22 ORINDA WAY, ORINDA, CA 94563
LATE CORRESPONDENCE
COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 21, 2025
Name Page
Chris Kniel 2-3
Nick Waranoff 4-6
Chris Kniel 7-4
Nick Waranoff
-6
1 From: Chris Kniel
To: Sheri Smith
Cc: Latika Malkani; Darlene Gee; Linda Smith
Subject: City Council Agenda Oct 21, 2025 - Please Remove F.6. Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. from Consent Calendar to Public Hearing
Date: Sunday, October 19, 2025 1:24:18 AM
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
Oct 19, 2025
Southwood Valley
Tentative subdivision map for the 43 acre Southwood Valley parcel APN 268120017-2
Environmental Constraints Study.
Remove F.6. Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. from Consent Calendar to Public Hearing,
Hello Sheri,
I would like to speak on the subject item, which therefore must be pulled from the consent calendar.
Section 3.3.2 of the Council Policies and Procedures Manual provides:
Consent Calendar: items the City Manager determines are likely not to require Council discussion. At the meeting, any Council member may pull an item from the consent calendar for discussion. Additionally, if any member of the public wishes to speak on an item, it will be pulled from the consent calendar. The Council may take up an item that is pulled from the consent calendar at any time later on the agenda. The public will be permitted to comment on all items pulled from the consent calendar.
Thank you.
Chris Kniel
88 Bates Boulevard
Orinda, CA 94563
2 925-528-9037
[email protected].
Ref:
F.6. Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for Professional Planning and Environmental Review Services for the Proposed Southwood Valley Subdivision
Recommendation:
Approve the Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $550,000 and authorize the City Manager to approve up to an additional 10% contingency based on evaluation of additional services. 3 From: Nick Waranoff
To: Latika Malkani; Brandyn Iverson; Darlene Gee; Janet Riley; Cara Hoxie Cc: Sheri Smith; Linda Smith; Lashun Cross
Subject: FW: Agenda Oct. 21, 2025: SUPPLEMENTAL Comment on Item F6 (Consent Calendar) Agreement with KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc. for Professional Services re Southwood Valley Date: Sunday, October 19, 2025 3:10:22 PM
Attachments: Southwood Valley 2009 statement of information.pdf SW EAJ LLC 2023 filing.pdf
Assignment of DOT X8485 lists beneficiaries.pdf
Construction Deed of Trust $500,000 benef Southwood Doc X8486.pdf Deed of Trust $7 million to SW EAJ LLC.pdf
Deed of Trust $800,000 Doc X8485.pdf
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
What has the City done to determine that the applicant has the financial wherewithal to reimburse the City?
Don’t count on looking to the subject property as an ultimate source of solvency, because the property is subject to multiple deeds of trust (mortgages) totaling over $8 million. See attached. One is to secure repayment of an alleged $7 million promissory note in favor of a related entity, SW EAJ LLC.
The notion that the applicant was allegedly lent $7 million by a related entity a couple of years ago. This was recorded less than a week after the $500,000 deed of trust and the $800,000 deed of trust were recorded. See attached documents.
Sec of State info re Southwood Valley Estates LLC in 2009 showing Emily Chen as manager attached
Sec of State info re SW EAJ LLC in 2023 showing Emily Chen as manager attached
I cannot make sense out of the documents, but to me they raise a red flag, and the City should be concerned.
Nick Waranoff
From: Nick Waranoff [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2025 8:40 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Darlene Gee' <[email protected]>; Janet Riley <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Linda Smith' <[email protected]>; 4 Lashun Cross <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Oct. 21, 2025: Comment on Item F6 (Consent Calendar) Agreement with KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc. for Professional Services re Southwood Valley I would like to speak on the subject item, which therefore must be pulled from the consent calendar. Section 3.3.2 of the Council Policies and Procedures Manual provides:
Consent Calendar: items the City Manager determines are likely not to require Council discussion. At the meeting, any Council member may pull an item from the consent calendar for discussion. Additionally, if any member of the public wishes to speak on an item, it will be pulled from the consent calendar. The Council may take up an item that is pulled from the consent calendar at any time later on the agenda. The public will be permitted to comment on all items pulled from the consent calendar.
