4A , / - co AT � OF zo v CRE _ r up t G` J �f J�Qw 1kEE 42� VAS 7' C)C) 214c, ARES`" � . C TORE SETBACK LINE - �'- � P CO/Y N IMPROVED CHANNEL s t DARWIN MYERs AssOCIATES 1 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH K ENGINEERING GEOLOGY Novembo,r 8, 2004 t Ruben Hernandez. Project PlanneT Contra Costa Coun-cy C011=unit),Development Department Pm , S 6S 1 PIne Street. Ind Floo-r, No-rth Wincr l Martinet, CA 94553 Subject: Geologic Review Services Contract MS 03 0015 I 0.9 Acres/Barker r APN 184-150-029 /2-"*)0l Warren Road t Saranap Area. Contra Costa County TDMA Proiect# 3 091.04 i , Dear Ruben: , ' I At your request we have re�c�ewed the materials provided by the applicant for the captior�ed project. The pissues to be resolved relate to the exception to the standards of the geek structure setback requested by the applicant. In this case,the applicants is proposing a caisson wall at the toP-of=slope to con-trollavoid retreat of the slope. The decision to grant an e-Kception to the setback standard rests with others, but we are charged with providing reviev,coir=ents on the engineering geologic aspects of the caisson wall. Thus; our comments do not guaran-tee that a building permit for the proposed wall will be issued without further documentation(technical p date, calculations or engineering anal sis), or that the reduced setback will be granted. Backuround Lns On SeptembeT 16. 2004 the Conununit�T Development Department and Public"Works Dt;Tartmcut inet with the applicant to review issues posed by the creelh,structure sctback requireMent...s for th4 roi ect. Basically,, it was deme=ned that assuming a properly designed and constructed__ buried p _ caisson wall at the top-of-slope,the structure setbaclti could be established at 20 feet beh--hid the wall. At the meeting it was deterniined that I would meet with S oen Thung of the Buildi v Inspection Department to cliscuss the concept of a wall and the County aectations. I -then prepared a letter outl=x a th.e telt=cal needs for the building,pe=t to constru ct the wa-.l. Basecalf. I was to explain the expectations of the Counter for a formal review the builairag permit application. Concurrcntl57, Eric.WhEm prepared a letter to the applicant e,.plaining c pectaions for drainage;slope protection aspects of th ¢project. Our letter to the applicant was dated Septemoer 22. 2 D04. The, apple:ant provided a response to our letter which was received D_ the Public Vvorks Department on October 11. 2004.' Liabio Engineer.,inc-..2004. Design Calcuiat2ons_ior intermiltent Reiainin g J+%all at Deveioprnint Sits, T,Farren Road at boulevard T3-0Y(dated Octotner t: j1 l r� C Paye 2 k r c o v Accompanying the subro_mal w,,rE.a 1978 geologic ntconmaissanep.,report' alonie with plan providing additional details on the proposed wan. A.pplicant's Submittals 1. Diable Engineers. Inc. (DEIN f } The DEI report presents design calculation for the proposed wall. The "Introduction"to -the. calculations indicate that proposed wall is comprised of 18-inch diameter on 6 feet center Lt.. 4 few b inches between piers), Furthermore,the report states that the analysis assurnes sound sandstone bearock at 10 feet. Other comments in the introduction may be summarized as foll ows • Geoteclulical inspection is called out on the drawing. Should conditions vary from thos. assumed, adjustments will be made nn the field. as called out by the geotechnical � engineer, and as-built drawings will follow. f • The wall passive anal�Tsis is based on Sowers method,in which treats cemented soils sandstone) as partiall)7 saturated clays. Values used approximate those of :Erni clays. which is conservative. i • Drilling and inspection reauirements are on the drawing. Water intrusion is not andipated at this location. i • All Contra Costa clans are highly corrosive to unprotected steel. However basic code requireme,nts Tor concrete protection oz steel has always been adequate m my e7gDerrernce of 30-plus years. We do not foresee the need for further chencal testing. Notthat the structural reasons we have decided to call out wide flange beams rather than mbar. Beams are less vulnerable than rebar to damage by corrosion. Protzman Re-Dort Tlu_report was performed for the property that is adjacent to the site of MS 03 00 15. In an e1,Dosure within the geologist's study area.,the report charaomnzlels the bedrock as follo-v-vs: weather-ed Brtones Siltstone. . . (With interbedded)sancIly siltstone and nudsronc, Tel-, I particular menzder of the Briones✓tornzatioi7 zLrI)MO 171 to Weather readil.l)ana ausc pronounced slumping in other areas of Contra Costa Count�). Pratzman,Don. 197LE. Letter-reDort.