Darwin Myers, Project Planner Date: September 26, 2005
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th Floor
Martinez, Ca 94553
Subject: Comments on the Draft EIR (DEIR) for Subdivision SD018533
Dear Mr. Myers:
Friends of Garrity Creek
finds the Draft EIR to be incomplete and filled with inaccuracies and
oversights. We feel that it minimizes significant impacts on the environment.
We also believe it to be partisan in favor of the subdivision.
First of all, The Alternatives in the DEIR do not match the Alternatives in the Scope of Services Contract for the project. The project objectives list as the number one objective a requirement of 40 homes, ensuring that no alternative except the developer’s proposal will meet the number one objective. This is not in the spirit of the Scope of Services Contract, nor does it conform to CEQA guidelines. For example, Section 5 (Alternatives) states that only “most of the basic objectives of the project” need to be met. There is no provision which would allow the developer high density housing.
The Scope of Services Contract lists as Alternatives:
1) No Project Alternative: Assumes no change from existing conditions
2)
Reduced Scale Alternative: Assumes some reduction in the number of lots
on the site, to be determined after the
environmental analysis is complete. Access Alternatives will be evaluated in a
qualitative way by W-TRANS and will include up to 3 access alternatives for the
project site. These alternatives will
only be evaluated from a transportation perspective.
3)
Redesigned Alternative: May include a reconfiguration of some lots to
provide fewer environmental impacts and/or inclusion of alternative drainage
systems.
The Scope of Services concludes: “The environmentally superior alternative will be identified.”
The DEIR lists as Alternatives:
-Alternative 1: No Project
-Alternative 2: Alternative Site Access
-Alternative 3: Redesigned Alternative
-Alternative 4: Cluster Development
The Scope of Services Contract is what was presented to the community and what was discussed with Mr. Drake and Mr. Myers. The Scope of Services Contract was also discussed and reviewed in a meeting at Supervisor Gioia’s office with Supervisor Gioia, Community Development Department Director Dennis Barry and staff.
In that meeting, the subject of traffic was discussed in detail, and we were assured that the intersections of Hilltop Drive with La Paloma, Pebble Drive, Solano Drive, and Renfrew Court would be added to the study. We were also assured that the effect on Hilltop Drive and feeder streets would include a projection of traffic on these streets, if San Pablo Dam Road is reduced to two lanes, as is recommended by the El Sobrante Downtown Plan. It is clear to us that the changes recommended by the Downtown Plan will significantly impact SD018533 and vice versa. The impacts of SD018533 on the above-listed intersections, given the Downtown Plan changes to San Pablo Dam Road, are described in the DEIR as insignificant without offering any study or scientific data to back up the statement.
The project description in the DEIR refers to the October 25th, 2004 map sent to us on November 2nd 2004. This design is different from the one presented at the Board of Supervisors hearing on the EIR requirement. According to the note on the cover letter from the Community Development Department, it is the map presented at the Board of Supervisors hearing, not the 10/25/04 map, which is to be the subject of the focused EIR. I was personally informed by Darwin Myers that the descriptions listed in the DEIR refer to the map presented at the Board of Supervisers hearing.
One of the many confusions in the draft EIR appears on page 4.1-2, 1st paragraph: “…of these, the only roads providing direct access to the site are Marin Road and Hilltop Drive.” The map of the site (see 3-7 of the Draft EIR) shows a revised plan that was not part of the notice to adopt a Mitigated Declaration, nor does it match the revised plan sent out on November 2nd , 2004, as the latter plan doesn’t show the grassy swales and open space on the East Fork of Garrity Creek, nor does it show any road connection to Marin Road. On page 3-6, under Project Characteristics, the DEIR states: “…an additional 1.03 acres would also be deed restricted open space along the East Fork of Garrity Creek”, referring to the map on page 3-7 of the DEIR. This 1.03 acres was not part of the description in the Negative Declaration.
This is an example of a mix in the description of parts of three maps without identifying what map is referenced. The project description needs to be revised to match the map it is referencing. As it stands, it is very hard to follow and very confusing, as one doesn’t know what map and alternative is under discussion.
1.1 Project Background
1-2, 3rd paragraph should include the fact that the Community Development Department recommended reducing the number of homes. The developer objected and the Planning Commission overruled the Community Development Department’s recommendations and voted 4 to 1 for 40 homes. A reduction in the number of homes should have been one of the alternatives reviewed in the DEIR. Next to the “No Project” alternative, a reduced number of homes would represent the most environmentally sensitive alternative, while still meeting “most of the basic objectives of the project” (p. 5-1). A reduction in the number of homes would leave the second most open space and would give the most environmental protection. The DEIR is incomplete without including analysis of this alternative.
The
technical reports that were commissioned by the developer after the Board of
Supervisors appeal hearing were not identified, nor were copies made available
to Friends of Garrity Creek, Hilltop Neighborhood Association, or appropriate
agencies such as the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee.
It is unacceptable that community groups should be expected to comment on the
DEIR without having been provided full information.
Page 1-3 of the Introduction states, in the last paragraph, that “…based upon the revised project design received on Oct. 28, 2004, the application was complete for processing purposes on Nov. 28, 2004.” The revised project plan and additional technical studies should have been made available to the Board of Supervisors and those individuals and community organizations which reviewed and commented on the originals. It is clear that the developer hired consultants to prepare a variety of additional technical reports before the county hired its EIR consultants. It is highly irregular for new plans and additional technical reports which were prepared after the appeal hearing and prior to the DEIR contract being awarded by the county should be incorporated into the data used to create the DEIR.
As noted above, the open space shown on the map sent out on November 2nd, 2004, accompanied by a cover letter stating that this revised map would be the subject of the EIR, differs from the map shown on page 3-7 (Fig. 3-4) of the DEIR. The November 2nd, 2004 map shows no open space at the East Fork of Garrity Creek. The map appearing in the report on page 3-7 (Fig. 3-4) was apparently never sent to Friends of Garrity Creek, Hilltop Neighborhood Association, or the El Sobrante Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee. Again this is a strange and confusing situation. Why wasn’t the map sent to us on November 2 the same as the one shown on page 3-7?
1-3, 2nd bullet: Balance Hydrologics, in its analysis of peak flows downstream from the project, states: “Two storm water detention basins were added to the project…” There is no indication of how much water would be in the basins at any one time, and the potential threat of West Nile Virus. What would be the effect of any standing water and how long would it take for the storm water detention basins to absorb this water after a rainfall or the washing of cars, watering of lawns, etc.?
1-3, 3rd bullet: The DEIR suggests that creek channels be retained as private open space, without providing access by community groups for purposes of creek cleanup. All over the county, groups have formed/are forming to provide cleanup of our waterways. Without cleanup, contamination of this “moderately large watershed for West County”—which empties into San Pablo Bay—will occur.
