Friends of Garrity Creek
Hilltop Neighborhood Association
November 17, 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,
We are submitting these comments in compliance with the November 24, 2003 deadline for public comment on SD 01-8533, and may amend or expand them if the comment period is extended (as we have requested in our letter of November 17, 2003, based on the fact that notification does not appear to have been made in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act page 9D.)
We strongly oppose your recommendation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Even with the proposed mitigations, there is substantial evidence that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, thus requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project prior to approving or carrying out the project. Your recommendation shows insufficient consideration of the many issues that we and other concerned organizations and individuals have brought to your attention through a number of previous letters, petitions, and meetings.
As you are aware, an EIR has been requested in writing by the Richmond City Council, El Sobrante Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Urban Creek Council, Friends of Garrity Creek, Hilltop Green Homeowners Association, and the Hilltop Neighborhood Association. In addition, hundreds of individuals have signed petitions sent to your office in opposition to this development. Many significant issues have been raised in the course of numerous letters to your office and meetings with you, including:
--Flooding in the area -including in the MManor Drive and Hilltop Green areas. Your study states that no flooding problems are known to FEMA between this site and Interstate 80. In fact, FEMA paid $160,000, to address flooding problems in Hilltop Green (see attached letter, May 19, 1998). This was not a permanent fix to the problem. Solutions are needed before any development aggravates existing flooding problems. (See attachment, Notice of Interest to FEMA for Improvements to Garrity Creek from I-80 to Blume Drive, cost $521,125
--Traffic problems - existing bottleneck aand safety problems will be exacerbated. Your study greatly underestimates traffic impact by estimating only two trips generated per day. A higher number is certainly more accurate in an area such as this with only limited public transportation. The additional traffic on Hilltop Drive could be crippling.
Heavy traffic problems on Hilltop Drive, particularly at school drop-off and pick-up times, and commute times, have resulted in two significant accidents of which we are aware just in the last two weeks, occurring on Hilltop Drive between Pebble and Renfrew Road intersections. We are sure that traffic records would indicate many more collisions. Residents report that Hilltop is a heavily traveled two-lane street which is already over capacity at peak hours, even without the additional traffic that 40 more homes would bring. Another intersection at the proposed "Royal Oaks Drive" would further choke this street, without adding any capacity. Although a left-hand turn lane had been discussed, your notice does not include this lane or any signal lights.
--Unsuitability of the site for developmennt - studies provided have misrepresented or not completely studied this slide-prone area. Your study states that the April 2001 report from AMSO on geology and soils doesn't require updating because the number of homes was reduced from 44 homes to 40 homes. The AMSO report is inadequate in that:
The report mentions only three of the five parcels, and therefore does need to be updated to include all five parcels. The developer has changed the design of the project twice since that report was released. Relevant changes include construction on the very steep area at the end of Marin Road. No provision is made in your study for possible slides or damages to homes on Marin Road.
The AMSO report states that bedrock was not located when holes were bored, but the existence of bedrock was "assumed" by them. Boreholes should be drilled to the depth necessary to prove the existence and depth of bedrock below proposed home foundations. 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.
--Adverse effect on the environment and wildlife - elimination of habitat is not acceptable. This project proposes to take 10.09 acres of slide-prone land now providing a habitat to diverse wildlife, and replace that habitat with asphalt, concrete, and homes. Every bit of surface dirt, every blade of grass will be graded or removed. A neighborhood already beset with flooding, traffic and infrastructure problems will be further stretched, perhaps to the breaking point. To describe such a project as having no significant environmental impact is a complete misrepresentation of common sense and fact.
--Requirements of CEQA itself - substantiial evidence DOES exist that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
CEQA requires that "a lead public agency must prepare an environmental impact report whenever a discretionary project 'may have a significant and adverse physical effect on the environment.'" Our group and others have provided a great deal of significant environmental impact, which has not been sufficiently addressed by your proposed mitigated negative declaration. An Environmental Impact Report must be prepared that adequately addresses the potential significant environmental effect.