&-,oioaic hazard Evaivatior_.2499 Warreri Road.wainu# (report bated Getober 26,197E.:addressed to Greg.iones . 'Diablo Engineen.ina..2004. Plan titled Pian,SCC6071,IVOIC..11ILM-MIUCT21 hetaMilio Wall(Ong Shcet. Seaie o.-Plan i in.=20 ft.)laated October CS!2004). DARWIN [MYERS)ASSOCIA7" l 4 ' f f, I F, l F I u v t IfI I I 'With regards to hazards.Protan indicates the followinc: The site is subject to possiLble landslide slum incr, caused 177ainly by stream erosion corn Las Tranwas Creek and from the super-saturation (liquefaction) of the coliuviu in (soil and weathered rock rubble)from ra'n'll. f . Site Plan s Tlie Site Plan shows the appro=ate location of the proposed wall. It is really a sketch plan for t,-wall showing intent rather than an engineered drawing. There is no topograph�l indicated ; along the wall_nor is there an indication of how the precise location spa=' g of pier holes will be f dtT.rin ned in the Held. It also indicates an 18-inch diameter storm cL,-am' passing throu.gla- the # caisson wall and outfaliing to the creek. DMA Evaluation t I 1. Static.An ahrsit are not structural engineers.but the report assumes high quality?rock below a depth of 10 feet and file anah7sis of DEI (based on a pier spacing of 6 feet)yields a safety factor against.over- turning of approl1iznately 1.`') (194/154). Without changing the methodology or underhring I assummons in the DEI analvsis. the safety factor could be increased to 1.5 or greater by decreasing the spacing between piers. For example. a -foot spacing (from the center to pier center the safer,factoT would be increased to 1.5: and reducing the center to center spacing to 4.5 feet (three diameters j,the safov factor is I.R. i Because of uncertainties inherent in an analysis of this t�rpe, a safety factor on the order of 1.6E I would appear to b,.-.reasonable for this prof ect. I P rot=an R em ort The 197E report mal=es no direct reference to viewing•exposed conditions behind the cxIstin{f ►- v wall at the-toe of the slope. The Protzman repor+�dons indicate that the:roc11_ when weathered. is w,,ak and notMntially subject to slop-fwdur�. It is for that reason the Count determined that the upper 10 feet of material on the do-wnsioue side of ttic wall should be.disregarded for support in the overturning anah7sis for the caisson wall, and why the Public.Vi%orks Department recornmends protection of the area immediately behind the ef�stunv,toe-of-slope wall with additional rite-rap Site Pian Prior to submittal of the Building Permit application we recommend that the applicant o reauired to submit an enauleered drawing feat sizows topography-,piel hole iocaions �t�referabi�� �ti�itn center-tc-center spacing of 1.3 feet j and shov'ring the s=tT vtci location of the 2(4c)of cTr.,: bani_structure stfoacl_(met-.s and bounds descn'Mionj. Tn,- GTeneral(votes shall svecii T file DET will log tine cuttings to verif l that field conditions are consistent with the assumed conditions us OKI i DARWIN rVIYER's ASSocIATES i CC} f t F l' P age 4 I I their analysis. incluang a) depth of weathering,b) lithology of rock below 10 feet, and c) goundwater conditions. .. f t VC%e trust this letter provides the evaluation and comments that_you requested. Please call if you have any questions. I r Sincerely. _ -�-.•......_ - � DAR'V I l MYERS ASS 0 CIATES •..1 it '' ''..�.' ,'1 i Darvvm Mvc-.rs. CEG 446 r f Princi a1 r:._. P I cc.- S oen Thung. Buildin-o Inspection Department J Gare Facia, Building Inspection Department 1 Eric'Bali, Public Works Department i Brian Balbas, Public Works Department Ed Searby. Diablo Engineers,Inc. Ken Barker 3 091-04hr.wpd i I f I 4 i I I I I i I I I I i i J DARWIN MYERS h,SSO--IAT-t_'. 