Friends of Garrity Creek
Hilltop Neighborhood Association
September 26, 2003
Community Development Department
Attention: Mr. Darwin Myers
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez CA 94553-0095
Dear Mr. Myers,
Thank you for sending the revised project SD 01-8533 plan received September 16, 2003 by the Hilltop Neighborhood Association and Friends of Garrity Creek for our comments. It is our understanding you need to receive our comments by September 29.
We respectfully submit the following comments on the revised plan.
We are very concerned about the lack of open space in the El Sobrante Valley and the complete lack of park space for El Sobrante residents in the Hilltop Neighborhood area of El Sobrante.
1) Only one small space in Richmond�s Hilltop Green has been set aside as a park. That area is used exclusively by the Richmond residents of Hilltop Green. El Sobrante residents in our area do not have access to a park.
The land included in SD 01-8533 has the last vacant land in our area. If developed according to the current plan, it includes a parcel that would violate the County�s Open Space Ordinance 814-212. In reviewing the developer's geological report by AMSO Consulting Engineers April 2000, parcel 3 has slopes of 3 to 1 and 4 to 1. County Ordinance 814-212, Open Area, states: "a parcel of land with a slope of 26 percent or more shall remain in its natural state as an undeveloped open area with no grading, tree or foliage removal, or structure or other development thereon." We request that the county have the applicant revise the plan, removing the homes from parcel 3 as described in the AMSO report, so that the project will comply with the Open Area Ordinance.
There are precedents that support strong adherence to Open Space ordinances in similar situations. In the El Sobrante Valley, the Clark Road project developer is seeking to develop hillside land in violation of a Richmond city ordinance on hillsides. The Richmond City attorney has ruled that the open space hillside ordinance takes precedence over the developers right to develop his property.
This argument is reinforced in a 22-page letter from attorney Tanya A. Gulesserian of Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Caddozo Attorneys at Law. This letter quotes cases that have ruled against the developer on the same issues, i.e., Travis v. County of Santa Cruz (2002) 100 Cal. App. 4th 609, Citing Devita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 773 The General Plan Contemplates Sustainable Development, Protection of Public Safety and Preservation of Natural Resources. The letter states that avoidance of aquatic, wetland and riparian areas is the preferred method of �mitigation�. The attorney went on to say that the developer does not have the right to develop his entire site in violation of the Open Space General Plan Ordinance. Other cases are also listed. We can give you a copy of the entire letter if you so desire.
We believe the County should support the residents of El Sobrante in adhering to responsible hillside use, thus protecting quality of life and supporting the principled stand taken by the City of Richmond in enforcing its hillside ordinance. The developer is here today, gone tomorrow, frequently after destroying all the natural resources on the site.
We also bring your attention to the project off Renfrew Court by the same developer seeking approval for SD 01 8533. In this current work, his workers have scraped away every blade of grass and removed every tree on that property. He eliminated a beautiful 2.8-acre animal corridor. Why wasn�t mitigation required of him for this loss of trees and natural habitat? It is our suggestion that he could be required to leave more open space in his second project SD 01 8533 to mitigate the negative effects of the development off Renfrew Court. The remaining wildlife come up from San Pablo Creek through the cemetery to the grasses and water in SD 01 8533 where the deer and other animals bed down. A large buck was seen on September 3, 2003, crossing towards Garrity Creek; use of this wildlife corridor is frequently observed by neighborhood residents.
Barbara A. Pendergrass and Darwin Myers had a phone conversation on 09-15-03 in which he mentioned mitigation. Mitigation should not be used to deprive the El Sobrante Valley residents of this natural park-like setting, particularly if the developer has not provided mitigation for eliminating open space in the Renfrew area development. This area houses an important and beautiful creek, Garrity Creek, which runs through the site, through Hilltop Green, under Highway 80, past Hilltop Plaza, where extensive arrangements have been made to preserve it in a semi-natural state, and on to feed Hilltop Lake, and from the lake through Tara Hills, and finally running into San Pablo Bay. We have nineteenth century maps showing the various forks of Garrity Creek.