1-3,
3rd bullet, 2nd paragraph: Re public access to the site, the developer created, in response to
public insistence, “an open space area
in the northwest portion of the site that would be deed-restricted from
building and construction. A trail is shown on the updated site plan,
indicating that this open space might [emphasis added] have public
access.” As we will detail later under 4.14, Recreation and Public Access, the
public had unrestricted access to the site for over 45 years, until 2004 when
the developer erected fences on the property. (He has since removed them.)This
public access should continue. In view of the rapid elimination of green open
space in the El Sobrante area, Friends of Garrity Creek advocates that the site
be purchased and preserved in its natural state as a public park. In this way
not only would the creek and its accompanying hillsides and wooded area be
preserved in their entirety, but public access to the full 10 acres would be guaranteed
in perpetuity, as opposed to the developer’s present vague offer of possible
access to a small fraction of the site which would be preserved as open space.
2.0 Summary
2-1 last paragraph: “…this DEIR does not identify any significant unavoidable project level impacts. All identified impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.”
There are many impacts that should be completely avoided rather than allowing attempts at mitigation, and we address them in detail in the body of this document. Among the most critical are: not using lots adjacent to the future open space area for construction staging, and not allowing any grading or building on the slide-prone area and steep hillside below the terminus of Marin Road. No homes should be built on slopes of over 25% slope. Density should be substantially limited on slopes of over 15%. Setbacks from the creek should be larger, perhaps eliminating numbers 31 through 33, in addition to eliminating lots 24 through 29 by the spring and riparian areas. The semi-rural nature of our community should be maintained by reducing the number of homes.
As noted above, the alternatives presented in the DEIR do not match the alternatives outlined in the scoping contract. Additionally, the new plan alternatives presented in the DEIR completely ignore the Community Development Department’s own recommendation to reduce the number of homes in the project.
Mitigation Summary Tables 2-3 through 2-33 repeatedly mention required approvals from the Public Works Department and the Planning and Zoning Administrator; close site monitoring of activities is recommended. Unfortunately, the DEIR ignores the county’s failure to “closely monitor” construction sites to ensure compliance with mitigation conditions. For example, the county did not monitor the Hillcrest project for compliance with mitigation conditions, resulting in tons of mud sliding down onto parts of San Pablo Dam Road.
The DEIR repeatedly refers to the importance of high quality, effective monitoring of construction and mitigation measures by county staff. Friends of Garrity Creek believes that the number of projects currently under way in the county will substantially limit the county’s ability to provide high quality monitoring and enforcement of mitigation measures. The fact that county budgets are being slashed throughout the state and nation—Contra Costa is no exception—will only diminish further the county’s ability to respond to regulatory violations. Residents of Renfrew Court testified in the appeal hearing regarding this same developer’s repeated disregard of curfews and restrictions on construction activities at the Orion Court project off Renfrew Court; no corrective action was taken by the county agencies responsible. A similar lack of monitoring and enforcement in relation to this development could lead to severe public safety consequences in the future.
2-19 Common driveway of 20’ width providing access to lots 26-28 and the EVA needs further explanation.
2-20 Please provide more detail regarding: “if feasible, any pedestrian trail shall follow” the EVA. It is also unclear to us how the wildlife corridors are to be connected, given the erection of protective fencing around retention basins. Phrases such as “where possible” are too vague.
3.0 Project Description
The project should be reduced in size to conform to the semi-rural nature of our community. No homes should be built on slopes of over 25%. Lots 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 should be removed from the project plans. These 2-story houses are proposed on a parcel of land with slopes of 4 to 1 and 3 to 1, which, according to County Land Use Plan Policy 10-28, should remain in its natural state with no improvements, no vegetation removal or grading permitted. We are also concerned that the height of these homes may impede the view from established homes on Marin Road. Density should be substantially limited for homes on slopes of over 15%. The creek setbacks should be larger, perhaps eliminating lots 31-33.
3-7 Driveway description notes that surfaces will be permeable. What deed restrictions are in place to prevent future owners from laying concrete or a similar impervious surface at a later time?
3-10, Access and Parking: What parking restrictions would apply to Garrity Creek Drive? If vehicles are parked on the street, they will impede emergency vehicle access. Also, if the proposed roads remain private, what agency will be responsible for enforcing parking restrictions? P. 2-3, Summary of Impacts, states that sidewalks are to be provided on double-loaded streets. Why has the sidewalk along the single-loaded portion of Garrity Creek Drive been eliminated? Pedestrians will be regularly using this as a walkway to get to Manor.
3-13 The description of on-site open space refers to the revised plan, not the original plan. It is a confusing mix of old and new. I called Darwin Myers for clarification and he said all descriptions refer to the old map. This mix of old and revised data contributes to an unclear picture. It is impossible to determine if the description refers to the Nov. 2nd, 2004, the revised VTM (Vesting Tentative Map), the proposed alternative, or the revised recommended alternative.
4.1-5 through 4.1-9, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Land Use and Planning
Land
Use Element (LUE) 3-198: “The overall
goal of the area is to retain and reinforce the semi-rural and suburban
character of the community”. The DEIR admits that the subdivision would
directly violate this policy-- “The semi-rural character of the site (due to
its undeveloped state) would be replaced with suburban residential
development”—but proceeds to justify the project anyway, despite this conflict.
This seems to us a violation of the General Plan’s mandates.
LUE 3-204 states that the project is surrounded by residential development. This is inaccurate; while the project borders residential development on the north and east sides, its southern boundary borders on homes with primarily large open lots, some of which are agricultural in nature.
LUE 3-205: As noted, the site is not multi-family use. This is not relevant to the project.
The steep parcel located at the end of Marin Road, including the spring, has slopes of 3 to 1 and 4 to 1. It is unsuitable for development and should be excluded from any building or disturbance.
LUE 8-3 and 8-6: It is the intent, as described in the proposed project characteristics, that 22,000 cubic yards of cuts will be made, 27,000 cubic yards of fill will be used, and 54 trees will be removed. These statistics, listed in Table 4.1-1, 8-6, do not conform with Contra Costa General Plan LUE 8-3, which states that “Watersheds, natural waterways, and areas important for the maintenance of natural vegetation and wildlife populations shall be preserved and enhanced,” nor does it comply with General Plan LUE 8-6, which states that “Significant trees, natural vegetation, and wildlife populations generally shall be preserved.”
LUE 8-14: On this site, 84 percent of the land has a 15 percent slope or greater; therefore, it should not have been zoned as an R7 development. The zoning should be reduced. The steep building sites should be eliminated from the project and the number of homes reduced to a more reasonable level for the slope, or the project should be scrapped altogether. Development on hillsides should be severely limited to maintain natural vegetation, especially woodlands and open grasslands. This project will greatly change the semi-rural nature of this El Sobrante neighborhood.
It should be noted that in May 1997 the City of Richmond passed a Hillside Ordinance, the purpose of which is “to place more restrictive development regulations on hillside areas of 15% or greater slope, in order to…protect the general public from geologic and hydrologic hazards including damage to property from landslides, erosion, earth creep, and storm water runoff…” It is clear to Friends of Garrity Creek that the wisdom and foresight which motivated the Richmond City Council to pass this ordinance must be summoned and applied to the present project.
LUE 8-15: This area is the largest open space area in our neighborhood and will be forever changed if this project is allowed to strip away all of the natural grass and plant life available to the animal population, in violation of this General Plan Land Use Element.