1 LIONSGATE (DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Maiiing Address: P Q.Box 408,Alamo, California 94507 Telephone (925) 831-8540 Fax (925) 831-8502 'HAND DELIVERED Mr. Dennis Barry, February 3, 2005. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Community Development Department, C10 4"floor,(North Wing, -� 650 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 93 5 5 3-0095 �. RE: MS 03- 0015-- Notice of Appeal For 2501 'Warren Road,Walnut Creek XA Dear Mr. Barry, On January 25, 2005 the County Plg Commission approved MS 03-0015 for a three(3) lot minor sub division. However, a draft copy of the approval conditions was only provided to Lionsgate on February 1, 2005. Therefore, the ten(10)day time limit for appeal was reduced by the Community Development Department to just three (3) calendar days. Lionsgate concurs with the County's draft conditions of approval for MS 03- 0015, except for the following items: Item No.1-- County Storm Drain System.--Pursuant to County Ordinance Code Section 914-14.020 "Private Drainage Systems," Lionsgate shall only be responsible for the disposal of storm water run off generated on the property from " ...slope intercept ditches, yard drains and other similar drainage systems..." all as undated by the said County Ordinance Code. Lionsgate does not accept any condition that mares Lionsgate responsible for handling, chan�g, or paying for, the County's existing storm drain system that presently transports redirected, and concentrated, off site storm water flows across the site from up to a quarter of a mile away. The County's existing storm drain system across the subject property constitutes the seizure ofLionsgate's private property for public use, without just compensation. This is violation of the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of California, and therefore, constitutes inverse condemnation. Accordingly, Lionsgate will not accept any condition that interferes with its right to recover all costs and damages flowing from this matter. Page No. 2 Letter to Mr. Barry--Notice of Appeal--February 3, 2005. Item No. 2—County Ordinance For Creek Set Backs.— The County failed to comply with County Ordinance Section 914-14.006 for improved: " (1)Earth-lined and Rock- lined Channels" and " (2) Concrete-lined Channels." for determining the easement width from the top of the creek bank. The County erroneously asserted that the greatly improved adjacent channel section of Las Trampas Creek, was unimproved, and therefore, Ordinance Code Section 914-14-010 for "unimproved channels" applied. In fact, the adjacent creek channel section had been greatly improved via County approved plans and construction permits, and the County knew it, but concealed this information In compromise, and without prejudice, inorder to mitigate the ongoing delays and damages, Lionsgate proposed installing even further creek channel improvements, via a soldier pile retaining wall at the top of the creek slope. The added creek slope protection is not required by the County Ordinance Code, nor by any creek bank soil/stability consideration. The Country has now accepted Lionsgate's proposal and has approved the requested three (3) lot minor sub division application. Therefore, Lionsgate does not accept any condition that changes the County Ordinance Code Section 914-14.006 for computation of the easement width, nor any condition that changes Ordinance Code Section 1010-6.014 that defines an " Improved Channel ".Additionally, Lionsgate does not accept any condition that restricts its right to recover its damages from this matter. Item No.3 --County Billing For Staff Time For MS 03-0015.