Garrity Creek is fed by two natural springs and has two branches on the site, with one misrepresented on the current project plan as a drainage ditch. This natural animal corridor provides supporting habitat for large game and other wildlife. The Friends of Garrity Creek have a grant for public watershed education, and we expect to receive a second grant for watershed cleanup and maintenance soon.
We are very concerned about slope issues in the current plans.
2) We question the validity of the General Plan rating these parcels as R-7 when all of the parcels contain steep slopes, and more than 80 percent of the site has slopes steeper than 15 percent. In referring to the county-prepared color slope map of the site, we see only very small, isolated portions of the site having less than 15 percent slopes; some portions have slopes as steep as 33 percent. We believe the R-7 density rating should be revised to take into consideration these steep slopes and other important features of the property: creek, wetlands and wildlife.
County Planner Bob Drake's letter of 5/17/01 documents an exhibit by the applicant which "indicates that over 80 percent of the site has a slope of more than 15 percent; and 15 percent of the site has a slope exceeding 26 percent." The AMSO report describes parcels 1 and 2 as having 5 to 1 slopes. The density table for R-7 in County Ordinance 814-2-612 mandates that parcels with a slope of 5 to 1 have no more than 2.9 houses per acre. We respectfully request that the number of homes in this project be reduced so the plan fully complies with the County Slope Density Ordinance.
In their Sept. 15 conversation, Barbara Pendergrass and Darwin Myers discussed this ordinance. Darwin stated that it only applied to a part of Orinda before it incorporated, and that the ordinance no longer applies in Contra Costa County. We wonder why the County would pass an ordinance intended to protect only the hillside slope density in one small part of Orinda and not the rest of the County.
Another of our major concerns is the lack so far of a detailed Environmental Impact Report (EIR). We feel such a report is necessary for the following reasons:
3) to assess accurately the possible future impacts the project will have on Garrity Creek as a watershed and wildlife corridor -- on the wildlife and birds as well as the vegetation that supports them. A biological survey should be done which observes standard protocols for the detection of sensitive species. Because of the time selected to gather the data, we question whether the on-site wildlife and plant life were properly charted and reviewed in the developer's reports. We also note that the developer's biological report only surveyed three of the five parcels of land included in this proposed project. We ask that the county hire a wildlife expert to review and evaluate the plans for fencing off the creek area to ensure that wildlife will still be able to use this last, critical corridor.
4) the negative affects of developing Lot 29 on the spring feeding Garrity Creek. We recommend the removal of any development or structure planned for lot 29. This lot should remain undeveloped and in its natural state. We also recommend that the Homeowners Association have full responsibility for maintaining lot 29, the wetland areas, planted mitigation areas, and grassy swales required in the plan so that there will be accountability for continued appropriate maintenance of these areas regulated by county and state laws.
5) to accurately assess impacts of increased impervious surfaces within the project on drainage during the rainy season, and the associated impacts and increase to flooding problems in neighboring Hilltop Green. The City of Richmond has requested an EIR because of the potential of increased damage to the already delicate drainage system carrying water from Garrity Creek, under Hilltop Green, and into Garrity Lake.
6) As this revised plan includes building three tiered walls to support a new road connecting to Marin Road on the northwestern, steepest and most slide-prone portion of the project, a thorough assessment of this potentially hazardous element of the plan is extremely important. The environmental impact report should address geology and seismicity of the area, in particular the large landslide on the northwestern portion of the site, so that the best technology is used to address the unstable soils in the area before approval of building new roads is granted. Approval of development in areas subject to slope failures should be contingent on thorough geologic and engineering studies that define and delineate potentially hazardous conditions and recommend adequate mitigation.
The EIR should also evaluate how much damage could be caused by the construction activity above the wetland area. Building three tiered walls, a road and homes on the steep hillside will require a great deal of fill, work with heavy equipment, etc., increasing the possibility of polluting the creek and/or destabilizing the hillside during construction. The report should address concern about damage to the creek, the spring, and surrounding wetland area during construction of that area, and recommend building methods that can minimize or prevent such problems.