LUE 8-27: “Seasonal wetlands in grassland areas of the County shall be identified and protected.” The DEIR maintains that “On-site wetlands would be protected within proposed open space areas.” This is not true; the developer has stated his intention to use as his construction staging area the North side of this project, adjacent to the creek, spring and riparian areas. Heavy equipment in this area will forever damage these sensitive areas. The county will be unable to protect them from damage from the proposed earthmoving and grading.
LUE
9-11: “High quality engineering of slopes shall be required to avoid soil
erosion, downstream flooding, slope failure, loss of vegetation cover, high
maintenance costs, property damages, and damage to visual quality.” How do you
define “high quality engineering”? This report should include a detailed
definition of exactly how this will be guaranteed. Particular attention should
be paid to those areas with slopes above 15 percent (which comprise 84% of the
site, as mentioned above), not just areas with slopes greater than 26 percent.
LUE 9-14, 9-20, and 9-21: “Retaining walls proposed are 6 feet high along Garrity Creek Drive, up to 12.9 feet high along Royal Oaks Drive, and up to 20 feet high at the road crossing over the East Fork of Garrity Creek.” The developer’s attorney, at the Board of Supervisors appeal hearing, stated that the project could be completed without any variances. Retaining walls of these heights are not in keeping with the natural contours of the site.
LUE 10-24 through 10-31: LUE 10-28 states that “The slope density for houses decreases as the slope increases, especially above a 15 percent slope.” But this principle was completely ignored in arriving at the net residential units per acre. There are too many homes on the steep areas. The City of Richmond’s Hillside Ordinance, addressing hillsides with 15 percent slope or greater, was passed after numerous costly problems occurred with houses sliding down hillsides, causing extensive damage to homes in the El Sobrante Valley. This ordinance should serve as a model for Contra Costa County.
The
attached packet documents the problems leading to the adoption of the Richmond
Ordinance for the El Sobrante Valley. One of the articles from the Sunday Times
dated Sunday, April 17, 1983 states that the “USGS [US Geological Survey]
studies, compiled in the 1970’s, also show that landslides have occurred more
often in hillside areas where building has taken place. … The 1975 USGS study,
which centered on the urban areas of the County, found that 80 percent of the
slides studied happened in places where the natural ground surface has been cut
or filled during construction.” The article goes on to say that “most of the
hills in west county, including the Pinole, El Sobrante and San Pablo ridges,
consist of rock formation know as the Contra Costa group. This formation is
‘quite unstable’ because it is relatively young and not well consolidated, said
Charles Bishop, a geologist with the California Division of Mines and Geology.
The Contra Costa formation contains clays and other materials that absorb water
during rain, swell and move downhill. It loses strength easily.”
Two landslides have already occurred on the land included in this project. One local resident who grew up in the area remembers frequent sinkholes developing on the steeply-sloped areas which he traversed while walking to school. If the county approves this project, the county will be liable if damage occurs to the homes of current property owners or to new proposed homes, either as a result of construction of this project and/or as a result of a future landslide, unless the developer places a significant bond in trust, to cover the cost of damage. This bond could be the initial funding for the Geologic Hazard Abatement District and should remain in place for a considerable length of time, i.e., more than 20 years. Homes slid down the hill on Pebble Drive, a steep hillside, after the county approved construction. New homes were permitted to be built after a period of years. Pebble Drive is a very short distance from the present project site. A retaining wall failed on the developer’s other project off Renfrew Court during the rainy season. Hillside ordinances are designed to address public safety/liability issues and should not be ignored.
4.1-9 The project violates slope
density policy 10-28, as well as policy 8-15, which states that “existing vegetation, both native and nonnative, and
wildlife habitat areas shall be retained in the major open space area
sufficient for the maintenance of healthy balance of wildlife populations. This area is the largest local open
space around this part of El Sobrante.
4.1-10 “There are several broad General Plan policies that are applicable to
this site (particularly those pertaining to protection of hillsides and
slopes). The County decision-makers may find the proposed project…inconsistent
with these General Plan policies.” As we have pointed out, multiple
General Plan Policies are violated by the proposed project, specifically: the
building of so many homes on steep hillsides where cuts and fill are used; the
demonstrated vulnerability of El Sobrante Hills-type soil to slides when wet;
the inappropriateness of an R7 rating for such steep hills; the destruction of
grassland, trees and other wildlife habitat; the likelihood of permanent damage
to the riparian areas and creek as a result of construction; and the
elimination of access to the creek area by members of the community—including
school classes and creek cleanup groups. The retaining walls would require
variances of up to 20 feet. All of these items are reasons for the project to
be eliminated or reduced in size.
4.1-13: “Detention basins, such as the two proposed for the site, must be approved by the Public Works Department.” The CEQA Desk Book states on page 112: “to be considered adequate, mitigation measures should be specific, feasible action that will actually improve adverse conditions.” It also states that “mitigation measures consisting only of further studies, or consultation with regulatory agencies that are not tied to a specific action plan, may not be adequate and therefore should be avoided.” It appears that many mitigation items in the DEIR fit this description, including this one which does not present an action plan but rather offers nothing but a statement that a given item needs approval. One need only look at the Renfrew Court project to demonstrate the potential hazard of allowing such vagaries to go unchallenged. This same developer did NOT secure county approval of the drainage system for the Renfrew Court project, prior to grading and removing trees and grassland. The project sat unfinished for a couple of years; finally he sold the site to another party.
4.1-14,
Less-Than-Significant Impacts: The project would result in the division of
properties.
4.2 Transportation/Traffic
4.2-3 Environmental Setting. Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association specifically called for the critical intersections of Renfrew Road, Pebble Drive and La Paloma (where they intersect with Hilltop Drive) to be evaluated as part of the DEIR. These additional intersections were brought up during the scoping sessions and during a meeting with county staff and Supervisor Gioia on January 24th, 2005. In that meeting, we were assured that these other intersections would be included in traffic and air quality sections of the EIR. Those promises have not been kept.
The DEIR assertion that these intersections all currently meet an acceptable level of service is a misrepresentation. When traffic is heavy on Hilltop, numerous cars turn off onto Pebble Drive and La Paloma. These vehicles never make it to Manor Road and thus are not counted as traffic on Hilltop Drive or at the Manor intersection. Traffic is currently gridlocked at these intersections during the school commute hours.
The cumulative effect on traffic of 5 homes proposed for Hilltop Drive adjacent to the proposed entrance to SD018533, plus the 20 homes proposed for Orion Court (off Renfrew Court), plus the proposed 27 homes off Allview will significantly degrade the traffic level of service at these intersections. Further, the DEIR errs regarding Appian Way development. It states that 10 new homes are planned for Appian Way, but in actuality, 72 units are planned. This very significant increase will have a dramatically negative impact on neighboring intersections.
4.2-8 Under “Less-Than-Significant Impacts,” the DEIR mentions air traffic patterns. How does “air traffic” relate to traffic on the streets?
Because more traffic lights (which delay traffic) are posted on Appian Way than on Hilltop Drive, local residents tend to prefer Hilltop Drive. People in the proposed subdivision will likely follow this pattern. It is imperative that traffic management planning for future developments be based on studies of actual, not theoretical, traffic patterns.