My comment is this: According to the Staff Report, “FISCAL IMPACT: All costs associated with the processing and environmental review of the major subdivision application, including contingency funds, are the sole responsibility of the project applicant, covering both City staff time and third-party consultant expenses.” (Packet Pg. 240.) However, contrary to this statement, the proposed Agreement makes the City responsible for payment. (Packet Pgs. 242-251.) Apparently, there is a separate Reimbursement Agreement, according to the Staff Report. (Packet Pg. 239.) I have requested a copy of the Reimbursement Agreement and may have additional comments after I see it.
One comment may be whether, and if so when, did the Council approve it.
But more fundamentally, why don’t the contract documents conform to the staff report and make the payment to the provider the sole obligation of the applicant, and why doesn’t the City have a security deposit for the sums the applicant will owe the City for City staff time? Why is the City structuring this as an outlay of city funds to be reimbursed, rather than having the applicant be directly and solely responsible for paying the EIR provider as stated in the Staff Report. As structured, the City is basically guaranteeing payment to the provider. Why?
I assume the City needs to be a party as lead agency. But according to Google AI, “A three-party contract is often used for this process, involving the lead agency, the private developer, and the consultant.” The documentation should 5 be revised so that the provider bills, and only looks to payment from, the applicant.
Nick Waranoff
6 From: Chris Kniel
To: Latika Malkani; Darlene Gee; Brandyn Iverson; Cara Hoxie; Janet Riley; Sheri Smith Cc: Lashun Cross; Linda Smith; Douglas Alessio; Anne Marie Kniel; Chris Kniel Subject: City Council meeting October 20, 2025 agreement with Kinley horn regarding Southwood Valley Need careful consideration and understanding prior committing $550,000 Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 9:52:14 PM
Attachments: Southwood Valley neighborhood comments 2025-10-18_16-08-31 copy.pdf CRL - Southwood Valley 2.pdf
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
October 20, 2025
Re: Southwood Valley – Orinda Planning Dept and Neighborhood issues Need very careful consideration and understanding prior committing $550,000 Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
To: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
cc. [email protected]
www.cityoforinda.gov
[email protected]
Douglas Alessio <[email protected]>
Hello City Council members,
Attached are two PDF files regarding Southwood Valley development.
The first is a “Completeness Review Letter” prepared by The Orinda Planning Department which covers numerous issues regarding a development proposal for this 43 acre property. This property has one APN 268–1 20–017 and surrounding properties are all zoned RL – 20 (half acre lots). The substance of these comments is timeless.
The second is a compilation of neighborhood comments regarding a development of the 43 acre Southwood Valley. These neighborhood comments are timeless (29 pages).
Finally, the sensitivity of this property is specifically addressed in the Orinda General Plan. For this 43 acre parcel, the General Plan states: “the thirty three (33) acres designated as open space for the site on figure one does not carry any residential density 7 and shall not be developed with buildings.” More plainly, 33 of the 43 acres must be left as open space and cannot be developed. It is difficult for any rational person to conceive of a development of more than a few homes given this understandable criteria.
This issue is relevant to Tuesday’s Agenda (Oct 22, 2015) Agreement with KimleyHorn. If nothing else, the issues identified in the attached documents warrant careful consideration before signing any agreements with Kimley-Horn or others regarding this 43 acre property. The fair and appropriate move at this time is for the City Council to hold off committing $550,000. The Kimley-Horn bid needs to be revised and resubmitted to address the many comments from the Orinda Planning Department and the timeless neighborhood issues. These issues should be addressed in the defined scope of work.
As a long-term resident living adjacent to the valley, I have a good understanding of the many surrounding issues that must be considered for a future development. What is most perplexing is why Orinda’s City Council would go out for bids for this extremely fragile property at this time? What is the motivation? Certainly it's not from the neighborhood. Perhaps this can be explained at Tuesday's meeting.
Please make this letter and it's attachments a formal part of the record.