-- Pursuant to the County Ordinance Code, Lionsgate is responsible for payment of County staff time, that was reasonably expended on MS 03-0015,Lionsgate has no quarrel with requirement, and is prepared to pay for all valid County costs. Lionsgate, however, is not responsible for the County's staff costs incurred by the County's conduct as described in Items I and 2 (above). Accordingly, Lionsgate does not accept any condition that requires it to pay invalid County staff time costs. Item No. 4 County Requirement For Indemnification by Lionsgate. -- Section .3 of the draft conditions of approval requires Lionsgate to indemnify the County for certain claims against the County pertaining to the approval of MS 03-0015. Page No. 3 Letter to Mr. Barry--Notice of appeal --February 3, 2005 Lionsgate, will indemnify the County for valid claims against it. However, Lionsgate does not accept any indemnification condition that interferes with Lionsgate's right to recover it damages from the County for all items contained in this appeal. Item No. 5 Roadway Improvements (Frontage) at Boulevard Way.-- Item No.2 5 of the draft conditions of approval requires a 4.5 foot wide side walk, curb, storm water drainage system, under ground lighting and other improvements be installed as part of the minor sub division development. Lionsgate objects to this requirement because it is unreasonable, unsafe, and a violation of the County's Master Plan for Boulevard Way. Also, these improvements were not required by the County for the minor sub division that is located just 150 feet North of this site, and on the same East side of Boulevard Way. Specifically: In 2002 the County approved MS 02-0007 which is a two (2) lot minor sub division. It is located just 150 feet North of the site and on the same East side of Boulevard Way. In approving that minor sub division the County granted a" Deferred Improvement Agreement " for all frontage improvements. Therefore, a similar deferred improvement agreement condition should also apply for MS 03-0015. There are no existing side walks within a mile of the site in the unincorporated Saranap area of Walnut Creek. Therefore, the approval condition that Lionsgate construct a short section of unconnected side walk on the inside of two curves on the East side Boulevard Way, would create a highly unsafe condition for any one that used the side walk. County Master Plan No. PA 3 8 51-00 Sheet 2 of 3, is entitled " Boulevard Way -- Saranap Ave. to Olympic Blvd. " This Master Plan shows the final road alignment for Boulevard Way. The Master Plan shows no side walks will ever be installed on the East side of Boulevard Way. Rather, all side walks are planned to be located on the West side of Boulevard Way in order to connect to the West side sidewalk on the existing Las Trampas Creek Bridge. Lionsgate also objects to the condition that it shall be responsible for handling redirected storm water in flows from Boulevard Way and Warren Roads caused by the County's changes in the natural drainage patterns. The asphalt paving on both Boulevard Way and Warren Road, and lack of operable drainage ditches, wrongfully concentrates and diverts storm water flows from their natural drainage pattern. This has caused increased, and accelerated storm water flows, onto the subject property Page No. 4 Letter to Mr. Barry -- Notice of Appeal--February 3, 2005 Item No.6 Roadway Improvements( Frontage ) Warren Road-- Item No.26 of the draft conditions of approval requires a deferred improvement agreement be execute_ d for a 4.5 foot wide side walk along Warren Road. Although the proposed Warren Road side walk will probably never be installed, it would be also impractical to do so, because it would materially increase the grade of the already steep drive way. As a result, there would be no drive way access to the existing house. Item No. 7 Drainage Improvements - Condition No 30.--Lionsgate repeats Items Numbers 1 and 5 (above) for its objections for the handling ,and disposal, of off'site storm drain waters. Item No 8 Creek Structure Set Back- Condition No. 42 and 43.