HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11152005 - D1 < LISA KERK PO BOX 435 BE ISLAND,CA 94511 925-684-9250 10-04-2005
DEAR SUPERVISORS,
ON 1-18-2005,I SPOKE TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN FOR BETHEL
IB—MRnARRY-D1D1'A1�MM££�ACK�ID bVl�D1SGI�SSSD�'�A�'-1S NO FINANCING
PLAN OR APPROVED PLANS BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. I'LL ASSUME THAT
THE BETHEL ISLAND GENERAL PLAN LIMITS DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF TfIE LEVEL OF
PROTECTION THE SI LEVEE SYSTEM IS PRESENTLY PROVIDING, THE COE STANDARD IN
SECTION 3-75, KNOWN AS PL8499, AS STATED BY CAL FED DELTA LEVEE SYSTEM
�_:'T-ECsRlT4'-FROGRAM,-4S A43ASB-4.EVEL PROTECTION THAT STABILIZES THE LEVEES.
S STANDARD ISNOT ABOUT MAINTENANCE,BUT ABOUT REHABILITATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE BOS DIRECT STAFF TO REVIEW AND ADOPTED A POLICY
REGARDING URBAN DEVELOPMENT BEHIND THESE AGING INFRASTRUCTURE AND THAT
DEVELOPMENT BE TIED TO THIS PL84=99 STANDARD:ALSO THAT SEISMIC ISSUES ARE
ADDRESSED IN A POLICY.
I HAVE RECENTLY SEEN MINUTES FROM THE RECLAMATION DISTRICTS,(BAM),THAT
STATES THAT THE LEVEES HAVE REACHED REACH PL88-94 STANDARDS.THESE
STATEMENTS ARE BEING MADE BY THEIR DISTRICT MANAGER, YET THEIR GEO CH
ENGINEER STATES THAT THE ONLY COMPONENT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN MET IS
ELEVATION,BUT NOT THE REST OF THE REQUIREMENTS.
YOUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEPENDS ON THE PERMITTING INFORMATION GIVEN BY
THIS DISTRICT TO ENSURE PUBLIC SAFETY IN REGARDS TO LEVEE STANDARDS.PLEASE
NOTE THE LETTER DATED MARCH 17,2005 FROM THE GEOTECH FIRM HULTGREN-T1L1S TO
THE DISTRICT, 1ST PAGE SECOND PARAGRAPH AND PAGE 3 CLOSURE. SINCE THE
COUNTY IS APPROVING THIS PROTECT,ARE YOU THE CONCERNS OF THIS REPORT BEING
ADDRESSES BY THE COUNTY? ANOTHER CONCERN IS THAT IF THIS PROJECT IS
APPROVED IT PLACES STRUCTURES ON TOP OF THE LEVEE,WHICH IS RESTRICTED BY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SET BACK ORDINANCE.
WHEN I MOVED INTO MY HOME IN 20001 I DID NOT REALIZE THAT THE IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT FAILED TO MET FEMAS TEMP STANDARD IN 1991,WMCH RESULTED IN TIS
DISTRICT BEING PERMANENTLY EXCLUDED FROM THE FEMA THIS WAS A BASIC
- STANDARD,LOWER THAN THE PL84-99. OES STATED TOME IN WRITING AS OF JUNE 2004,
THE DISTRICT STILL HAD PENDING ISSUES, AND TO THIS DATE,THE DISTRICT HAS NOT
OBTAINED VERIFICATION IN WRITING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
THAT THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED.
TO CONTINUE TO URBANIZE THIS ISLAND AND OTHER ISLANDS-WITHOUT ACHIEVING
LEVELS OF PROTECTION IS A DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN. VARIOUS STATE AGENCIES
INVOLVED WITH FLOOD CONTROL AND THAT OVERSEE THE STATE'S DRINKING WATER.
ARE STARTING TO INVOLVE COUNTIES AND THEIR LAND USE PROCESS. THESE SMALL
RECLAMATION DISTRICT MAIN FUNCTION IS MAINTENANCE,TFIEY HAVE NEITHER THE
EXPERTISE OR THE FUNDING TO OVERSEE THE COMPLEXITIES OF DEVELOPMENT WITH
NUMEROUS GEOLOGICAL CONDITION.
MY LAST CONCERN ARE THE DESTRUCTION OF WETLAND ON ISLAND.WHERE IN THE
PERMITTING,PLANNING AND GRADING PROCESS IS THIS ASSESSED AND SECTION 3-83
SPEAKS OF A PROTECTION FEE. DOES THIS EXIST!AND 1F NOT CAN THIS BE PLACED AS
AN AGENDA ITEM.