4.2-12 The assumption that Hilltop Drive and feeder streets will not be impacted by the Downtown Plan is not backed by any studies. The Draft EIR for the Downtown Plan has been delayed for the last two years. Unless and until the Board of Supervisors chooses to cancel the Draft EIR, the Downtown Plan is operative and should be studied for its impact on feeder streets. A study has been underway for some time to determine the effect on feeder streets if, as is recommended by the Downtown Plan, traffic is reduced to two lanes on San Pablo Dam Road during non-commute hours. We have been waiting for the results of this study.
The charts presented in the DEIR Appendices C-13, C-14, C-15, and C-16 are based on 1967, 1991, and 1997 data and do not reflect the explosion of developments built in the El Sobrante and Richmond areas since 1997. These charts also do not reflect the economic conditions that have increasingly compelled families to own multiple cars, thus jamming our roadways.
We need to take a cue from Allan B. Jacobs, internationally recognized authority in urban design, author of numerous acclaimed books on urban planning and street design, and a distinguished UC Berkeley professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning, who warned that “Great streets do not just happen. Overwhelmingly, the best streets derive from a conscious act of conception and creation of the street as a whole. The hands of decision makers are visible.”
The DEIR should have offered a Cumulative Traffic Analysis which examines the so-called “by-pass loop,” whereby motorists exit I-80 at Hilltop Drive and then utilize La Paloma, Pebble, Renfrew, and Manor to access Appian Way, en route to ultimate destinations in Orinda and elsewhere via Valley View and San Pablo Dam Road (SPDR). (The reverse is also, of course, true, i.e., motorists follow a route from SPDR and Valley View in order to access La Paloma, Pebble, Renfrew, and Manor, leading them ultimately to Hilltop Drive and thence to I-80.) A 1993 Contra Costa County license plate survey of motorists on Hilltop during peak traffic hours determined that a whopping 46 to 51% were from outside the 94803 zip code (El Sobrante) area. These regionally registered motorists were commuting to and from I-80; they were not dropping their children off at El Sobrante schools, shopping in El Sobrante, conducting business in El Sobrante, or visiting El Sobrante residents. Their sole objective in selecting their chosen route was to avoid SPDR gridlock.
Given that the core purpose of the CEQA process is “better informed decision-making,” it is essential that the EIR offer documentation of the subdivision’s impact on regional traffic flow on Hilltop. Because the 1993 survey is dated, a new baseline survey needs to be conducted.
Since 1985, Hilltop area neighbors have been admirably active and successful (and have been officially recognized by the Board of Supervisors for same) in solving pedestrian and traffic safety issues on this section of Hilltop Drive and side streets. They have accomplished this through the creation of an ongoing, although informal, neighborhood traffic management plan. This volunteer citizen effort represented 14 years of partnership with the Design Section of the Department of Public Works, Engineering Services, Planning, Flood Control and Construction staff and practically every Public Works division head. All of this citizen group’s recommended improvements were approved by the Board of Supervisors from 1989 to 1999. One of the group’s recommendations submitted to the Board and to Public Works was a proposal to prohibit widening of the existing roadway, including turn lanes, because previous widening of the Hilltop roadway has led to increases in speed. Similar increases in speed can be expected as a result of SD8533’s intention to widen additional segments. This citizen group recommendation, which is on file with Public Works and which is believed to have been approved by the Board of Supervisors, should take precedence in limiting construction and design alterations on Hilltop Drive. We refer you to speed surveys contained in previous periodic Engineer Reports.
4.2-15 Adequacy of Parking. If, as the DEIR suggests, parking is permitted on either side of Garrity Creek Drive (which is currently proposed as a 20-foot-wide road), this will restrict access by fire trucks. Also, re the Redesigned Alternative Fig. 5-1, the DEIR map shows that the cul-de-sac bulb at the end of Garrity Creek Drive has been changed to a hammerhead turnaround. Another change is opposite lots 26 and 27. A 28-foot-wide curb length and 4-foot sidewalk has been eliminated on lot 28. What is unclear is whether the new 20-foot-wide road will allow parking or if it will be red stripped, as is the case on Royal Oaks Drive. An overall impression is that parking is insufficient for the entire project, as most residents use garages for storage and not parking. Reducing the number of homes could provide for adequate street widths and off-street parking. One glance at the number of cars parked on Marin Road and Renfrew Road on any given day will demonstrate the point that multiple cars are parked on the street. Periodically, drivers park all over the place, impeding traffic. No tickets are given on these public roads for invalid parking.
4.2-16, Impact TRAFFIC –1: “Sight distance may be insufficient at the new Hilltop Drive/Royal Oaks Drive intersection created by the project.”
.
Speed limits are rarely enforced in El Sobrante, because we have no police department and very limited sheriff presence. The speed limit of 25 mph on Hilltop Drive tends not to be observed, except when traffic is backed up from the Renfrew Road intersection to the freeway during school and commute hours, at which times traffic slows to a stop. Cars coming from Royal Oaks Drive will find it unsafe to turn left in order to take children to school. We anticipate cars simultaneously entering Hilltop Drive from Royal Oaks and Renfrew Road while cars from the opposite side of Hilltop Drive are accelerating. Royal Oaks is entirely too close to a three-way stop. The addition of a left-turn lane will create a very messy intersection.
What will happen if a fire takes place and multiple cars are trying to get out of Royal Oaks just as a fire engine is trying to enter the property? What if this happens during school and work commute hours, when traffic is already backed up? This is a potentially dangerous situation that should be carefully analyzed by the county before approving this subdivision.
There are residents on Hilltop Drive, on both sides of Royal Oaks, who park in their driveways. These vehicles (parked in driveways) on Hilltop Drive will impact the sight distances of cars coming from Royal Oaks on to Hilltop Drive.
4.2-16,17 Impact TRAFFIC-2: “The Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) proposed by the project may be inadequate if not designed correctly.” See 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence on page 17: “Similarly, the 700-foot length limitation is not related to traffic operations, but is likely associated with the need for adequate emergency vehicle access and egress.” This statement is an interpretation and is not backed by any ordinance.
4.2-17 Impact TRAFFIC-3: “Adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities may not be available with construction of the project (PS).” The proposed alternative on page 5-7, Garrity Creek Drive, has eliminated part of the sidewalks required by the Subdivision Ordinance in relation to sidewalks 1 mile or less from a school. The elimination of the sidewalk will place in harm’s way any children who happen to be walking along the street just when cars are backing out of driveways.
The report doesn’t detail the design of the EVA, and whether or not it is paved. An unpaved roadway will be a mud hole in the winter for any pedestrians using the EVA for school access. Therefore it would not be an improvement.
4.2-18 Impact TRAFFIC-4: “The proposed 20-foot-wide Royal Oaks Drive may not be wide enough for through travel and emergency access unless parking is prohibited.” The mitigation measures that follow (posting of No Parking signs and painting of curbs red) would prevent parking on Royal Oaks. However, we would like to point out that at another similarly designed project on Stanley Lane (off San Pablo Dam Road), trucks and cars park on the single-lane entrance, thus potentially preventing a fire engine from entering the subdivision. The point is that people tend to park where they want, regardless of parking ordinances, and El Sobrante has neither the police nor sheriff’s presence to prevent this from taking place.
