Contra Costa County Community Development Department
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Attention: Darwin Myers, Project Planner
RE: Garrity Creek Project SD 01 8533
Dear Mr. Myers:
We want to thank you for sending our organization, The Friends of Garrity Creek/ Hilltop Neighborhood Association, a copy of the letter from Michael K. Wood Biological Consulting and a revised set of plans for the project SD 01 8533. We also thank you for providing us with an opportunity for additional input on this project.
The comments below should be understood as additions to the concerns we have raised previously, and stem from our study of the revised plans. We request that your study address each and every concern raised below, as well as those raised in our letter of March 25, 2002.
Compliance with Applicable Ordinances
This project appears to violate at least four County Ordinances regulating
slopes/density, sidewalks, and private roads.
1. This project consists of multiple parcels with steep slopes. The
slopes for these parcels range from 20 percent to 33 percent slopes (see
attached page from Geological report for each parcel). The slopes
are 5 to 1, 4 to 1, and 3 to 1. Within County Ordinance 814-2-612
(see attached copy), the density table for R7 requires a lower density
of homes per acre than is indicated on the plans. The ordinance mandates
2.9 houses per net acre for 20 percent slope, 1.6 houses per acre for 25
percent and .7 houses per acre for 33 percent. The project should have
less residential units per net acre than what is shown.
2. County Ordinance 96-8402 regarding locations of sidewalks (see attached
copy) mandates the inclusion of sidewalks in subdivisions located within
1 mile of a school. This subdivision is .4 miles from the corner of the
El Sobrante Elementary School. The plans show no sidewalks. In addition,
Mr. Afshar's other project, 8458, which has been approved but not yet built,
is .6 miles from the school. Both of these projects are required to include
sidewalks based on this ordinance.
3. County Ordinance 92-4.074 Private Road (see attached copy) clearly
states that private roads are allowed for a lot or a parcel, but does not
mention subdivisions. Based on our reading of this ordinance, a "Private
Road" was never intended to service 41 homes. Therefore, the road servicing
the subdivision should be a standard County Road.
In addition, the County Ordinance mentions Public Roads and Minor Roads
of not more than 24 residential homes. It is apparent that a road to a
larger subdivision should be a Public Road, meeting County standards, and
maintained by the County. While we appreciate the budgetary issues faced
by the county, the County should not short-change El Sobrante residents
by transferring the County responsibility for public roads to private homeowners
moving into a subdivision, and in all probability, not fully aware of the
liabilities for maintenance they are assuming.
It is not fair to our Valley to create a further hodge-podge of subdivisions
with non-standard roads, likely to be poorly maintained, and no sidewalks,
and it is in violation of the County’s own ordinances.
4. County Ordinance 92-4018 limits the length of a "Cul-De-Sac" or dead-end street to 700 feet (see attached copy of Ordinance). This restriction exists for a very good reason; to protect the lives of residents. The Ordinance does not say private roads are exempt from this provision or that County Roads are exempt. No exception should be made to this restriction for this or any other development, for the safety of all residents of the El Sobrante Valley.
Environmental concerns
We are deeply concerned that environmental effects of changes to this
property be thoroughly studied, and call for a thorough Environmental Impact
Report to be conducted by the County. This area houses an important
and beautiful creek, Garrity Creek, which runs through this area, 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 out to the Bay. The developer has called this creek a “ditch”
in his plans, and if the County accepts this misrepresentation, it is likely
that the area will not be treated with the care that it deserves.
Specifically, some of the environmental issues raised by the revised
plans and the biological report commissioned by the developer include:
5. Mr. Wood’s biological report states that as a result of this subdivision
only “minor changes” will take place to the environment. In fact,
scraping all vegetation from the surface of the area to do the grading
that is planned is a major and destructive change.
6. The report says that “only” 5.36 cubic feet of fill is proposed
in the “unnamed tributary,” i.e. Garrity Creek. We call your attention
to the attached copy of a page from the LSA report previously commissioned
by the developer, which states that Riparian Woodland grows along both
branches of Garrity Creek that flows at the edges of the project site.
We object to the labeling of Garrity Creek in these deceptive terms, and
ask that the Creek be accorded all protections mandated by the Clean Water
Act and other related statutes. In particular, filling this creek
is highly objectionable and will be destructive to the quality of the creek
and the flora and fauna it supports.
7. This proposal calls for the removal of 6,155 sq feet of willow trees.
These trees support wildlife and protect the quality of the Creek, acting
as a natural filtering system to water flowing into the Creek. The plan
calls for the creation of impervious surfaces in place of this natural
filtering system, which will result in harmful chemicals going to the proposed
grassy swales. These swales are not designed to handle heavy rain
runoff, resulting in further erosion to the quality of the creek, and bringing
pollutants and flood water to Hilltop Green, Hilltop Lake, and on to the
Bay. We are also concerned about increasing soil instability by removal
of root systems that retain the soil.