THANK YOU
LISA KIRK
Chapter 4, part D. DELTA LEVEE SYSTEM INTEGRITY
MONITORING OBJECTIVES CALFED Levee Program goals. For
example, the indicator for the Base Level
The fundamental goal of the overall Delta Protection Plan element, "number of
Levee System Integrity Program is to islands/tracts with levees meeting the
"reduce the risk to land use and associated minimum PL84-99 standard," will be
economic activities, water supply, determined by a compilation of cross-
infrastructure, and the ecosystem from section, inspection, and other data, and this
catastrophic breaching of Delta levees." determination will be used to measure
The specific elements of the Delta Levee progress towards the Base Level Protection
System Integrity Program are discussed Plan goal of improving all Delta levees to
fully in the CALFED Long-Term Levee the PL84-99 standard.
Protection Plan and include:
1. Base Level Protection Plan: Additionally, monitoring elements must be
Target— Improve and maintain Delta developed to insure the success of
levees to the Public Law 94-99 (PL 84- environmental mitigation required to offset
99) standard. the effects from implementation of any of
2. Special Improvement Projects: the above elements.
Target - Improve and maintain levees at
key Delta locations to a level Levee Monitoring Objectives Containing
commensurate with the benefits Physical Properties
protected. 1. Establish that a base level of flood
3. Subsidence Control Plan: protection for Delta levees at the PL 84-
Target— Reduce or eliminate risk to 99 standard, or higher as necessary,
levee integrity from subsidence. has been achieved and maintained.
4. Emergency Management and 2. Establish that special levee
Response Plan.- improvements have been achieved and
Target— Enhance existing emergency maintained in key Delta locations to a
management and response level commensurate with the benefits
capabilities to protect critical Delta protected.
resources in the event of a disaster. 3. Establish that the risk to levee integrity
5. Seismic Risk Assessment: from subsidence has been reduced.
Target— Identify risk to Delta levees 4. Establish that an emergency
from seismic events and develop management and response plan with
recommendations to reduce levee the capability to protect critical Delta
vulnerability and improve their seismic resources in the event of a disaster has
stability. been adopted and maintained.
5. Quantify Delta levee seismic risk and
The monitoring elements selected by the compare it to other failure modes.
CMARP Levees Technical Team will
support a determination of whether the Levee Monitoring Objectives Containing
above program elements are achieved. Biological Properties
Establish that effects from any
Indicators have been identified for each of construction/management action associated
the program elements. An indicator is a set with achieving the overall objectives of the
of system attributes that collectively Delta Levee System Integrity Program are
provides a convenient way to evaluate the mitigated as appropriate.
status of the overall system. Indicators will Construction/management actions include-
be used to show progress towards the
Chapter 4, part D, 63 March 10, 1999
DELTA LEVEE SYSTEM INTEGRITY
a
.. a •�-.
i
'
jL
e
y x. '/L is f♦. Y
JL
44
1,7
#, • TT ll r �.
�s
.S 4 . x' s ri t.a�,.i.�t.11w.ir1.+"} 1' 't s � -•, 'r :•
,I t.^�j T_f•#M 1�r �•Y�f`'t �t 1'i Y _ �"1'•�/I.r�•
•J!�w•.-+�-x�,l.`y.-..'x j': vr•`3`-{jam I�-^�'��y)��".T�,�.1c� *y"- "..r'•,M t 4�'�T�R�`
.�+} .•it p J`r�t 4
Ir .a At i rl Y`?• i
Ar
.. � '�rL'"•.� �1tj.R�'��r(Ti.M ` �.�.., ♦ �.;��^'t'• -•ri",I�tr^, 4 'i.. .t`1
,�.ov
.s'�:T.fir,., '•at.' :.Jr• � t.<w��♦,.o""^.�,4t •t�•
Ir
1H-'= w�►!•°.r a eY,' i '? y •'4•y y i
�.
,�r�,�`in-i'c.1•,+s t.'"+.a.+.1a: r4..x�`•• r.%.!• • } •y•�' -r
at
fall Jv
t r N
tn/• ~�•ar S. 2 •? t, t. ,r,-.a N!• rx'w y
,�:"' ;'t., .may,,;''a`;.•L F 'r*{ y.,w r.'•
Z_ �• 4�'',•f!•fir + s•.Irx,;'t1.- � J
t
r
'rv�r
' •'r.s
• •��-ani' ; .•.J�f's'��.