Impact TRAFFIC-5: “Project construction may create conflicts with local traffic due to significant new truck trips. (PS)”
Moving 49,000 cubic yards of cut and fill, at an estimated 3,000 truck trips, will have a seriously negative impact on Hilltop Drive traffic, regardless of the time of day. The heavy trucks on the developer’s Renfrew Court project tore up Renfrew Road. Those potholes are still a problem; the county has not repaired them properly, and no mitigation measures were identified in the EIR which would hold the developer responsible for road damage. The county has twice attempted to patch the road, but the potholes are still there, causing traffic to drive in the middle of the road to prevent damage to their cars. The Renfrew Court project was limited to 10 homes—a fraction of the number of homes in the present proposal—and required many fewer truck trips.
During grading etc. on the Renfrew Court project, trucks were backed up three deep waiting to pick up or dump their loads. They also had to drop their double trailers on Renfrew Road and take in one trailer at a time because they couldn’t make the turn on Renfrew Court with double trailers.
It is inconceivable that the author of this section of the DEIR would equate 3,000 double-loaded trailer diesel truck trips with the same number of cars in a day. The truck trips will cause a serious problem for the current residents. No project in a closed residential area like Hilltop Drive should have 150 trips per day of double-loaded trailers pulled by diesel trucks. Do the DEIR figures include gravel trucks, cement trucks, roofing, lumber and other trucks needed to complete this project? Increased noise level and overall disruption will severely impact the 80-plus-year-old woman who lives adjacent to this project, not to mention other surrounding neighbors.
The density of this project is completely out of proportion for this semi-rural area, where homes generally have large lots.
4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality
The attached information from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Francisco Bay Region states on page 6 (see attached): “ Provide undeveloped, vegetated buffer zones between development and streams, wetlands, drainage etc. Locate construction and structures as far as possible from streams, wetlands, drainage areas, etc. Use existing vegetation and create new vegetated areas to promote infiltration. Include green areas for people to walk their pets, thereby reducing build-up of bacteria, worms, viruses, nutrients, etc. in impermeable areas, or institute ordinances requiring owners to collect pet excrement.” It goes on to list numerous other items. Many of these measures which improve water quality have not been addressed in the DEIR.
The Urban Creeks Council of California has stated that “the 10-acre parcel will be drastically altered by the proposed development.” The Council urges us to restore the creek to a healthier, more natural channel. The attached publication, “Where Rivers Are Born: The Scientific Imperative for Defending Small Streams and Wetlands,” highlights the many scientifically-documented benefits of preserving, protecting, and restoring streams like Garrity Creek. See attachment, “ Economic Benefits of Stream Restoration,” a source list of references re the economic value of restored wetlands and creeks and their positive impact on the value of neighboring properties.
According to the Urban Creeks Council, the 200-foot culvert along the North Fork of Garrity Creek represents a perfect opportunity for restoration. With space available on both sides, this section could easily be daylighted to recreate a sustainable, dynamic, natural, Rosgen-B type channel. Cottonwood and willow pole cuttings could be harvested from on site to vegetate the daylighted channel.
4.3-4 The 6th paragraph states that “the proposed El Sobrante Subdivision project, having completed the application before the February 15, 2005 deadline, is effectively “grandfathered” in and not required to meet the new requirements.” This project should be required to meet the Regional Water Quality Control Board Clean Water Act requirements. Given the DEIR’s own admission (page 4.3-6) that “Garrity Creek watershed is a moderately large watershed for West County that drains to San Pablo Bay”, it is inconceivable that the Clean Water Act would be bypassed in planning the fate of the last large, unprotected watershed in our area.
4.3-8 The last paragraph states that, “the spring is thought to be [emphasis added] perennial (Martin 2005).” If Mr. Martin had checked the spring over the summer months or had talked to the neighbors or to the previous owners who raised cattle on the site, he would know that the spring is definitely year-round and feeds Garrity Lake behind the Hilltop Mall.
4.3-9 last paragraph and 4.3-10: “There is the potential to inadvertently affect the existing spring on the site area as a result of the spring’s proximity to the proposed structural wall that is proposed to form the western border of Garrity Creek Drive.” “The width of the construction zone needed for the installation of the roadway and associated wall could affect the area within the border zone designated as open space, including the spring.” The DEIR then goes on to conclude that “significant hydrologic impacts are not anticipated due to proposed construction techniques.”
Friends of Garrity Creek is not comforted by this reassurance. The property at the end of Marin Drive, including the spring, should be left as open space and should not have grading and homes built on the steep hillside. This is the property described as a 4 to 1 and 3 to 1 slope. Saying that hydrologic impacts on the spring are not anticipated is not specific enough. This also contradicts DEIR p. 4.6-34, which admits that detailed geotechnical data does not exist regarding the extent of disturbance to the wetland that will be caused by constructing roads and a retaining wall by the spring. This section also mentions dewatering of the spring, causing vegetation loss. The spring and wetlands are likely to end up with massive damage caused by the amount of soil to be disturbed.
Impact HYDROLOGY-1: “The proposed drainage design does not conform with some County regulations related to detention basin structures, creating the potential for capacity problems and flooding. (PS)”
The County should not allow drainage design that doesn’t conform to regulations. The residents of Hilltop Green and local residents will be very carefully monitoring any problems that arise as a result of this project. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors exposes itself to lawsuits if county supervisors permit a design which violates county regulations, if that project subsequently causes damage to the residents of Hilltop Green. The current project design should conform to ALL county regulations, as well as to the Clean Water Act.
4.4 Geology and Soils
We here include relevant
quotes from the Sunday Times article dated April 17, 1983 in the packet of news
articles appended to this document. “Studies conducted by the U.S. Geological
Survey show that much of the county, particularly the Western end, qualifies as
landslide-prone because of the condition of four important factors: the nature
of the underlying bed rock, the angle of slopes, rainfall and the existence of
ancient landslides are present”… “The USGS studies compiled in the 1970s also
show that landslides have occurred more often in hillside areas where building
has taken place.”… “Most of the hills in West County, including Pinole, El
Sobrante and San Pablo ridges, consist of rock formation know as the Contra
Costa Group. This formation is ‘quite unstable’ because it is relatively young
and not consolidated, said Charles Bishop, a geologist with the California
Division on Mines and Geology.” “ The Contra Costa formation contains clay and
other materials that absorb water during rain, swell and move downhill. It
loses its strength easily.” … “ ‘Much of El Cerrito, Richmond, El Sobrante and
San Pablo are underlain by relatively unstable material,’ states a Tri-Cities
Seismic Safety Study conducted in 1973 by the California Division of Mines and
Geology. Along with the generally unstable hills in West County, the steepness
of the slopes also contributes to the slide danger in the area. The USGS
studies found that most of the landslides studied at the time (many in West
County) were on slopes with a steeper- than-15 percent grade and in areas where
land slides happened in the past…. It gets progressively more difficult and
costly to mitigate the problems (and dangers) of building on hilly areas.”