8. The report states that only seven small Oak trees and three Cottonwood
trees will be removed. However, the plans do not conform to this description,
as they show five pine trees being removed, as well as wild plum, wild
gum, and black willow clusters. Since this is not acknowledged in
the Wood report, is the report incomplete, and does it need revision?
9. The developer is required to mitigate any changes to the riparian
areas. While the plan as submitted shows some mitigation, it does
not show a satisfactory replacement of the riparian areas and trees labeled
for removal. We ask that the mitigation provided be more clearly identified
and labeled, and that the ratio of mitigation for riparian vegetation be
at least that required by DFG, mentioned by the previous LSA report as
a 3 to 1 ratio.
10. Mr. Wood’s report, unlike the previous LSA report, does not offer
any mechanism to assure compliance with mitigation requirements.
We believe that a detailed plan, including the requirement of a significant
bond assuring compliance for a minimum of 10 years as specified in the
previous biological report, must be provided. Without such
a commitment, we may see a repeat of problems resulting from other poorly
executed developments in our area. As an example, currently on Greenridge
Drive, off San Pablo Dam Road, a pond that was 3 inches deep during the
winter is now a 3-foot deep pond all year round as a result of improper
grading, and is a dumping ground for trash. That developer didn't replace
the trees as specified by the plan submitted. This project, SD 01 8533,
includes steep retaining walls and stripping of the surface vegetation.
Without proper design and mitigation, this project will alter the water
flow drastically. In order to prevent any failure to comply with
commitments, we must insist a detailed plan and substantial penalties to
ensure that all mitigation issues are addressed.
11. Wood states that the only wildlife issue of concern is the presence
of a nesting pair of red-tailed hawks. Paragraph 5 on page 2 of the
Wood letter states that the site is not a likely habitat for red legged
frogs, an endangered species, and goes on to quote a verbal conversation
with Nicole Kozichi, the regional Fish and Game representative. We would
like to see Ms. Kozichi’s comments in writing, to avoid any possible misunderstanding.
In addition, a biological survey should be done which observes standard
protocol for the detection of this and other sensitive species.
12. The previous LSA biology report mentions many more forms of flora
and fauna, which are unaccountably ignored by the Wood report. We
are concerned that the Wood report is much less thorough than the previous
LSA Associates report, which states, “The Hillview site is located within
the general geographic range of known sensitive plant communities and habitats
and special-status plants and wildlife species” (1). The report goes
on to talk about the riparian woodland and Garrity Creek and states “wildlife
present on the Hillview project site are those species adapted to riparian
areas and grassland. Reptiles, birds, and mammals were observed or
evidence of their presence (i.e. droppings, burrows, tracks) were observed
on and in the vicinity of the project site” (6). The report
explains that the “Riparian woodland supports a diverse wildlife fauna.
Species that inhabit the riparian woodland are Pacific Chorus frog (Hyla
regilla), Western toad (Bufo boreas), arboreal salamander (Aeniedes legubris),
and garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.) that feed on them. Birds of this
riparian area would include Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), western
scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis),
spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), and song sparrow ((Melospiza melodia).
Wildlife, such as black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus),
raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and opossum
(Didelphis virginiana) seek shelter in the riparian woodland” (7).
Further, the LSA report mentions that
“Grassland communities are important for providing foraging habitat for
many of the species that occur in the riparian areas. The grasslands
on the site could provide important foraging habitat for deer and other
mammals and nesting and/or foraging habitat for various species of birds.
Western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis), northern alligator lizard
(Gerrhonotus coeruleus), gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), and racer
(Coluber constrictor) are expected to occur in grassland areas. The
lizards forage for insects and other invertebrates while the snakes forage
for lizards, birds, and mammals” (7).
“Birds of the grassland areas include
western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), lark sparrow ( Chondestes grammacus),
and Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis). Small rodents of
the grassland area would include California vole (Microtus californicus),
house mouse (Mus musculus), and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae).
These rodents would form a prey base for foraging raptors which would include
red-tailed and red-shouldered hawks”(7).
“…Amphibians (Pacific chorus frog and western
toad) are likely to breed in the drainage. Raccoons forage in the
drainage. Wildlife also come to the drainage for water…(8)”
Our point is that the Wood report appears
to ignore important issues regarding plant and animal life on the property.
Given the inconsistencies between the two reports, we again call for a
comprehensive EIR that follows standard protocols and protects the public
interest in preserving natural areas and sensitive species.
13. A fence is currently proposed for the creek. How is the wildlife
going to get to the water in the creek with a fence around it? Who is going
to clean up Garrity Creek and make sure that it doesn't become a dumping
ground for trash? How can concerned citizens access the Creek to
clean and maintain it?
14. The Wood report also quotes a 12-year-old creek setback ruling
instead of current creek setback limits of 100 feet. We see no reason
why current rules should not be applied.