Building retaining walls, a road and homes over one area at the end of Marin Road designated on initial plans as a wetland mitigation site is a completely inappropriate use. It should remain undeveloped and left as open space (see #1). The new plan is not detailed regarding wetland mitigation and does not show a satisfactory replacement of the riparian areas and trees labeled for removal.
7) We are extremely concerned that the geological report's borings never located bedrock. The developer's current plan elements assume bedrock is below the area of the borings. We sincerely hope that the county will not accept this lack of complete data and inadequate methodology as the foundation for plans to build six homes and a road in a dangerously slide-prone area. AMSO Engineering also reported no ground water. We question these results, since homes on Loma Linda and Manor have wells that are fairly shallow and produce water year-round.
Liquefaction of soils is a common occurrence in this area, as evidenced in the slides above Rancho Liquor store, and on Pebble Drive, La Cima and La Colina. The project area's soil composition is identical to the soils in those massive slide areas. The project's immediate neighbor, Hilltop Green, is having slide problems; their geotechnical report data indicates that the site lies at or near an area associated with shallow, intermediate and deep landsliding, soil erosion and creep. Aspen Court homes (in the same canyon as SD 01 8533) have foundation and drainage problems. The adjacent Highway 80 landslide was a substantial number of feet deeper than geologists estimated, and the repair costs ended up being double original cost projections.
A West County Times article entitled "Sliding homes�" by Mary F. Pols (2/21/98, p. A1) cited the 1998 cost of repairing a slide-damaged home being "up to $200,000", a price tag likely to increase exponentially over time. If the county approves existing plans without 1) proof of the location of bedrock and 2) incorporating appropriate engineering for the actual conditions, the county risks legal liability for any homes in or surrounding the proposed development that are damaged by future landslides.
8) The EIR should be completed by a firm other than LSA Associates, Inc. LSA's EIR on the Clark Road project contains some inaccurate and misleading data. For example, it failed to note that the cypress tree on the site is the largest and oldest cypress tree in the United States. LSA failed to identify half of the springs and ponds on the site.
LSA performed the biological report on SD 01 8533, only surveying three of the five parcels of land included in this proposed project. Based on their past track record, we are concerned that they may have failed to identify all of the native rare plants and wildlife in the area.
Recent archaeological information calls for reevaluation of this site prior to construction.
9) Thank you for providing us with a copy of the archaeological study on this site. This April 2001 archaeological report covered 4 of the site's 5 land parcels, excluding the 2.08 acres of parcel 426-192-008. The Huchiun band of Ohlone Indians used the area comprising SD 01 8533 many years ago. Artifacts found on the site in August 2003 are now being studied by an archaeologist of Sonoma College. Michael Ali, who found the artifacts, is preparing a report that will be available on our webpage soon at http://www.geocities.com/hilltopcreek .
John Holson, staff archaeologist, reported that although letters of interest requesting input regarding this project were sent out to a variety of individuals and organizations, he received no replies. In light of the recent finds mentioned above, we request that those individuals and organizations be contacted again and informed about the artifacts so that they can respond prior to approval of the project.
We are concerned that this current plan violates the creek setback ruling currently in force. We request that county staff require this development to comply with the current ruling.
10) The biological report quotes a 12-year-old creek setback ruling of 50 feet, which is incorporated into all of the plans for this development. Approval of the plans should be contingent upon fully complying with 2003 Fish and Game regulations for setback from creeks.
We have a variety of concerns about commuter traffic flow, the junior high and elementary schools and related transportation issues.
11) The community requests that the County conduct an El Sobrante Area Traffic Study that thoroughly addresses current bottlenecks and lack of infrastructure adequate to handle the existing traffic during commute and school start and end times in the neighborhood that will be affected by this proposed development. What will the county require of the developer in order to minimize gridlock if his plans are approved?