--Lionsgate repeats Item No 2 (above) for its objections for creek set backs. Also, Lionsage does not agree that it shall relinquish a 20 foot wide section of the site on the basis that agreement on this matter is already recorded in an Easement Agreement between Shaw/Ryan and the previous property owner. Item No. 9 Miscellaneous Approval Conditions-- There are a number of miscellaneous approval conditions regarding the wording of several illegible approval condition clauses. Lionsgate plans to resolve these issues via discussions with County star Subject to the above noted approval conditions being corrected, Lionsgate, accepts the County's conditions of approval for MS 03-0015. Check Number 2562, in the amount of$125.00 is attached for the required Appeal Fee. Please contact the undersigned at your earliest inorder to finalize the approval conditions for MS 03-0015. Sincerely, Kenneth Barker, President, Lionsgate Development Corporation. Feb ,22 05 04: 19p Lionsgate Corp 925 831 8502 LIONSGATL DEVELOPMENT Date: ZZ! C1 CORP. FAX #of vages mi/cover sheet: LICENSES A & B 803344 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 408 Alamo, CA 94507 From' ' Phone: 925 831-8500 FAX 925 831-8502 Wd' TO: Zz ATTENTION: "'k" 85, O .L ett, Lw Of- T 0 Tr C C3 7" 1v :moo. IS - r 0 Lit 7 e4 er, VaU i0q. �ssr��rn,� .�kkM !� � /t' �+t�� ��r=��a',,� ,�.���M.R,Mi;+� J7 � �r•w!!. 40 c Feb .22 05 04: 19p Lionsgate Corp 925 831 8502 p- 2 r. LIONSGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION HAW DELIVEREPailing Address: R 0.BOX 408, Alamo, California 94507 Telephone (925) 831-8500 Fax (925) 831-8502 Ms Aruna Bhat, February 22, 2005 �' Principal Planner, Community Development Department!, 651 Pine Street, 4h Floor,North Wing. Martinez, CA94553 RE MS 03 --0015 Complaint of Illegal Conduct, Negligence and Gross Mis Management by the Public Works And Community Development Departments. Rear Ms. Bhat, Further to your letter of February 17, 2005 we plan to make the following 9 ardi presentation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the foUowing subjects: ects &-� 1) MS 03-001 5 Appeal of Conditions of Approval. As support for this item, we refer you to the Lionsgate Appeal to the County Planrw'ig Commission dated August .,7.."d 2004. Selected exhibits will be referred to at the hearing The County staff and Supervisor Uilkema already have a complete copy of this appeal. 2) Illegal Concealment of County Public Records by the Public Works Department. Exhibits from the above noted appeal will be selected for presentation to the Board of Supervisors. 3) County contract with Darwin Myers and Associates. Lionsgate contends that this contract.is not in the public interest and lacks proper controls and safe guards for the expenditure of public funds because it is grossly admh&ered by the Community Development Department. 4) County contract with Larry Gosset. Lionsgate makes the same contentions as (3) being t"i grossly administered by the Public Works Department. 5) Black Mail conduct by the County [ Public Works and Community Development] for the approval of MS03-0015. Lionsgate's appeal of February 3, 2005 and letter to Mr. Shul dated February 16, 2005 will be used for this item. The County already has copies of these documents. 6) Over view of conduct and performance of the Public Works and Community Development Departments Lionsgate contends that they are grossly mis-managed and major changes are needed in personnel, policy and performance, including greatly improved over sight of these departments by the Board of Supervisors Feb 22 05 04: 20p L i onsgate Corp 925 831 850 3 We again request that 20 minutes he allowed for this presentation Sincerely. Kenneth Barker, President. Lionsgate Development Corporation Copy.- All Supervisors Community Dennis M.Barry,AI CP Development r� Community Development nt Director Department 0 a ounty County Administration Building 651 Pine Street •�%,�- E-T L .o 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez California a 94553-0095 � n. /1 Phone: February 17, 2005 °s 925-335-1210 Kenneth Barker Lionsgate Development Corporation PO Box 408 Alamo CA 94507 Dear Mr. Barker: This is in response to your faxed communication received by our office yesterday regarding the schedule of your appeal before the Board of Supervisors. The appeal of MS030015 has been scheduled for Tuesday, March 1 , 2005 at 1:30 pm. You should receive notification from the Office of the Clerk of the Board shortly. Your correspondence asked that twenty minutes be scheduled for your item. The Board of Supervisors has customarily allowed five-minutes of testimony from the applicant or the appellant. It is my suggestion that you plan your presentation accordingly. If you wish to have any correspondence included in the report which is distributed in advance of the meeting, please ensure this information is provided to our office by noon on Tuesday, February 22nd Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 335-1210. Sincerely, Aruna Bhat Principal Planner AMB/m p cc: Ruben Hernandez Office Hours Monday - Friday:8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM r Denni s M. Barry,AICP 0 I a Comm unity Development Director Community } Development Departmentlemp_ wir. County �-- �L County Administration Building Q --- �-�-• Pine Street Floor North Win '- . 