It should be noted that homes on Pebble Drive, just 300 yards from the proposed subdivision, slid down the hill during a wet season.
Because
of the numerous slides and the number of homes damaged in the El Sobrante
Valley, the City of Richmond adopted a Hillside Ordinance in May of 1997. The
Hillside ordinance applies to all parcels or portions of parcels greater than
one acre in area, with slopes of 15 % or greater.
84 percent of the proposed subdivision has slopes exceeding 15 percent, as the DEIR itself admits. The fact that this part of El Sobrante is not part of Richmond does not mean we should not have the same protection for our homes and land as is afforded City of Richmond residents. The inappropriate R7 zoning of this steep 10-acre site should be changed to a safer zoning of fewer homes per acre, with project design that limits grading and damage to the sensitive wetlands and creek. The County should consider the current residents and the natural beauty of the last large open space parcel in this area. By changing the zoning to a level more appropriate to the steepness of this parcel, the County can reduce damage from the current recommended grading plan involving cut and fill of 49,000 cubic yards of dirt and can prevent future landslides.
4.5 Biological Resources
In reading through this section, it is our understanding that the applicant can get permission from the county to do grading, tree and vegetation removal, etc. at any time during the year. However, restrictions apply to sensitive times of year. We would like clarification as to what will be done about the overlaps on the timetable that follows:
Feb. 15-Aug. 15 Nesting season: focused preconstruction nesting surveys and protective fencing required in order to get grading, vegetation/tree removal permits.
Apr. 15-Sept. 30 (Overlaps nesting season) Summer construction season
June 1-Oct. 1 (Overlaps nesting season) Grading without restrictions; invasives eradication. Erosion controls to be in place by end of this time.
Aug. 15-Feb 15 Vegetation and tree removal, no restrictions. Mitigation plantings. No surveys required. Though trees with nonactive nests are specified, it is possible that all nests could be considered nonactive because this period of time is not nesting season. Please clarify.
4.5-2 The 4/19/02 survey for California Red-Legged Frog—currently listed as a Threatened Species under the federal Endangered Species Act, and as a “California Special Concern” species by the CA Dept. of Fish and Game—was not conducted, as is noted in the EIR, according to the formal Fish & Wildlife protocols. The EIR biologist (not a herpetologist) visited again on 4/7 and 4/27/05, but the DEIR does not mention whether or not the biologist followed USFWS protocols. In the mitigation measures on p. 2-11, a service-approved biologist (also not a herpetologist) is to conduct two nights of surveys 48 hours before any construction permits are issued. Will this biologist be utilizing the formal USFWS protocols?
The
herpetologist who conducted her brief one-day survey on 4/19/02 concluded: “There is no suitable breeding habitat for
California red-legged frog [sic] on the site, with the exception of a spring
and abandoned well located in the proposed open space [emphasis added].”
Translation: There IS suitable breeding habitat for the California Red-Legged
Frog on the site! The DEIR states that this threatened and beautiful species
inhabits “streams that typically support riparian vegetation.” The site in
question provides precisely this kind of habitat. “The closest known localities
for CRF are approximately 2.4 to 3.4 miles from the site along Castro Ranch
Road in El Sobrante.” This is extremely close! Friends of Garrity Creek
suspects that the rare and elusive CRF may have been overlooked by the
herpetologist in her brief one-time-only visit. Further, we strongly believe
that if the creek were preserved and daylighted, California Red-Legged Frogs
would indeed populate its waters.
4.5-14 Of the bird species listed, Red-Tailed Hawks nest on the site annually. Every winter, Great Horned Owls are heard calling nightly from trees on and adjacent to the site. Kestrels and Red-Shouldered Hawks are regularly seen foraging on the site. This development will result in a definitive loss of potential nesting locations as well as foraging habitat for these species and for all other birds.
4.5-16 A factual error in this part of the DEIR
highlights our concerns about lack of enforcement and oversight of the
developer. The DEIR states (4.6-6) that in January 2005, the developer
demolished and removed an abandoned shed which provided potential habitat for
an endangered bat species. Also included is the developer’s assertion that the
shed was removed because it was a fire hazard (p. 4.7-7). But there is no fire
danger during the rainy season.
In fact, the developer began
this work in the Summer of 2004, soon after the July 13 appeal hearing
when the County Board of Supervisors voted to require an EIR, and he completed
it more than a month before the November scoping session and January awarding
of the EIR contract. Friends of Garrity Creek reported this to the county in
our Nov. 22, 2004 letter. We were very concerned because it was our
understanding that the land was to remain undisturbed, in its natural state,
until the company hired by the county to do the EIR could independently verify
the descriptions, data, and assertions in reports provided by the developer’s
previously-hired consultants.
Immediately after the July appeal hearing, the developer installed fences at three access points (they have since been removed), including parts of the path next to the spring which are outside his lot line. Before the shed was demolished, workers removed various leaky containers from the area. The hazardous materials survey could have drawn samples from the actual containers in order to identify contents, but the developer made sure these were not available when Shaw Environmental, Inc. did its sampling of the area in March 2005.
These actions demonstrate a troubling pattern of attempts on the part of the developer to eliminate any evidence that could be crucially important to a truly objective and complete Environmental Impact Report. He removed containers of possibly hazardous materials. It is possible that the soil originally under the shed itself was removed and dumped into the landslide area, making accurate soil sampling more difficult. Did the soil sampling for hazardous materials include the area where he dumped unauthorized fill?
In addition to the actions listed above which would appear to show intent to bias the results of the EIR process and a pattern of destroying evidence, the developer falsified the dates the work was completed. Are there no consequences when a developer deliberately destroys possible habitat and other evidence so that the results of his consultant reports cannot be independently verified? We are concerned that the county ignored our November notification of the activities on this property. Is this the kind of inaction we can expect from the county in response to future complaints of violations of the conditions of approval by the applicant?
4.5-22 Please provide contact information for the enforcement agencies and a list of the consequences the developer will face if/when he violates the conditions of approval and/or the required mitigation measures, such as not replacing plantings per the plan, etc.
4.5-26 The pre-construction survey for California Red-Legged Frog is scheduled to take place two nights prior to commencement of construction. Presumably, the best time to find this species would be during breeding season. If construction begins in the dry season, will the survey be able to detect the species, to avoid inadvertent destruction of habitat?
4.5-28 Since the DEIR states that removal/replacement of willows is measured by acreage, how can we know that the developer has replaced the appropriate amount in comparison to what has been removed? Other trees are counted individually, which seems straightforward. If there is no standard for replacing a specific number of willows, the developer could plant far fewer willows on a larger acreage. How do you measure density other than in acreage, to mitigate loss of willows?
4.5-29 An excellent way to preserve grasslands for habitat diversification and keep intact the stands of native creeping rye would be to leave more open space, eliminating homes on lots 24-29 and leaving the steepest area as open space. There are compelling safety reasons for this as well, as we have noted earlier in this response.