12) Since Marin Drive was never considered in any of the original traffic studies as a potential entrance/exit, any existing data provided by the developer regarding traffic impacts is no longer valid in the context of this revised plan. The newly commissioned traffic study needs to look carefully at any and all possible impacts this proposed change will have on gridlock, public safety, and the degradation of the existing county-maintained Marin Road and its neighboring streets.
13) The traffic study and traffic counts should be done at all intersections between I-80 and Hilltop east, and then in the neighborhoods surrounding Juan Crespi Middle School and El Sobrante Elementary, continuing to Appian Way and I-80. The study and traffic counts should include feeder streets/connector roads such as Manor Rd., Rancho Rd., Pebble Dr., La Paloma Dr., Allview Ave., etc.
14) The traffic counts should be done at commute times and during the times that parents are driving children to/from local schools -- 8:30 - 9:15 pm and 2 - 3 pm.
15) This traffic study should include a list of all roads in the area surrounding SD
01-8533 that are substandard, including information on what a standard road is including road width, sidewalk width, etc. Will the homeowners association for this new development be required to maintain their roads to appropriate county standards? Likewise, culs-de-sac should be listed with the number of homes in each cul-de-sac included. Private roads should also be listed.
16) Traffic safety issues should be carefully reviewed in this area, and associated impacts on pedestrian and driving traffic should be assessed carefully before any approval of the development is considered. Approving a 40-home development in an area where traffic is already at a standstill during heavily traveled times seems foolhardy without any addition of infrastructure that can mitigate such a significant impact.
17) The narrowness of Marin Road is a universal concern for us. As a dead end road, it works okay, although its narrowness at the intersection with Hilltop creates dangerous situations, allowing only one car through at a time if anyone is parked on the road. It is particularly inadequate to handle the heavy increase of traffic that this development would cause. The possible destabilization of homes already existing on Marin that could be caused by building a road and homes on the existing landslide is also of great concern to those of us who live on Marin.
We have grave concerns about the possible quality of retaining wall construction, given the current developer's record at his project off Renfrew Court. During winter rains, his completed retaining wall slid, spilling debris into the neighboring Bethel School parking lot. In our March 25, 2002 letter we informed you of his project on Stanley Lane where the roads he constructed near a creek have numerous dangerous cracks and the pillars intended as fortification are leaning precariously. Given the failure of his engineering and construction methods to fortify the simple area off Renfrew against sliding, we have no confidence that such a complex situation as the one at the end of Marin Road will be handled with the necessary skill to prevent problems.
18) In our September 22 meeting, Darwin Myers said county staff stated there would be minimal traffic impact on Marin Road from the proposed new road connection to SD 01 8533. Therefore the only improvements to Marin Road on the current plan are at the western end where the new road would connect. On this same plan, about 17 homes are closest to and would probably use the Marin Road connection in and out of the development -- 34 cars making 5 trips per day, according to Dept. of Transportation standard planning estimates. At 170 trips per day, this would severely impact a badly maintained, inadequate road which terminates at Hilltop in narrow bottleneck. Existing traffic on Marin manages, but doubling the use of this road would be extremely problematic on this street, where only one car can pass through if anyone is parked in the area 3 houses prior to the stop sign.
With regard to local schools, we have previously written you about the negative impact this development could have on overcrowded and underfunded local schools. This is of even greater concern now than it was last year due to large layoffs of local teachers, decreases in funding for schools due to state budget problems, etc. More than a year ago, the Richmond Unified School District consultants' report showed local schools in terrible condition and lacking room for all of the developments currently planned for this area. We suggest that the impact of the multiple local development plans on Juan Crespi Junior High and El Sobrante Elementary schools should be thoroughly evaluated before granting approval to 40 additional homes.
We have the following additional concerns:
19) The culvert proposed for the mouth of the project poses flooding danger, likely damage to the creek banks, and the possibility that such a culvert would cover the CDFG- regulated Creek Channel. Filling Garrity Creek to create Royal Oaks Drive is highly objectionable and will be destructive to the quality of the creek and the flora and fauna it supports. Removing all vegetation from the ground of the project is a destructive change and will increase erosion.