4th 9 � •_ ' � Martinez. Calitornia 94553-0095DEC 2 9 2003 Phone- -S.L. hone: .L. VIII E i Pc LER k ! Cn".ITR. 0 Ui�TY D E P UTY Cg-'S) �j35_1204 DATE: Decernber29. 2001"'r NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIENV AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Counry File #MS030015 Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the "Guidelines for implementation of the California Eng=irolunental Quaht}l Act of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the CommuriM, Development Department of Contra Costa County leas Pp re ared an Initial Stud), on the following project: Lions ate Dvelo-oment Comoratioi� (Applicant and Countv File. #MS03 0015: The applicant requests approval of a minor subdivision to divide .91 of an acre into thrt✓e lots. Tl7e roject involves the- removal of a number of mature trees. The subject site is addressed 2501 PTO) Warren Road is located on the. corner of Warren Road and Boulevard 'ay, In the T alnut C reel; Area. (A.ssessor*s Parcel Number: 184-150-029; Zoning R-10-- General Plan Desi enation Slnale-Fami1v Residential Medium Densit}'; Zoning Atlas Page; P-13: Census Tract 410.j The Initial Study concluded that the proposed development would not rPsult in s:Ima111Cant enviroruzierltal impacts, based on the mitigation measures agreed to by the applicant. A copy of the Mitigated N o gati ve Declaration and all do cure eats referenced in t1-1 e M i ti gated NPcrative Declaration may bt rPvievved in the offices of the Community Development Department and Application and P sc-=it Center at the M cBri e» Administration Buil ding. North Wing. Second Floor, 651 Pine Street, ]Martinez, during normal business hours. Public Comment Period - The period for accepting_ comments on the adequacy of tn. em nvironental documents extends to 5:00 P.M., Monday, Febma.r-y 2, 2004. .fin coml-nents should be in uiriting and submitted to the followinE addrass: Name: Candida "Wensley Co=unity Dveiopment Department Contra Costa Count) 65] Pine Street. North Wing. 4th F]o0r Niartinez. CA 9. 5 Of11CG Hours l'JionGay - FriGa�v: B:OG -5.00 U.m. (lfiir-c, ic r-inc:PH iha: 7 c1 4rr' Y. C-dh ni =::irrh mnnti, It is anticipated that the proposed Mitic.rattd Nxt.-c.rativt Declaration will be considered fol- adoption at a meeting of the Zonin.� Administrator on Mondav, Feb ruan, 9, 2004. The hearing is anticipated to be held at the McBn*en Administration Building, Room 107. Pint and 'Pscobar Streets., Martinlcz. It is expected that the Zonincr Adn-iinistr=7 will also conduct a hearl c on the application at that same meeting. S 1 n c r oto) 1, L Candida Vfensle�� PTDI eCtPlanneT cc: County Clerk's Office (3 copies 4-A r o in On C) OJ > t-Q V-4 0.) ............................ ca 00 co C) 6. tpo I.- Cd > cr, wpm � C13 0 czW 0 L) C13 woo U o �`. a V) Cd WOW L*-4 fn C) cz 0.) vs En cts El) 0 cz Cd U cn -t4 00 u �R 6- tn tn U U) M = CIO L) cls tn C13 C) En W -C) Ef) co bD Cd cl. 4-A On., > En cdct f-W -- E: C', cd C�.. En C:J. Ln tCl.4 0 En :Z C�3 C) CL En 4--AN U CCS CO U CO L) I-- r In Cd C) o cn as tt VQ o o o ............... o O � � p p O � o � 0) tf) 0 tn tP 0 ti) tp IL) 0) iA.-j C) !;�, V) os, IL 0 63 Cd QA) 0 416W O o t o 1 O I—D Dn � cU i � � � 'i y, � � Z GO ul C)6- 06) V.A 06) tD6- P Lf) cd C) (Q L) Cd 10 tn 00 lo 06) vil cl 0 C) c.