Your Notice mentions variances requested for retaining walls, lot size, and protected trees. If you are implying that these variances are acceptable, please explain your reasoning.
Our response to each of your points follows:
I. Aesthetics
You indicate less than significant impact to Aesthetics, including scenic vista, scenic resources, degradation of visual character, and creation of substantial light or glare. We strongly disagree. There is no question but that the aesthetic impact will be severe. The site is a beautiful hilly open area with a lovely and thriving creek area at the bottom, supporting a diversity of wildlife. It is currently undeveloped, used by wildlife as well as a path for neighborhood school children to access schools and a nature study area by neighborhood teachers and classes. It is adjacent to surrounding properties used for horses and other farm animals. Certainly removing all existing trees and vegetation, and replacing them with rooftops and pavement, will have a substantial impact on the visual character and quality of the site and surrounding areas. The crowding of human habitation will wipe out wildlife habitats and pose danger to neighboring horses and farm animals.
II. Agricultural Resources - no comment at this time.
III. Air Quality - the addition of 40 homes complete with fireplaces in this steep canyon will unquestionably negatively impact the air quality in the area, already at risk due to proximity to Highway 80. Smoke from fireplaces is likely to be concentrated in the immediate area, which is surrounded by steep ridges.
IV. Biological Resources - you have indicated that impact will be less than significant with mitigation, based in part on a report from the firms LSA and Woods. LSA should not be considered a credible source. As we mentioned in a previous letter, their report on the Clark Road project in El Sobrante has been shown to have left out over 25 out of 32 seeps and streams, much wildlife and habitat, including a landmark cypress tree estimated at 120-160 years old.
It is obvious that grading and removal of all vegetation on the site will have a severe negative effect on the habitat and wildlife in the area. Please refer to our previous communications on this subject.
Mitigation that only avoids work disruptive to nesting birds during nesting season IS NOT ADEQUATE. This does not address the removal of habitat, not only of birds but other wildlife.
Lot 29 is mentioned as having evidence of "groundwater seepage". In fact, this is a natural year-round spring that feeds the creek and a riparian area. This site is completely inappropriate for any development other than creek and riparian conservation. An earlier map in your files lists lot 29 as all riparian prior to mitigation mentioned in your negative declaration..
This project plans to place a creek which is now partially in a natural state into culverts. This is clearly a severe negative environmental impact, as well as a highly questionable practice for containment of flooding.
We are opposed to the proposed fence in that it prevents animals from having access to wildlife corridors and to fresh water, and lessens the likelihood that the creek area can be preserved an maintained by restricting access. Simply putting the creek behind a fence without access invites creation of a dumping ground. How will this creek be maintained and conserved under this proposal?
V. Cultural Resources - your study finds "less than significant impact" by the project in this area with mitigation, based on the archaeological report submitted by Pacific Legacy Inc., April 28, 2001. This report is inadequate in that:
--The report excluded one out of the five parcels that constitute the proposed site.
--The report did not include study of signnificant areas.
--The report did not include study of steeep slope areas.
Pacific Legacy Inc. confined their observations to walking "zigzag" in areas with less than 30% slope on four of the five parcels. The excluded parcel (#426192-008, 2.08 acres) contains a natural year-round spring that feeds Garrity Creek. Such a spring is a likely gathering place for native peoples seeking fresh water, and therefore likely to contain evidence of their history. The report further states that blackberry bushes obscured the creek banks, preventing them from closer observation. Creek banks are again a likely place for cultural artifacts, as are areas high on a steep hill with a good overlook for hunting or observation.
The report states that six prehistoric sites have been recorded within a mile of the proposed site. One historic resource, the farm complex, is located approximately one-half mile south of the project site. A creek fed by two natural springs in close proximity would be a likely site for a small village. A complete and detailed archaeological inspection should be completed prior to this project approval. The proposed mitigation requiring that construction operations cease if artifacts, human burials or the like are found is insufficient. Any construction worker will tell you that such requirements are rarely honored.
Please refer to the letter supporting our recommendation from one of the experts mentioned in the archaeological report, Katherine Perez of the Ohlone Indian Tribe, Most Likely Descendant. Also please refer to the report written by Michael Ali, Native American historian, regarding his preliminary observation of this area.