Respectfully,
Chris Kniel
Orinda resident and former Orinda Planning Commissioner P.S. (There is another Completeness Review Letter prepared by the Orinda Planning Department, which provides additional rational as why the Orinda Planning Department denied and rejected the previous proposal. I will provide that in a future correspondence.)
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
y COMPLETENESS REVIEW LETTER y
SOUTHWOOD VALLEY (APN 268-120-017) — MJS-2018-001; GAP-2018-001; TRP-2018-023 SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 y PAGE 1 OF 11
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
22 ORINDA WAY, ORINDA, CA 94563
925.253.4210 [TEL]
925.253.7719 [FAX]
WWW.CITYOFORINDA.ORG
&203/(7(1(665(9,(:/(77(5
RE: MJS-2018-001; GAP-2018-001; TRP-2018-023
PUBLISH DATE SEPTEMBER 10, 2018
APPLICATION SUBMITTED AUGUST 10, 2018
COMPLETENESS-REVIEW DEADLINE SEPTEMBER 10, 2018
APN 268-120-017
PROJECT ADDRESS SOUTHWOOD VALLEY
ZONING RL-20
OWNER(S) SOUTHWOOD VALLEY ESTATES, LLC
AGENT P/A DESIGN RESOURCES, LLC – ROSS AVEDIAN
PROJECT PLANNER MAYANK PATEL
Thank you for submitting your major subdivision, general plan amendment, and tree-removal permit applications to the City of Orinda Planning Department on August 10, 2018. The City has reviewed your submittal and determined that it is incomplete. Please refer to the following pages for more detail. 38 y COMPLETENESS REVIEW LETTER y
SOUTHWOOD VALLEY (APN 268-120-017) — MJS-2018-001; GAP-2018-001; TRP-2018-023 SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 y PAGE 2 OF 11
This page intentionally left blank.
39 y COMPLETENESS REVIEW LETTER y
SOUTHWOOD VALLEY (APN 268-120-017) — MJS-2018-001; GAP-2018-001; TRP-2018-023 SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 y PAGE 3 OF 11
3ODQQLQJ&RPPHQWV
Comment 1. On Sheet 1 of the proposed VTM, General Note 24-G reads “Any project signage or other monumentation shall be submitted for review by (emphasis added) the City of Orinda as part of a future design review application.” Please note, the applicant is responsible for submitting any project signage, monumentation, or any other improvements at the subject to the City of Orinda for review and approval.
Comment 2. The legend on Sheet 2 of the proposed VTM, notes “Strom Drain Line (Public),” but the legend should also include and indicate “Strom Drain Line (Private)” for the portion within the proposed subdivision.
Comment 3. On Sheet 3 of the proposed VTM, Note 1 states “Refer to the geotechnical exploration report, prepared by Engeo, Inc. dated February 6, 2018, project no. 13321.000.000.” Please provide said report.
Comment 4. On Sheet 3 of the proposed VTM, Note 2 states “For the biological information shown hereon refer to the biological resources analysis report, prepared by Olberding Environmental, Inc., dated July 2013.” Please provide said report.
Comment 5. On Sheet 4 of the proposed VTM, please include a third exhibit/graphic that delineates (i.e., dashed line/hatch) and notes the proposed land-use designations over the existing land-use designations.
Comment 6. Please revise Sheet 5 of the proposed VTM to exclude any “open-space area” that is part of and/or is subject to a water-channel setback as well as any other setback(s). Please refer to §17.4.6 of the OMC for requirements on water-channel setbacks.
Comment 7. On Sheet 5 of the proposed VTM, please delineate and dimension the various waterchannel setbacks as required by §17.4.6 of the OMC. For example:
x The exhibit should clearly delineate the Type-II Water-Channel Setback for the Southwood Creek, which flows in the project north to project south direction. x The exhibit should clearly delineate the respective water-channel setbacks for the lateral (east-west) channels that flow into the valley.