©; U O .G L O C M C/7 ,G r 0 b r• yr � � � .fir co co O 4-0 > v, ct a, � Z cr-/ G 01) c cn U LU CIL O- C c r Cd c v L J u J NOTIFICATION LIST APN 184-140-064-9 APN 184-150-023-2 APN 184-150-024 MARC K& CAROLENE WARNER HEFTE WILLIAM K HARLAN REZA BAMDAD 680 CENTER ST 21 BOULEVARD CT 11 BOULEVARD CT WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 APN 184-150-029-9 APN 184-150-034-9 APN 184-150-035-6 LIONSGATE DEVELOPMENT CORP MARYANNE BYARS MARYANNE BYARS P O BOX 408 2493 WARREN RD 2481 WARREN RD ALAMO CA 94507 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 APN 184-150-048-9 APN 184-150-049-7 APN 184-150-056-2 BARTON & KATHLEEN TRE CLINTON S SHAW NICHOLAS R STODDARD SIMMONS 1430 BOULEVARD WY 1432 BOULEVARD WY 10 BOULEVARD CT WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 APN 184-150-057 APN 184-150-059-6 APN 184-150-060-4 MARK L & COLLEEN R MIHELITCH RONALD E & JANET E LOONEY BERT A YORK 20 BOULEVARD CT 2499 WARREN RD 2497 WARREN RD WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 APN 184-150-063-8 APN 184-150-064-6 APN 184-150-065-3 CENTER STREET DEV CO CENTER STREET DEV CO CENTER STREET DEV CO P O BOX 2300 P O BOX 2300 P O BOX 2300 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 APN 184-450-007-2 APN 184-450-008 APN 184-450-009-8 WILLIAM DONALD & SHARON CATHRYN M RICKARD LYONS WILLIAM H III DINEHART 1630 N MAIN ST#450 131 PARK AVE 2492 WARREN RD WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 APN 184-450-010-6 APN 184-450-011-4 APN 184-450-012-2 YUEGUANG CHE STEVEN J LEWENZ LANCE R MARCHETTI 2480 WARREN RD 2470 WARREN RD 1364 BOULEVARD WY WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 APN 184-450-017-1 APN 184-490-003-3 APN 185-290-002-4 GRACE M TRE MCGEEHON STEVEN S & KARIN TRE KELLEY N JEAN TRE AYERS 2460 WARREN RD 18 CENTER CT 30 LA CASITA LN WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 APN 185-290-004 APN 185-290-005-7 APN 185-290-006-5 NATHAN E & STEPHANIE GRONLUND CLAIL & PAULINE TRE ANGELL ROBERT A & BONITA J TRE MORA 1431 BOULEVARD WY 1411 BOULEVARD WY 11 JEROME CT WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 APN 185-290-007-3 APN 185-290-009-9 APN 185-290-010-7 ROBERT A & BONITA J TRE MORAN BLANCHE W TRE FAULKNER CLINTON H & LETTIE M WING 11 JEROME CT 2695 KINNEY DR 1132 JUANITA DR WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 APN 185-290-011-5 APN 185-290-012-3 APN 185-290-013-1 MAXINE C TRE SCHMIDT JOHN CHRISTOPHER SHUGRUE KERRY WOLF 1122 JUANITA DR 1112 JUANITA DR 1102 JUANITA DR WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 APN 185-290-014-9 APN 185-290-015-6 APN 185-290-016-4 VINCENT L & ROSE TRE WILLIAM D & KRISTINA J GALL ROBERT C &JUDITH M NUZUM QUADRATO 832 S WILLOW AVE 1072 JUANITA DR 1062 JUANITA DR WAUKEGAN IL 60085 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 APN 185-290-024-8 APN 185-290-027-1 APN 185-290-029-7 RUTH H TRE COWLES STACEY A BRADBURY ROBERT & SUE TRE TABOR 133 SYLVAN RD 1443 BOULEVARD WY 1447 BOULEVARD WY WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 APN 185-290-031-3 APN 185-351-015-2 APN 185-360-050-8 DANIEL M & CHRISTINA VENTRELLE JERRY W OHLMAN JOHN P &AMY J MONTANO 2691 KINNEY DR 2694 KINNEY DR 2690 KINNEY DR WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 CHRISTINA CARNEY DANIEL KELLEHER LISA RYAN 2441 WARREN RD 1699 N MAIN STREET #220 1430 BOULEVARDWAY WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 BONITA MORAN MIKE DEEM Law Office of David Ginn PO BOX 4691 2433 WARREN ROAD 1981 N. Broadway, Suite 275 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Historical Resources Information SystemCentral CC Sanitary East Bay Municipal Utility District Northwest Information Center Water Service Planning 1303 Maurice Avenue 5019 Imhoff Place th 375 - 11 Street, MS 701 Rohnert Park,CA 94928-3608 Martinez, CA 94553 Oakland, CA 94607-4240 City of Walnut Creek Saranap Homeowners Association California Dept. of Fish & Game P.O. Box 8039 P.O. Box 2506 P.O. Box 47 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94595-2539 Yountville, CA 94599 U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2800 Cottage Way San Francisco District P/W FLOOD CONTROL Room W-2605 333 Market Street, 8th.Floor ***Interoffice*** Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 Sacramento, CA 94105-2197 P/W TRAFFIC CCC FIRE P/W ENGINEERING ***Interoffice*** ***Interoffice*** ***Interoffice*** BUILDING INSPECTION ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ***Interoffice*** ***Interoffice*** t-ice.: . - i{.._.�,pylt...,._,.