20) Replacing 6,155 sq. feet of willow trees with impervious surfaces will result in further erosion to the quality of the creek, and bring pollutants and flood water to Hilltop Green, Hilltop Lake, and on to the Bay, as well as increasing soil instability.
21) We note that the heavy construction equipment has damaged roads adjacent to the developer's project off Renfrew Court. We are unaware of any mitigation for this, and would like to ensure that the developer be required to repair any damage done to Marin or adjacent roads due to employing heavy equipment.
22) Neighbors are concerned about the noise, dust, and dirt stirred up as this project begins construction. They request no weekend work, no work after 6 pm on weekdays, and no warming engines before 7 am. In some new subdivisions, builders set up an account with a house cleaning company to remove construction dust from inside neighboring homes during the construction. This mitigation effort would be very helpful to neighboring residents.
23) The biological report does not offer any mechanism to assure compliance with mitigation requirements. In order to prevent any failure to comply with commitments, we request a detailed plan and substantial penalties to ensure that all mitigation issues are addressed.
24) The developer should be required to post a bond for 10-12 years to cover any problems (drainage, landslides, etc.) that arise from building this development on previously undisturbed land.
25) We recommend that $5,000 from the sale of each parcel goes into the Homeowners� Association maintenance account to ensure proper maintenance. Thereafter, once all parcels are sold, the Homeowners� Association will determine annual assessments to properly maintain all public areas that were a condition of the subdivision.
We appreciate the revision removing the pedestrian easement access from the end of Garrity Creek View (between lots 426-182-016 and 426-182-011 on Marin Road). We respectfully request that the county require the applicant to formalize this change by legally vacating the easement.
We appreciate the inclusion of sidewalks and revision of home plans to more nearly conform to the natural slope of the land. We hope that adequate retaining walls will be included in the final plan to safeguard against future landslides for proposed home sites with moderate to steep slopes.
In summary, we feel that the density of this revised plan is inappropriate for many reasons. Infrastructure of roads and schools are inadequate to handle 40 more homes in this small area. The instability of the soils, existing landslides, and steep slopes of these parcels have led to this area being previously seen as undesirable to develop, given the risks. This could be why it sold for dramatically less on the market than other parcels of similar size sold concurrently.
It is our hope that the county will decrease the density of this project to an appropriate level. A cul-de-sac containing 16 homes would:
1) eliminate building a road and multiple homes on an ecologically sensitive area with known landslides, thereby avoiding slide dangers to neighborhood residents as well as pollution and disturbance of the wetlands;
2) be in keeping with the cul-de-sac ordinance;
3) allow a stable, quality design that excludes the steeper, slide-prone areas, thereby minimizing the county's future legal liability and creating a safer development;
4) leave open those areas of the parcels which are too steep to have any kind of disturbance, as mentioned in the county open space ordinance;
5) leave sufficient open space to create a much-needed park for El Sobrante residents; and
6) provide a level of increased habitation that is supportable with existing infrastructure, producing much less impact on neighboring schools and traffic patterns.
It is our hope that the county will encourage high quality, responsible development of our few remaining open areas that will be supportable by the existing neighborhood infrastructure. Thank you for your attention, assistance, and diligence in these matters.
Sincerely,
Barbara A. Pendergrass
Jesse Golden
Hilltop Neighborhood Association & Friends of Garrity Creek
CC: John Gioia, County Supervisor
Terrance Cheung, District One Coordinator
Shirley Petty, Hilltop Green Homeowners Association
Len Battaglia, chair, El Sobrante Valley Zoning Advisory Committee
Eleanor Lloynd, El Sobrante Valley Zoning Advisory Committee
El Sobrante Chamber of Commerce
California Regional Water Quality Board
El Sobrante Mac Committee
Mayor Anderson and Richmond City Council
Lisa Veani, Urban Creek Council
State Assemblywoman Lonnie Hancock , member state environmental committee