Comment 8. On Sheet 7 of the proposed VTM, please dimension the setbacks for the respective water-channels shown on this sheet. Per §17.4.6 of the OMC: “All setbacks are measured from the top of the bank or from the furthest extent of banks undercut by creek, whichever results in the greatest setback. Where opposing bank heights differ, the lower bank height applies to both sides of the channel for purposes of measuring the side slope and setback.”
Comment 9. On Sheets 8 and 9 of the proposed VTM, please dimension the setbacks for the respective water-channels shown on this sheet.
Comment 10. On Sheet 9 of the proposed VTM, please show and note the wetland areas.
Comment 11. On Sheet 9 of the proposed VTM, please show/indicate the proposed trees to be removed.
Comment 12. On Sheet 9 of the proposed VTM, please show/indicate and note the geologic hazardous areas and previous landslides.
40 y COMPLETENESS REVIEW LETTER y
SOUTHWOOD VALLEY (APN 268-120-017) — MJS-2018-001; GAP-2018-001; TRP-2018-023 SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 y PAGE 4 OF 11
Comment 13. The ‘Important Note’ on Sheet 9 reads: “This is a proposed custom home development.
Homes will be designed for each individual lot by various architects and/or designers and, therefore, the conceptual building footprints shown hereon are illustrative only for the purpose of estimating overall development impact on the existing trees and assessing the feasibility of the building sites. These conceptual building footprints do not represent the final size, configuration or location of the buildings….” Given that, and in the interest of clarity, it may make sense to leave off the conceptual building footprints from this exhibit at this point.
Comment 14. On Sheets 10 and 11 of the proposed VTM, please provide the expected grading quantities and impervious surface area calculations.
Comment 15. On Sheets 12 and 13 of the proposed VTM, please include a note along the lines of “Location of trees not shown/exhibited for tree numbers that read ‘no survey’ or ‘missing’ in the tree inventory column.”
Comment 16. On Sheets 12 and 13 of the proposed VTM, please explain what is meant by “missing” in the tree inventory status column.
Comment 17. On Sheet 14 of the proposed VTM, the legend note reads “Refer to Sheet 14” for stormwater imp calculations.” The note should be corrected to say “Refer to Sheet 15” for stormwater imp calculations.”
Comment 18. Please include a sheet that clearly shows the lot width and depth for each of the proposed lots.
Comment 19. Please include a sheet/exhibit that clearly shows the front, side, and rear setbacks for each of the proposed lots.
Comment 20. Please demarcate all slopes 26-percent or greater. Per §17.7.8 of the OMC, a portion of every proposed residential development located on a parcel of land with an average slope of more than 26-percent shall remain in its natural state as an undeveloped open area with no grading, tree or foliage removal, or structure or other development. x Location. The undeveloped open areas required by this chapter shall be located primarily on the upper elevations of any particular residential development site, and shall include significant hilltops and ridges and other topographical landmarks, open exposed hillsides, recreational areas, or areas of environmental significance. x Ownership and Maintenance. Areas to remain as undeveloped open areas may be required to be offered for dedication to be part of a public open space or park system. Where such dedication offer is not to be accepted, the developer shall provide, as required, for the ownership, appropriate access, and necessary care and maintenance of the open area.
Comment 21. Please provide a written description of the “Wall Maintenance Easement.” Comment 22. Please provide a written description of the “Conservation Easement.” Comment 23. Please file for an exception for any proposed retaining wall(s) that does not comply with §17.4.27 (B-2). This includes:
x Any retaining wall taller than 4-feet and within 10 feet of any property line or in the minimum required yard setback, whichever is greater; and 41 y COMPLETENESS REVIEW LETTER y
SOUTHWOOD VALLEY (APN 268-120-017) — MJS-2018-001; GAP-2018-001; TRP-2018-023 SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 y PAGE 5 OF 11
x Any retaining wall taller than 8 feet.
Staff encourages the applicant to provide findings for each of the walls requiring an exception if the reason for the exception is unique to each of the associated retaining walls.
Comment 24. Please file for an exception for any improvements proposed within the water-channel setback(s). Examples include but are not limited to:
x The 50-foot ROW stemming off of Southwood Drive (North); and x The 8-foot wide ‘Basin Maintenance Road’ depicted in Site Section C-C on Sheet 6 of the proposed VTM.