4.5-32 The DEIR brings up an important point when it discourages use of off-road vehicles on the construction site due to the sensitive spring area. Why is the developer being allowed to conduct construction staging in this sensitive area? This will draw attention to a new “entrance” and create a visible pathway for potential off-road vehicle use. In addition, it seems extremely unwise to allow construction vehicles to move in and out of the site adjacent to the wetlands here. If we are taking so many steps to protect the wetland area, primary among them should be not allowing any use of the proposed EVA area for transporting of construction materials. It was our understanding that the developer was going to use the lots adjacent to Hilltop for construction staging, and that all delivery trucks, etc, were going to use the Royal Oaks entrance for transporting construction materials, fill, machinery, supplies, etc. We would like the conditions of approval to adhere to this original plan. Construction activity in the area of the spring should, in our view, be limited only to actual building of the homes on lots immediately adjacent to the wetland area.
4.5-34 We are very concerned that, as the DEIR acknowledges, no detailed geotechnical data exists regarding the extent of disturbance to the wetland caused by construction of roads and a retaining wall by the spring. This section mentions dewatering of the spring, causing vegetation loss. We view this as another compelling reason to eliminate the homes proposed for lots 24-29; leaving that as open space should make it easier to locate the road so that no dewatering will occur, eliminating possible additional vegetation loss. This allows for better protection of both the spring and wetland area.
4.5-40 We appreciate this more thorough accounting for the affected trees on the lot. What is the amount of the security deposit to be provided by the developer for tree replacement?
4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
See our above discussion (4.5-16) regarding the developer’s removal of relevant evidence from the area. His employees began removing gallon cans from the site on Tuesday, September 21, 2004. Did county staff ever survey the shed for possible asbestos or lead before he demolished and removed it? If not, this was extremely problematic; the closest neighbor to that spot is currently on oxygen for emphysema.
We are disturbed about the
retaining of Shaw Environmental, Inc. This firm was hired by the developer
prior to Sept. 29, 2004. The EIR contract was awarded in January 2005. Why
wouldn’t the entity performing the EIR want hazardous material sampling
performed by an independent company?
4.7 Aesthetics
No comment at this time.
4.8 Cultural Resources
We note that site surveys provided by the developer’s consultants did not, to our knowledge, include the entire streambed for the forks of Garrity Creek, and are at best partial surveys of the area.
4.9 Noise
4.9-8 Please explain what is meant by saying there is no phasing in the grading plan.
4.9-9 Please provide the specific hours intended by the description “daytime working hours.”
We reiterate our concerns about enforcement, given the Renfrew Court situation outlined above. We want this noted in relation to our concerns about noise.
4.10 Air Quality
We express our deep concern about substrate pollution and particulate matter generated by construction. Neighbors immediately adjacent to the development suffer from severe respiratory conditions including advanced asthma/allergies, emphysema, and related health problems.
4.10-4 There are intersections in this area that have demonstrated poor performance levels of service during school/commute times (see traffic section above). Thus the DEIR’s claim that increased traffic will not impact air quality is not based on accurate data. What model was used to arrive at the number of car trips this development will generate per day (less than 2,000)?
Regarding weather conditions, the greater Bay Area is well-known for its microclimates, of which El Sobrante is one of the sunnier and windier locations, compared to areas just south of San Pablo Dam Road. Typically, weather data provided by local media for our area is not specific to El Sobrante; rather, it comes from weather stations in three locations—San Francisco, Oakland, and Concord—where conditions are different from those that prevail here. How can accurate data which is relevant to our area—such as how frequently this site is exposed to winds greater than 25 miles per hour—be acquired?
How can neighbors access the monthly reports on air quality that the developer will be required to file with the county?
4.11 Agricultural Resources
No comment at this time.
4.12 Mineral Resources
No comment at this time.
4.13 Public Services
The estimate of 28 children from this development attending area schools seems very low. This discussion of potential impacts on schools/public services is inadequate, given our current problems with funding of schools, libraries and other public services. Will the developer pay fees to provide revenue which would mitigate public service impacts?
Note also our concerns about traffic enforcement and other police, fire and public safety issues mentioned in previous sections.
4.14 Recreation and Public Access
4.14-1 The DEIR seems to acknowledge
the intrinsic value of open space and the irretrievable loss that occurs when
open space is eliminated: “Preservation
of the natural beauty of the valley, which is threatened by increasing
population and commercial growth, is also an urgent need felt by El Sobrante
Valley residents. Residents desire to protect the natural landscape by
including it within their park and recreation system.” Using “calculations
based on the county standard of 3.0 acres of parkland per 1000 persons,"
and taking into account a 4.3 percent rate of population growth in the area,
the report admits that, by the end of 2000, the parkland deficit stood at over
40 acres.
By now—five years later—that deficit has of
course increased dramatically. And yet the DEIR disregards its own admission of
the acute need for parkland in its rush to support the subdivision. Quoting
(Section 4.14, Recreation and Public Access) a 2001 study which points to the
proximity of Hilltop Green Park, the report implies that preservation of
Garrity Creek would duplicate Hilltop Green Park and is therefore not
necessary. But Hilltop Green Park is a recreational facility only—soccer
field, basketball court, swimming pool, tot lot. It includes no open space
which is maintained in its natural state as a park, nor does it include a creek
or spring. Further, it is owned by the City of Richmond and is used by Hilltop
Green residents.
For over 45 years, the public had unrestricted access to the Garrity Creek site, until 2004 when the developer erected fencing (it has since been removed) on the property. School classes and scout troops would visit, and sometimes camp out on, the site (see attached email from Doris Davis re her remembered use of the site in the early 1960’s) for research and education purposes. Clay from the site was used for pottery making. A path running from Hilltop Green to Manor Road was used by school children to travel to and from the two schools in the Manor neighborhood.
This public access should continue. In view
of the rapid elimination of green open space in the El Sobrante area, Friends
of Garrity Creek advocates that the site be purchased and preserved in its
natural state as a public park. In this way not only would the creek and
accompanying hillsides and wooded area be preserved in their entirety, but
public access to the full 10 acres would be guaranteed in perpetuity, as
opposed to the developer’s present vague offer of possible access to a
small fraction of the site which would be preserved as open space.
The site has provided critical wildlife habitat for a rich diversity of plants and animals, including many native species. Removing 54 trees and making cuts of 22,000 cubic yards and fill of 27,000 acres of fill will have a very destructive impact on the environment.
For the applicant to propose that all open space in this development be owned privately as part of the adjacent residential lots is unacceptable. Public access to the open space should not be problematic; liability issues could be addressed in some way through the Geologic Hazard Abatement District.
If, as we have suggested, the redesigned alternative were to incorporate open space instead of homes on lots 24-29 (see 5.6 below), both EVA and public walkways could be located so as to avoid impinging on the spring and wetland areas, while still providing everyone with enjoyment of the area.
4.15 Utilities, Service Systems and Energy
It is commendable that the developer is incorporating solar energy and related items into the project design.
4.16 Population and Housing
We have discussed population issues throughout this document,
particularly in our response to the Cluster Development, Alternative 4 below.