VI. Geology and Soils - your study states that the April 2001 report from AMSO on geology and soils doesn't require updating because the number of homes was reduced from 44 homes to 40 homes. The AMSO report is inadequate in that:
--The report mentions only three of the fiive parcels, and therefore does need to be updated to include all five parcels. The developer has changed the design of the project twice since that report was released. Relevant changes include construction on the very steep area at the end of Marin Road. No provision is made in your study for possible slides or damages to homes on Marin Road.
--The AMSO report states that bedrock was not located when holes were bored, but the existence of bedrock was "assumed" by them. Boreholes should be drilled to the depth necessary to prove the existence and depth of bedrock below proposed home foundations. 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.
--In our letter of March 2002, we mentioneed several concerns raised by the AMSO report, including
-- the likelihood of liquefaction of soil under the influence of severe ground shaking
- a "minor" slope failure that we assertedd is much larger than they describe. We have supplied photos in previous letters demonstrating its size.
-- the fact that they could not thoroughlyy examine the area. You have not addressed these issues.
--Lot 29 is mentioned as having evidence oof "groundwater seepage." In fact, this is a natural year-round spring that feeds the creek and a riparian area. This site is completely inappropriate for any development other than creek and riparian conservation.
We have previously documented our concerns about this developer's record based on engineering failures in his 10-home project off Renfrew Court and his project on Stanley Lane. Given the failure of his engineering and construction methods in the past, we have repeatedly expressed concern that significant construction errors will be made. Again, we urge that a bond be required of the developer of a value high enough to address any future problems caused by poor construction or design.
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials - no comments at this time
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality - your study states that no flooding problems are known to FEMA between this site and Interstate 80. In fact, FEMA paid $160,000, to address flooding problems in Hilltop Green (see attached letter, May 19, 1998). This was not a permanent fix to the problem. Solutions are needed before any development aggravates existing flooding problems. (See attachment, Notice of Interest to FEMA for Improvements to Garrity Creek from I-80 to Blume Drive, cost $521,125
The City of Richmond has requested an EIR for this proposal to address the problem of flooding that has already occurred downstream of the project, notably at and near Hilltop Green. Wastewater must run through the pumping station at Hilltop Green, under the freeway and on to Garrity Lake. A permanent fix needs to be made to the site where the water drops from the pipe under the freeway to the bed of Garrity Creek and through the pipe to Garrity Lake. As explained to us, the creek bed fills with silt and hinders the drainage from under the freeway, backing up to the Hilltop Green pumping station. West County Wastewater District has told us that this has caused flooding problems in Hilltop Green, damaging the electrical mechanism used by the pump to pump from Hilltop Green to the other side of the freeway. The last time this took place, FEMA paid $160,000, to repair the pumping station. Unless this problem is fixed on the other side of the freeway to approximately 1000 feet of creek bed, additional wastewater from 40 homes and loss of permeable surfaces will hugely increase the amount of water fed through the system from Garrity Creek drainage.
Under Project Objectives, the homeowner's association is to be established with some maintenance responsibilities. However, no responsibility is assigned for Garrity Creek itself, or for the culvert that passes under Park Central. A permanent and adequate solution to this complex legal/administrative problem must be reached. Consideration of possible damages caused by the increase in water through the system must be included.
We have previously noted that the replacement of a natural area by a paved one can only exacerbate flooding problems, and will not detail this information again here.
IX. Land Use and Planning
Your study may underestimate the percentage of this site that exceeds 26% slope, thus meeting the criteria for preservation as open space as specified in the County General Plan. In fact, we question whether the site should be zoned R-7. This designation may be in error or in contradiction to the Open Space Ordinance and should be addressed by the Planning Department.
Your study lists the percentage of land exceeding 26% slope as 16.4%. In fact, that percentage may be much higher, in that:
--The slope map provided of the site incluudes properties with 0-15% slope that are in fact not part of this development, i.e. parcels 426-192-006 and 426-192-007 owned by Claremont.