Staff encourages the applicant to provide findings for each of the improvements requiring an exception if the reason for the exception is unique to each of the associated improvements.
Comment 25. In addition to the general-plan amendment filed with the City, please file for a zoningmap amendment. Also, please confirm if there are any text changes being proposed to the zoning.
Comment 26. Please provide a written legal description of the subject site and closure calculations.
Comment 27. Please provide a clear and detailed project description for the proposed project.
Comment 28. Please provide a statement describing how the proposed development is consistent with, and will further the goals and objectives of the City’s general plan.
Comment 29. One of the intensions of Chapter §17.7, Residential Minimum Lot Size and Hillside Development, of the OMC is to allow reasonable development on hillside lots in a manner that preserves the semi-rural character of the community. To that end, progressively larger lot sizes and lower densities are required by the OMC as average slope increases.
Please provide and/or confirm the average slope calculations—based on the formula provided in §17.7.4 of the OMC—for the subject site. The average percentage of slope will be used to determine the allowable density on the site. x Based on the information provided in the Environmental Constraints Study, dated April 20, 1998, the average slope calculation for the study site was preliminarily determined to be approximately 35-percent.
x Per Schedule 17.7.4, Allowable Density and Lot Sizes on Sloping Terrain, the minimum lot size for a parcel zoned RL-20 with an average slope of 35 percent is 108,900 square feet (0.4 units per acre). Therefore, if the preliminary calculation is accurate, a proposed subdivision would be limited to a maximum of 17 dwelling units on the 43- acre site.
Comment 30. Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) will be required for this project.
Comment 31. A Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) must be submitted to the resource agencies for any work impacting the creeks and riparian/wetland habitat areas.
Comment 32. Please provide the January 21, 1957 EBMUD deed (book 2917, page 358). 42 y COMPLETENESS REVIEW LETTER y
SOUTHWOOD VALLEY (APN 268-120-017) — MJS-2018-001; GAP-2018-001; TRP-2018-023 SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 y PAGE 6 OF 11
Comment 33. In addition to the Tree Inventory prepared by Ponderosa Tree Service in April 2016, please provide a recent arborist report that accompanies and confirms this the information in the nearly 2.5-year old tree inventory.
Comment 34. Please provide a remedial grading plan as it’ll be important for the analysis/environmental review.
Comment 35. Who/what will be responsible for the maintenance of Parcels A – D, which are identified as drainage parcels?
Comment 36. Please explain/provide reasons for the large quantity of net fill. (QYLURQPHQWDO&RQVWUDLQWV6WXG\
The following development recommendations come from the Environmental Constraints Study dated April, 20 1998.
GRADING—PAGE 22
Comment 37. Limit grading of the site to the minimum amount needed to create building pads, except as necessary for landslide repair. Building pads should have the minimum depth necessary to provide a flat area for the house, with the rear and side yards remaining as natural terrain.
Comment 38. Avoid grading in the central and southern reaches of the creek to avoid disturbance of riparian habitat.
Comment 39. Proposed graded slopes should be rounded and undulate to achieve a more natural appearance. Finished grading should mimic natural ground contours.
Comment 40. Avoid sharp angular edges at the contact points between proposed graded areas and the natural ground contours.
Comment 41. Minimize cutting of existing slopes that are subject to landslides. Excessive cutting could exacerbate landslide problems.
Comment 42. The development plans should include the limits and extent of anticipated slide repairs.
In some cases, the limits of necessary slide repair could exceed the limits of grading to create building pads. Extensive slide repairs could result in the disturbance of additional native vegetation. Building sites should be avoided which exacerbate the need for extensive site stabilization.
Comment 43. Grading for roads and building sites should be avoided or minimized in the root zone of protected trees.
SITE LAYOUT—PAGE 22
Comment 44. Development should be concentrated in one or two areas with the least environmental constraints and not spread over the entire site. Based on the constraints analysis, the areas on the site most suited for development are near the northern portion of the site and an approximately 2-acre area near the southern boundary of the site at the northern terminus of the south segment of Southwood Drive.