15. Under "Project Impacts," Mr. Wood’s report states that an oversized,
open-bottom arched culvert (12' wide x 45' long x 8' high) is proposed
for the mouth of the project. We strongly object to such a culvert
due to the flooding danger it poses, the likely damage to the Creek Banks,
and the possibility that such a culvert would cover the CDFG- regulated
Creek Channel. We are also concerned that a culvert would be an unsightly
addition to our neighborhood.
Soils and slide issues
16. Although we have repeatedly raised the issue that the developers
plans reflect a slope of 2 to 1 in place of the 2 1/2 to 1 cut called for
in the Geology report (see attached page 7, a copy from the Geotechnical
Report), no correction has been made in the revised plan. You may
recall having informed members of our group that this was a mistake and
would be corrected. We think this correction in the plans should be made
before any approval process takes place as it impacts many aspects of the
plans.
17. We are concerned about the soil composition and the damage that
can occur on Marin Drive. Residents of Marin Drive as well as the
future occupants of this subdivision are at risk of slide damage due to
the grading and redistribution of water runoff that will take place as
a result of grading. The Geotechnical report on page 4 (see attached
copy of report) states "...under influence of severe ground shaking, the
loose and saturated layers of sands and silty sand that underlie the site
will liquefy." The County must carefully examine the proposal to
make sure that the engineering analysis is correct and adequate to prevent
slides. A bond should be posted for a minimum of 10 years to protect
the homeowners.
Traffic and Pedestrian Issues
18. The Traffic report attached to the Wood letter is incorrect. The
report states that there is a 4 way stop at the intersection of Pebble
and Hilltop Drive, where there is actually a two-way stop. We didn't see
any studies of the heaviest traffic in the area, which occurs during the
school year when parents are taking their children to Juan Crespi and The
El Sobrante Elementary School and picking them up at the end of school.
During this time, traffic is backed up on Hilltop Drive, past Hilltop Green.
Adding traffic from 41 homes will have a heavy impact on the already very
slow traffic during the jam created by school traffic, which was not addressed
in the traffic report.
19. The proposed left hand turn lane for the project is going to create
a dangerous situation for the children walking to school along Hilltop
Drive on the current asphalt path which is on the same side as the left
hand turn lane.
20. Another dangerous situation is the pedestrian easement between
parcel 426-182-016 and parcel 426-182-011 that leads from the subdivision
to Marin Road. The owners of these parcels must use the walkway for
their cars and they cannot see pedestrians walking up the path when they
back their cars out of their respective garages. Even now, without the
proposed development, it is a dangerous situation, which hasn't caused
a problem to date because walkers don’t use the path. The County would
be negligent and open to law suits if residents in the subdivision use
the easement and someone is hit by a car. This is a known danger.
This easement should be eliminated or forbidden to pedestrian traffic.
Storm drainage
21. Wood’s letter states that solutions to the storm drainage issue
will be developed “during construction.” We feel strongly that storm
drain issues must be addressed and approved as part of the total project
prior to construction to ensure all environmental, weather and soil conditions
are taken into account. These are not issues that can be left undocumented
before project approval.
Conclusion
Mitigation issues need to be in detail on the plan and need to be identified
and listed. Specifics must be provided regarding all vegetaion planned
for removal, including original location, new location, and identification
of species.
Your letter to Mr. Afshar clearly asks for maintenance plans regarding storm drainage, which is still missing from the proposal.
We are asking that this project not be approved until all of the issues we have mentioned are adequately addressed and documented. As we have stated before, the site is much more suitable for a park than a crowded subdivision.
Thank you again for providing us with the opportunity to express concerns voiced by our group’s members and by the larger community regarding this project.
Sincerely,
Barbara A. Pendergrass, 745 Renfrew Road, El Sobrante 510-223-6091
Robert Joyce, 921 Loma Linda, El Sobrante 510-222-5353
Jesse Golden, 613 Pebble Drive, El Sobrante 510-758-9355
"Friends of Garrity Creek"
"Hilltop Neighborhood Association"
Attachments:
§ Letter of March 25, 2002: Barbara Pendergrass to Darwin Myers
(4 pages)
§ Pictures and drawings of the site (7 pages)
§ AMSO Consulting Engineers Report (2 pages)
§ Copies from County ordinances (5 pages)
§ LSA Associates report (1 page)
cc: John Gioia, Supervisor
Terrance Cheung, District One Coordinator
Robert Drake, CCC Community Devleopment
Robert Kobchik, CCC Community Development
Mitch Avalon, CCC Public Works
Dean Eckerman, CCC Public Works
Skip Hepplery, CCC Public Works
Barry Wilson, City of Richmond
Sharon West, City of Richmond
Eleanor Loynd, E.S. Valley Planning & Zoning Advisory Council
Nicole Kozicki, Fish and Game
Shirley Petty, Hilltop Green Homeowners Association
Christine Boschen, S.F. Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
Tina Low, S.F. Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board