--It appears that these parcels have been mistakenly included in your study's calculation of slope categories; if so, the percentages that should be shown as 15-26% slope and 26% and above are in fact much higher than the 67.5% and 16.4% listed.
--Your calculation should have been based on categories consistent with the General Plan, namely slopes 15-25%, and then slopes 26% and higher. Again, this could mean that you have incorrectly calculated the slope percentages on this site.
Your statement that "development/grading proposed in areas of > 26% slopes can be considered consistent with Policy 10-29" because of the location of the Garrity Creek crossing and the Marin Road Connection, and because "the creek channels are to be retained and enhanced, " is completely unexplained. We are not aware of any enhancement to the creek channels on the other side of the proposed fence.
The development creates an unworkable situation by selling lot 29 to an individual homeowner and at the same time designating part of the lot as mitigated wetlands or riparian areas. It is already a riparian area and contains one of the two fresh-water springs feeding the creek. Lot 29 should be accessible to wildlife and not be the responsibility of an individual who is purchasing it for the purposes of residential living. The designation of lot 29 as both a home site and the riparian mitigation area also appears to be in conflict with the statement that the homeowner's association, to be established, will be responsible for riparian landscaping planting material. The developer's plan shows grading and wall construction on this property. This, too, conflicts with preserving it as a riparian area.
You state that this project is appropriate in that it "in-fills...previously passed-over property.'" We don't believe the concept of "in-fill" was ever intended to convert a semi-rural area into a sea of housing developments. Our neighborhood wants, needs, and deserves preservation of some open space.
X. Mineral Resources - no comment at this time
XI. Noise - Your study lists a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels caused by the project as having "no impact."
This statement is contradicted by the experience of neighbors of another recent project by the same developer, off Renfrew Court in El Sobrante. This 10-home project created a tremendous noise level impacting all residents of Renfrew Court and Renfrew Road for months. Certainly the use of heavy equipment such as earthmovers and double tractor-trucks will create a significant noise impact.
XII. Population and Housing - the use of Marin Road will have a significant interest in traffic and pedestrian use. Marin Road is a narrow, sub-standard road with no sidewalks. It is currently a dead-end road. Marin Road should not be used by the developer for construction or excavation vehicles, as it is too narrow and already in poor condition.
Again, the example of this developer's Renfrew Court project is illustrative. This project became such a mess that a family whose house is at the entrance of the project moved out permanently during construction due to the poor design of the entranceway to this project. There have been two accidents that we know of in the last two weeks on Hilltop next to the proposed main entrance to this project. This entrance will increase traffic danger.
XIII. Public Service - your study claims "less than significant impact." We have previously written to you that the recent West Contra Costa Unified School District consultants' report showed local schools in terrible condition and lacking room for all of the developments currently planned for this area. This information has been confirmed in conversation with the principal at El Sobrante School, the local elementary school. We suggested 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.
XIV. Recreation - this area lacks park space, a lack that the site itself could be used to remedy. Residents are working on acquiring funds for purchase and maintenance of this property as a park and open space. We request county assistance in this effort to preserve the wildlife, the creek, wetlands and the natural habitat. Hilltop Green has a very small park area, not made for access for non-residents and not large enough in any case to accommodate recreational needs of the entire neighborhood, nor was it designed to do so.
The El Sobrante Park Study of 2001 lists this site as site 24 of potential sites for parks in El Sobrante. In meetings with Supervisor John Gioia, our group requested that this site be prioritized for park use. In addition, the "Shaping Our Future" map marks this site as Open Space, and Garrity Creek as Riparian Zone. Therefore plans do exist "to establish a park use on the site."
El Sobrante is acknowledged as significantly underserved by park facilities. Will the County wait to take action on this until all suitable sites are occupied by developments?
XV. Transportation and Travel
According to the El Sobrante Planning and Zoning Commission, each residential home generates an average of 8-10 car trips a day, totaling 320-400 trips a day generated by this subdevelopment. Dept. of Transportation standards use an estimate of five trips per day.