43 y COMPLETENESS REVIEW LETTER y
SOUTHWOOD VALLEY (APN 268-120-017) — MJS-2018-001; GAP-2018-001; TRP-2018-023 SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 y PAGE 7 OF 11
Comment 45. The property owner may consider clustering building sites so as to disturb less of the natural environment.
Comment 46. Building sites at the southern end of the site should be set back from and not disturb existing riparian vegetation.
Comment 47. Lots should be set low enough in elevation such that proposed homes will not block the views of surrounding neighbors. Need elevation of proposed building pads.
Comment 48. The relationship of roadways to lots should be designed such that steeply sloping driveways are not required.
OPEN SPACE—PAGE 23
Comment 49. Non-developed area should be placed in a permanent open space easement.
Comment 50. The development plan should include an open space provision, which would set aside and maintain the two woodland communities and meaningful segments of the adjacent coastal scrub and grassland.
Comment 51. Water flow should be maintained in the creek so that existing vegetation may continue to thrive.
Comment 52. Open space area should not be separated or broken. A continuous band of open space should be provided to allow for movement of wildlife throughout the area.
Comment 53. Homes should be clustered to minimize disturbance of the natural terrain and vegetation.
Comment 54. Consideration should be given to the placement of “scenic easement” at the backs of the proposed lots to protect as much of the native vegetation as possible. No grading, structures, or other improvements should be permitted within the scenic easement.
Fencing should also be prohibited within the scenic easement to permit the movement of wildlife through the natural area.
BIOTIC ENHANCEMENT—PAGE 23
Comment 55. Any disturbed grasslands on the site should be revegetated with native species.
Comment 56. The seepage and spring pools within the creek channel should be cleaned of debris and expanded to better retain water for wildlife.
Comment 57. A tree preservation and protection plan should accompany any development application.
CIRCULATION—PAGE 23
Comment 58. Roadways should follow the contours of the land. Lanes may be grade separated as necessary to minimize (i.e., cut/fill, retaining walls) and the steepness of the road.
Comment 59. Roadway widths should be the minimum necessary for safe vehicular travel and emergency vehicle access.
Comment 60. No public or private roadway connection should be proposed to carry through traffic between the northern and southern segments of Southwood Drive. 44 y COMPLETENESS REVIEW LETTER y
SOUTHWOOD VALLEY (APN 268-120-017) — MJS-2018-001; GAP-2018-001; TRP-2018-023 SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 y PAGE 8 OF 11
Comment 61. A hiking trail should be provided through the northern portion of the site that connects the Southwood Drive stub with the Monterey Terrace neighborhood, as conceptually shown in the General Plan.
STUDIES NEEDED—PAGE 25
Comment 62. Geological and Seismic Studies updated.
Comment 63. Vegetation and Wildlife Impact Study updated.
Comment 64. Revegetation Plan submitted with Tentative Subdivision Map Application.
Comment 65. Tree Report submitted with Tentative Subdivision Map Application.
Comment 66. Traffic Study updated.
Comment 67. Drainage Study expanded and updated. The plan should include more specific runoff calculations and a preliminary design for a detention basin, if determined necessary to mitigate impacts of the project.
Comment 68. Other: Hydrologic Analysis updated to include impervious surface area based on Tentative Map and detention basin requirements.
Comment 69. Other: Environmental Impact Report.
APPENDIX B – GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC CONSTRAINTS STUDY
Comment 70. Page 11 – Grading Criteria: Any earthwork on the site should be predicated on improving the stability of the adjacent lots, and creating a stable pad suitable for development.
Grading plans should be predicated solely on implementing these planning goals, and not on increasing the size of the area available for development (i.e., a currently stable hillside area should not be graded merely to generate fill or purposes, fill slopes and cut slopes should not be proposed which are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). See Appendix C Geotechnical recommendations of 2:1 that shall govern since this is the higher standard.
APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Comment 71. Slope a minimum of 3-percent away from the each residence perimeter grade beam.