<_ ,.. .-.:. -.,,:..-:cr.>.a--,*tom.:._,..e-, ...r.+ -:a., .e-em,:k...e-..rte..- _- __ _ .. Ga..-s4;-w.,. ea.._.:.T='�aiAY�+ -e ,.m�„ 4'3'i.'t�._+:K...._. ..;.; re._..+.,rtny.y�r ._ --., ...� .- .. au.. �.-s �d� :erg.,-, LIST OF FIGURES • Figure 1: Creek Structure Setback (Without Exception) as Determined by Staff • Figure 2: Creek Structure Setback as Approved by County Planning Commission January 25, 2005 • Figure 3: Existing Storm Drain System a d 4 O d Cc- tin ow U-1 U.) ads v 4 w CC Z-� 4 a- • Sys �•+ �--,� '''� °°. rA 0 .9 !r MOP 1y r d3 Al ---' let r1,� r' �►� .� 0 Cn.d 4 �� 1 'eL `i11 -J 111 F--�w •"`� � n JA cc ' w r -It wp »\ r IP co At ao �``'kt � �•1 � 1 Mrd. � �� • 1,. �''iz '' ,,,d, � •� 'o\\ �� (�� t•� • p Jr rt !J cc 0 1, lit C4 all 0 u+ ."!yam'. '•�,p. �p � o ���y i C\j Atl tog.1 tin 40"f-- --'W� �1j' t. ,." I -e `�..,� t X 'ZZZ(3)1.110•9, rte-' o �i �a =4 '',,` I �,��, `' c14+)Nl Z�4.21 �1s`O-J zz W to.At j ((Co))0 8 NOWa0 00 oma-' ?" ` ` { �' -•"'`, t 1 u' CA -g ,` \01691 N • t.J • w � c.3�_ �rec ' �cck` 4�Lt3 Y' ►� ,,,9 tl'�Z _ 0 � � d i 'Q c r-r W .eC o C d Ln 1t c�� C 'z w •d,s v`_ ws-0 CC iq ci CL It 4 qm It cc Ln r i t �'•'!'•`•;;.. t f'►i t 1� Imo.,...•.,'"'I"r k !� ....:,;,;,.yp' _./ v3'' 3� CD ^ --rd �,�••t = w4 ca 40 f OOwl ik , ,�► , t I� r f r 1 �t Mme." C � \� -.•-+""+-+^ � ► t � N Z3_1 ust � k _ _r•--'' �, Y �"`,,,� ~•tet r •r, 1 44 � R: ,lwi Ln ri y`,CD �► / � `•, Cly� !` "' a ��, �O+`C1 1n N`- ,'' ,t 10 tit \ � �`r _,,,....----•""-----� `',.+dip � ..-� -' k �,, LIZ sr lot POO r iz at UA el 41*4 too Min rN a 0 V�` uj uj O.Li \ b b y O-O fi _ -- �-- ' � � �• �.� ,,,•+� `�,"•-�»� W -TOS NI lei r. 1L Juar' ,.t"'�"' ..°�,..%•''`"�� ,/i '�.r`:°.V. -•. t,.r {�'ZLZ t31 1f10.� p v .-, ,.� .r•,t .tel(1N)�Njit Z 4.S 3 ^ x7444 'a(N)Nt.8 G7 -Lf7�Via' .ZS•9LN t LLL s `7 ;�' X08 NOtog i r wo 711 tp cn 1 Dpi t~•y.:_ " '-_... . t Q Ill b$1 �•- '*6 ME:! t d\,.,Jr tit i U111, ,,, moo.. x.-14 , k w3-•-. • P o - 1 C7 ado '-?a N z s� C: ^.rte Ca,'C W W oma..sLU z ► { `•u`L v_ r =ujCC I i VI • Ln r ti KIM=1Vd�3 j 3m%,..,Dt 13 +,x'09 M.00,6t.08S r-f_ _..•;.;jaw r'1'7sL U "' q AV lie1 _,...'•— t r i CL ry 1.9 ZZI 0r) CL s• f/ o Vit/ .... IY¢ LLJ Z CL•� :Z 1 ; `� >sa? i t ti It uj cc rlK v Q CC co 16" uj pc i n 1..i_ C=) a u _ r ► , LO Ck- LL r,t Cf t cc 1r' CL 13 w uwj as ,j'�� � '_ '. i I M.,..�•� � M 11 i 1.0 v �QI°°v Zcm 2 • � n r T �gH, �} �g W 1 � C1Z � t I cc tr w , Lu LL uj tn� u Cl) r1 "" 111 t 10 TOE r Q tu.^--vQ-^ �� y t/e'l►' �"� 1 ct ; ! �' a' �'.• �. � -'_�_- toy'�'^ (..� 3. CA 99, r IWI Ul Lzi to tz QIV I w"n .�', �¢i I. � off° -• _. N LIST OF PHOTOS • Photo 1: Color Orthophotography of Site. • Photo 2: Las Trampas Creek During High Flow Event. • Photo 3: Same Location of Las Trampas Creek During Low Flow. Solider Pile Retaining is Visible in Background. • Photo 4: Solider Pile Retaining Wall at Toe of Las Trampas Creek. • Photo 5: Additional Photo of Solider Pier Retaining Wall at Toe of Las Trampas Creek. N ...rr s A APN 184ml 50mO29 5 i`ft mw Created Of the Ox"Costs COX"Communky Deve"ent WJW cre"d 2116/2005 Depart nW with daft from the Contra Costa County GIS Prod W.This map contains by Contra Costa County Community Dews monk CIS Group OOPYI%*Wad irniomtatieon and may not be aMovd. It may be reproduced in its can wit state 051 Pine Stf*K 4th Flow--North ti+Yin%Martinez,CA 53-OM d On source is tfad.Lftqn of fts map awe to rad and&coapt the Courcy of Contra Coact 37:59:46.455N 122.06:35.384W disclaimer of fitbiIty for geographic infomatfm. 1 WAI '"'.� . k 40 AAI w r" �.R t r � re 'r o 'r 1-"4Jv0- t 'A4 t K y f h w" ♦,JS'y'3 1 "s Ilk y h{{ l, i .ti a 8 �x;; 4i -$8 Go 1 ' 44 w -< f r r cc 1:�(j C!Ci i V♦` �' I If Q V? U. — ►IT,> CJ FSI fI 0 ' 6 CO) v aa! en o z1""'. I 1 o0.6 .. �� _ F-- W 12 � ` �✓`� A is ,. J� 1-- WY z ui 001, t Z Cie ok Gio 4 t tCo 14ca �� >✓,� � ��; 1 moi'�`� t ` i.-..+� '"�" ..". •""`jt��✓ ti `'1 �chl ul UU RV LLI 44 i s ui /� ` Y 1 uit CLEd Q LL ! I l ►� { ccl IL NJ 1 r a- 1 Q•• X1+1 � • .j "._ "� � �i�y � t 1 I IL co N i • •jam i lu 16 wim.91 4V M.Zjgv1 Ul tq'fIR �•� ...�y�Fi��� � � � t g tQ loom rR CIV O'*d N3btlV m b uj ' ..r' •' it1 IIS �-iz f z , _ 17 AT tit k ..CFL .. it •' ,t .+ .:!