5.0 Alternatives
5.1 Summary of Alternatives
The alternatives listed here do
not match the alternatives in the Scope of Services Contract nor do they match
the alternatives discussed with the community. See page 1 of these comments for
detail.
Alternative 1, No Project, would retain the water courses in their current state and allow creek groups to clean up the creek and seek ways to daylight culverted portions of the creek. Grants are available to enable groups like ours to perform the task of protecting the wetlands and creeks for generations.
Alternative 1 provides for ongoing optimum wildlife habitat on the 10 acres. It would provide the community with an opportunity to establish a district which would purchase and maintain the land, preserving it for present and future generations. Schools would continue to utilize the area for class studies in biology and geology. The creek and wetlands would be protected, including many native species and including 54 trees which are currently slated for destruction.
Alternative 1 would eliminate the grading and landfill which we predict would cause extensive damage to current and future residents’ homes, as has occurred in other parts of West County.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are basically the same proposals; their drawbacks are extensively detailed in the body of this letter.
Alternative 3: We appreciate the efforts that have been made
in the Redesigned Alternative to provide for HOA maintenance and oversight of
flood control features and the open space, as well as public access. HOA
ownership of these sensitive, critical features is an improvement over private
ownership by individual homeowners.
We want to call attention to one particularly glaring problem with the
Redesigned Alternative. It moves the lots and inserts a 10-foot-wide pedestrian
easement which the developer told the public he would eliminate from his plan.
Figure 3-4, the tentative subdivision map, shows the backyard of lot 14
completely blocking the driveways in question and is a superior design. The
reason the developer designed 3-4 to remove access is due to serious public
safety and liability concerns. This ‘easement’ is, in fact, a shared driveway
between two homes on Marin Road. It is very steep, and residents back out of
their garages into the shared driveway. There is no line of sight down the
steep bank, and the developer was made aware of the fact that this could result
in accidents if it were used as a pedestrian walkway with young children using
it to get to school. The Redesigned Alternative should be revised to conform to
the developer’s wise exclusion of this feature so that this public safety
hazard is corrected, with lot 15 blocking the driveway and fencing for new
units preventing access to this driveway.
Alternative 4, a proposed cluster development in a semi-rural community, offers an example of the county’s disregard of concerns brought by the public to the attention of the Community Development Department during the Negative Declaration hearing and the Board of Supervisors’ appeal hearing. Supervisor Gioia and many residents in attendance expressed their views on 40 homes being too high a density for the project.
Because so many more inhabitants would be on the property, this alternative would inflict a maximum amount of damage to the sensitive wetlands habitat and the creek. 42-61 units would greatly increase the human population of the proposed development, impacting wildlife and bird life with exponentially more human activity. It is easy to see why this alternative is environmentally the least desirable, even though its design is intended to safeguard wetland areas and to provide open space on the hillside below Marin Road.
This alternative lacks any detailed studies or supporting documentation. One has to wonder why it was included in place of the Reduced Scale Alternative called for in the Scope of Services Contract. We have a copy of the contract and we have received no word that it was altered. We are very much opposed to a cluster development in our semi-rural area. The county, without any discussion with the community, has placed this alternative for cluster homes in the DEIR, in place of the agreed-upon alternative calling for a reduced number of homes.
5-2, Table 5-1. Where is the detailed documentation to support the conclusions listed in this table summary for each item, in each alternative?
5-3, Table 5-2 Relationship of Alternatives to Project Objectives: The project objectives are so narrow that no alternative other than the developer’s proposal meets the number one objective of 40 homes. The CEQA desk reference book states that the EIR process should list a description of the project, but it does not intend for a set number of homes to be the project description. This DEIR is designed in such a way that only the developer’s number 1 project objective of 40 homes can meet the requirements of this DEIR. This is not in the spirit of the EIR process; we believe it to be susceptible to overturn by a court review. The intent of the CEQA process is to review the scope with the community for input. The County in good faith should follow the alternatives listed in the Scope Of Services Contract.
5-2 through 5-5 Alternatives. It is obvious that almost all of the work on the DEIR was devoted to making the developer’s proposed 40-home project fit county regulations when possible, and calling for variances when something stood in the way or didn’t fit, regardless of consequences to the environment. For the DEIR to completely bypass the Scope of Services Contract reduced-number-of-homes alternative does not show good faith in the community. The body of this letter contains our statements in relation to each of these alternatives.
5.6 Environmentally Superior
Alternative
We would like to request that another alternative be evaluated, an
alternative which would incorporate the best aspects of Alternatives 1-4, providing a win/win
scenario and achieving, as CEQA requires, “most of the basic objectives of the
project” while preserving ecologically sensitive areas and leaving geologically
unstable areas in their natural state. This alternative, which we will call Alternative
5, will meet the Scope of Services Contract description of a Reduced
Scale Alternative.
Alternative 5 would incorporate the best of the Redesigned
Alternative (#3) with more open space, including lots 24-29, which is the
feature of #4 intended to make it more ecologically sensitive than alternatives
2 and 3. With this combination of positive features, the developer would have
reasonable use of his property; geological hazards would be minimized; and the
‘joint driveway’ near the spring could be eliminated or redesigned as an
extension of the EVA and routed to minimize impacts on the wetland areas.
Reducing the number of units would be far more appropriate under the
circumstances, given the fact that 84% of the land has slopes greater than 15%.
Furthermore, fewer units would decrease related impacts on the community and
public services in all areas. Alternative #5 would not have a pedestrian
easement onto Marin Road but would leave lot 14 and fencing blocking this
potential safety hazard, per the discussion above.
The most environmentally superior alternative is #1, the No Project Alternative; the next-best alternative, in terms of environmental impact, is the Reduced Home Alternative, Alternative #5, which was left out of the DEIR. The Reduced Home Alternative would leave the steep part below Marin Road as open space, protect the spring and riparian area, and offer the most protection for the creek. It would also offer more wildlife habitat than any alternative presented, other than the No Project Alternative.
6. CEQA Considerations
745 Renfrew Road
El Sobrante, Calif. 94803
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 15-97, Hillside Ordinance for the City of Richmond
“The Year the Hills Slid,” Sunday Times article
Letter from Friends of Garrity Creek re left turn lane on Hilltop Drive
Compilation of News Articles on Landslides in El Sobrante
“Where Rivers Are Born: The Scientific Imperative for Defending Small Streams and Wetlands”
California Regional Water Quality Control Board document, San Francisco Bay Region
“Economic Benefits of Stream Restoration”
E-mail from Doris Davis to Attorney Michael Graf: testimony re public use of creek in early 1960’s
“Quantifying Our Quality of Life: An Economic Analysis of the East Bay's Unique Environment", a publication of East Bay Regional Park District
106 Letters from residents of El Sobrante Valley area
Video, “Garrity Creek”
cc: John Gioia, Supervisor, District 1
Loni Hancock, Representative, 14th District
Ruby Monilari, Chair, El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council
Eleanor Loynd, El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee
Shirley Petty, President, Hilltop Green Homeowners Association
Emma B.L. Gutzler, Restoration Coordinator, Urban Creeks Council
Elizabeth O’Shea, Spawners
Sierra Club
El Sobrante Greens