Comment 72. Landscape areas should be drought resistant vegetation be planted to minimize water needs.
Comment 73. Drainage plans to be reviewed (and owner to pay for review of same) by geotechnical engineering firm.
Comment 74. All engineered fill in excess of 4 feet in vertical thickness shall be thoroughly under drained.
Comment 75. Fill slopes should not be constructed at gradients greater than 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). Governing criteria for fill slopes since this is the higher standard.
Comment 76. Cut slopes at the property should not be constructed in excess of 2:1 or 50-percent.
Governing criteria for cut slopes since this is the higher standard. 45 y COMPLETENESS REVIEW LETTER y
SOUTHWOOD VALLEY (APN 268-120-017) — MJS-2018-001; GAP-2018-001; TRP-2018-023 SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 y PAGE 9 OF 11
(QJLQHHULQJ3XEOLF:RUNV&RPPHQWV
Comment 77. Please call out Southwood Creek as a Type-II Water Channel.
Comment 78. Please indicate where “top of bank” is assumed for the various water channels and please indicate respective setback(s).
Comment 79. Please show existing easements.
Comment 80. Please show existing landslides and repair locations.
Comment 81. Sheet 11 (preliminary grading and drainage) of the proposed VTM shows the existing 15- inch RCP at the north end of the property. Please clarify where the drainage is conveyed.
Currently, it appears to daylight into a channel and then entering a new pipe crossing the road:
x Would it not be preferable to convey the water from the existing 15-inch RCP into a crossing under “North Road” and then outfall to Southwood Creek to maintain its current condition?
x Please show and call out Southwood Creek.
x Please call out proposed SD pipe size.
x Please show a cross section of Southwood Road at this location.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Comment 82. Proposed access to the site is via Southwood Drive (North) and Southwood Drive (South).
These roads were dedicated to the County when the surrounding lots were subdivided, but they were not accepted as public streets at that time. Therefore, the applicant must verify access rights over these roads, as well as easement rights or rights of entry to improve the roads to adequately serve this project.
Comment 83. The internal roads are proposed to remain private. There is no indication on the plans for proposed access gates to this community. Please confirm.
Comment 84. There is only one point of access to a through street to serve the 13 lots along Southwood Drive (North) with no alternative emergency vehicle access. A road closure of any kind south of Bates Boulevard could isolate some or all those lots.
GRADING
Comment 85. Environmental review should address some construction related issues, such as:
x Identify staging areas for materials, equipment and workers for grading and infrastructure construction.
x Identify haul routes for the 30,000 cubic yards of imported soil anticipated to be needed for this project.
x Since the subdivision streets are too narrow to allow for any parking, and the lots are to be sold off individually as custom home sites, what restrictions or provisions will need to be incorporated into the project or its CC&Rs/other enforcement mechanism for staging construction for individual homes?
46 y COMPLETENESS REVIEW LETTER y
SOUTHWOOD VALLEY (APN 268-120-017) — MJS-2018-001; GAP-2018-001; TRP-2018-023 SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 y PAGE 10 OF 11
Comment 86. Much of these roads require retaining or “nail” walls to support the embankment above or the road itself. Lots 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16 & 17 do not appear to have any viable access without breaching these walls.
DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Comment 87. Chapter 16.64 of the OMC requires that all storm water entering and/or originating on this property to be collected and conveyed, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to a natural watercourse having a definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility. The applicant intends to discharge all runoff to Southwood Creek. Additional runoff resulting from the development of the property, will be mitigates by routing said runoff though detention basins located near the downstream portions of the roads before discharging the runoff into the creek. The drainage area subject to this mitigation is limited to the roads and fronting portions of the lots themselves. While the general concept is acceptable, it is unclear whether the drainage areas shown are realistic. For example:
x Lot 9 has a severe downslope falling away from the fronting street which is already supported by a 4.5-foot retaining wall. How does the runoff from the front of the house get discharged onto the road so it can be routed to the detention basin? This scenario is replicated throughout the project. If the drainage area doesn’t pick up enough of the new impervious area, it may not be sufficient to mitigate the increased runoff.