Your study greatly underestimates traffic impact by estimating only two trips generated per day. A higher number is certainly more accurate in an area such as this with only limited public transportation. The additional traffic on Hilltop Drive could be crippling.
Heavy traffic problems on Hilltop Drive, particularly at school drop-off and pick-up times, and commute times, have resulted in two significant accidents of which we are aware just in the last two weeks, occurring on Hilltop Drive between Pebble and Renfrew Road intersections. We are sure that traffic records would indicate many more collisions. Residents report that Hilltop is a heavily traveled two-lane street which is already over capacity at peak hours, even without the additional traffic that 40 more homes would bring. Another intersection at the proposed "Royal Oaks Drive" would further choke this street, without adding any capacity. Although a left-hand turn lane had been discussed, your notice does not include this lane or any signal lights.
Traffic is backed up at 8:20 a.m. from the light on Hilltop at La Paloma back to the cemetery and at times to the freeway. This also has not been addressed.
Compensation must be provided for construction damage including road damage, dust and dirt damage to the residents whose homes are adjacent to this project, as we have repeatedly requested in previous letters. Huge amounts of dust and dirt will impact the residents and provisions should be made to include the cleaning of these residences.
We question whether this developer's construction methods are feasible on Hilltop Drive. The developer's current project off Renfrew Court has entailed double-trailer trucks parked two and three deep, waiting to deliver or haul material to and from the site. It is questionable whether such trucks could even make the turn off Hilltop Drive. The Renfrew project entailed dropping and dumping of one trailer on Renfrew Road while the other one was loaded or unloaded. This method will not be workable on Hilltop Drive, and will cause extensive problems for all of the residents.
On Renfrew Road, the weight of large trucks also caused large holes in the roadway. Public Works made temporary fixes but the problem has recurred. Such problems could severely impact heavily trafficked Hilltop Drive and the vehicles that travel it.
Marin Road is also likely to be negatively impacted by routing the traffic of these new homes through it. We discussed this in detail in our letter to you of September 2003. Increased use 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 intersection with Hilltop Drive.
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
We vigorously protest the plan for a sewer line through lot 29. Lot 29 contains the natural spring and riparian areas and should not be used for the sewer line. The danger of contamination of the spring and riparian area is obvious.
XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance
We disagree with your summary: in fact, there IS substantial evidence before the agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. We have provided this evidence in detail over the last few years. It is not in the County's interest to ignore the facts.
This project proposes to take 10.09 acres of slide-prone land now providing a habitat to diverse wildlife, and replace that habitat with asphalt, concrete, and homes. Every bit of surface dirt, every blade of grass will be graded or removed. A neighborhood already beset with flooding, traffic and infrastructure problems will be further stretched, perhaps to the breaking point. To describe such a project as having no significant environmental impact is a complete misrepresentation of common sense and fact.
Only a thorough Environmental Impact Report is adequate to address the issues we have raised here and in other communications. We request that the County NOT adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Subdivision 8533.
Sincerely,
Barbara A. Pendergrass
Phone 510 223-6091
Jesse Golden
Hilltop Neighborhood Association & Friends of Garrity Creek
Attachments:
March 18, 1998 letter from West County Wastewater District to State of Calif.
May 19, 1998 letter to Hilltop Green Homeowners Association from West
County Wastewater District. (Grant of $160.000 from FEMA)
May 14, 1997 Notice of Interest FEMA to the State of Calif. from the City of Richmond. (Grant request amount $521,125)
November 20, 2003 fax from Northern Valley Yokut/Ohlone/ Miwuk representative, Katherine Perez
Write up by Micheal Ali on "The Huchiun Band of the Ohlone at Garrity Creek", attachments to the Michael Ali report are not included at this time.
CC: John Gioia, County Supervisor
Terrance Cheung, District One Coordinator
Shirley Petty, Hilltop Green Homeowners Association
Len Battaglia, chair, Contra Costa County Planning Commission
Eleanor Loynd, chair, 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 Viani, Urban Creek Council
State Assemblywoman Loni Hancock , member state environmental committee