Comment 88. A Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) is required for applications that will create and/or redevelop impervious surface area exceeding 10,000 square feet (in compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance: Chapter 18.02) and the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. While the calculations relative to a SWCP have been submitted, the actual report will be necessary prior to deeming the application complete.
Comment 89. The detention basins identified on the project plans serve double-duty as stormwater treatment facilities. For the hydromodification element to satisfactorily work, the detention basin outfall will need to be at least as high as the driving head elevation for the hydromodification orifice.
UTILITIES
Comment 90. Although not part of the City’s normal purview, it is noted that the sanitary sewers from the north end of the site follow the terrain and slope from north to south, without any apparent connection to the existing sewer system. Are there additional sewer mains to be constructed that are not shown? Will a lift station (or two) be necessary? 47 y COMPLETENESS REVIEW LETTER y
SOUTHWOOD VALLEY (APN 268-120-017) — MJS-2018-001; GAP-2018-001; TRP-2018-023 SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 y PAGE 11 OF 11
1H[W6WHSV
1. Please revise the proposed VTM based on the comments provided in this Letter.
2. Please re-submit a pdf (OCR version) and three hard copies of the revised plan set at full size for review. Additionally, please provide a written response that addresses the comments provided in this Letter.
Please note, after the application has been accepted as complete, the City may request the applicant to clarify, amplify, correct or otherwise supplement the information in the application.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me to discuss any concerns or issues.
Sincerely,
Mayank Patel
Senior Planner
48 From: Nick Waranoff
To: Latika Malkani; Brandyn Iverson; Darlene Gee; Janet Riley; Cara Hoxie Cc: Sheri Smith; Lashun Cross; Linda Smith
Subject: RE: SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENT (Agenda Oct. 21) re Southwood Valley - Reimbursement Agreement Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 9:00:12 AM
Attachments: Signed_Southwood Valley Estates Reimbursement Agreement.pdf EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity. g. Note Exhibit A – the amount for the environmental consultant is not stated.
This will be the first issue that the developer will raise as an excuse for delaying payment; it will argue about the reasonableness of the contract price.
The fact that the council finds it to be reasonable isn’t binding on the developer.
Nick Waranoff
From: Nick Waranoff [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 8:34 AM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Darlene Gee' <[email protected]>; Janet Riley <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Lashun Cross <[email protected]>; 'Linda Smith' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENT (Agenda Oct. 21) re Southwood Valley - Reimbursement Agreement
I hit send too soon.
f. The better approach is to follow the intent of the Staff Report and change this so that costs are truly “sole responsibility of the project applicant.” Nick Waranoff
From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 8:29 AM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Darlene Gee' <[email protected]>; Janet Riley <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Lashun Cross <[email protected]>; 'Linda Smith' <[email protected]>
Subject: SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENT (Agenda Oct. 21) re Southwood Valley - Reimbursement Agreement
49 Attached is copy of Reimbursement Agreement. My comments:
a. Staff Report is not accurate where it says, under Fiscal Impact, that costs are “sole responsibility of the project applicant.” (Packet Pg. 240.) Cost is primarily responsibility of the City. SV is only responsible for reimbursement. There is no assurance of payment. Issues can arise re reasonableness of consultant fee, of changes, etc. Delays can arise. I dealt with many situations like this during my legal career, when I represented developers. The risk is nonpayment by Southwood Valley.
Second risk is that, if the Agreement is assigned with consent of City, SV is released. Why should that be? It should stand as guarantor. b. Was this approved by the Council as an action item on a published agenda?
c. It has been suggested that language in the Master Fee Schedule, page 11, authorizes this. I disagree. The Master Fee Schedule, p. 11, does not give the City Manager the power to commit to a contract of this size without specific approval.
d. Reimbursement for city services is fine; but there is no benefit to the city to using reimbursement for a consulting contract of this size. e. A three-party agreement, which is not uncommon, should be used, whereby the consultant bills, and looks solely to the project applicant for, payment.
Nick Waranoff
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60