'Fr• r S I '1ay Y t J �,_ •, r ji J i :' ��� r� -;i r •
r J
.•j6ya i«4 r r^� sr`f�tf�1 s�r';=:,�\ ; -
it 4-1
x1l
t. 'a' ♦ . 'A A"r�^A. fir+t,j~•{�' _ - .r.
x
'�� °i• ��,' ate*"�"nt �"�t Iy��.'
fir, s, } ,�. t^ •t :7!r
• , . _• I[ r
!"+` ... � � gni• �
do
go
rt
f g.
1.A N • -l� y
�•,'. is��,r �+•'�
i
1
J'%.'E `1 -iF0RN1i -- THE RESOURCES AGENCY
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES �;.
�1k:E P 0, BOX 942836
A 94236-0001
_'y .�;�' fir.
,�„^� LUUS
Ms. Lisa Kirk
Post Office Box 435
Bethel Island, California 94511
Dear Ms. Kirk:
This is in response to your letter to the Department of Water Resources' (DWR)
Director, Lester Snow, dated February 24, 2005. Director Snow asked me to respond
for him. On March 4, 2005, after the Delta Levees and Habitat Advisory Committee
meeting, and again on March 15, 2005, Curt Schmutte and I met with you and
discussed the status of Bethel Island's levees. The following sections summarize our
discussions and responses to your letter.
Your letter stated that the Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District's (BIMID)
perimeter levee will be breached for a new development and asked if the Department
has reviewed the project's potential impacts on the existing levee system. Your letter
also included Information regarding Bethel Island's compliance with the State's Hazard
Mitigation Plan (HMP) criteria and you inquired whether BIMID now complies with the
minimum HMP requirements.
In our discussions, we pointed out that while DWR and the State have major interests in
the Delta, the State has a very limited role with respect to local levees
(non-federal project levees) such as those on Bethel Island that are maintained by
BIMID. The State has neither the jurisdiction nor funding to evaluate over 700 mi',es o,
local levees for deficiencies, or to upgrade those that are found to be deficient.
DWR does provide Delta Flood Protection grant funds through the Subventions and
Special Project Programs to local agencies for their use in levee maintenance and levee
improvements, but does not inspect for structural integrity or construction practices.
Our inspections are to assure that State grant funds are spent on eligible levee work.
The responsibility for having adequate levees and maintaining them is a local one. It Is
also each local maintaining agency's responsibility to retain qualified engineers who will
assess the adequacy of the levee system and help the local agencies take appropriate
actions for proper maintenance and to address deficiencies. This would include
evaluating and remediating cavities, and evaluating impacts of new construction on
existing levees.
BIMID has participated In the Delta Flood Protection Program since the program began
in 1973. Over the life of the program, DWR has provided approximately $3.5 million to
BIMID in grant funds. A copy of the most recent Delta Levees Subventions claim is
attached for your information.
Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District
Subventions Payment History Tabulation
Fiscal Application Final Claim State Local BIMID Program
Year Amount Amount Reimbursement Expenditure Local Share.Local Share
1973-74 70,091 70,091 29,120 40,971 58%
1974-75 112,410 112,410 25,608 86,802 77%
1975-76 0 0 0
1976-77 105,015 105,015 34,110 70,905 68%
1977-78 133,675 133,675 35,376 98,299 74°/,
1978-79 54,118 54,118 12,452 41 ,666 77%
1979-80 0 0 0 -
1980-81 0 0 0 -
1981-82 157,997 160,781 65,447 95,334 59%
1982-83 125,000 132,010 56,3 59 75,651 57%
1983-84 101 ,000 53,157 12,437 40,720 77%
1984-85 116,163 63,682 26,091 37,591 59%
1985-86 123,506 78,621 33,561 45,060 57%
1986-87 70,827 68,238 28,369 39,869 58%
1987-88 61 ,701 61 ,701 30,349 31 ,352 51%
1988-89 191 ,556 71 ,552 45,039 26,513 37°/a 47%
1989-90 210,000 125,290 67,655 57,635 46% 62%
1990-91 335,500 196,948 114,975 81 ,973 42% 61%
1991-92 470,500 302,924 103,355 199,569 66% 81 %
992-93 370,000 151 ,842 98,569 53,273 35%, 70°%
1993-94 678,000 255,449 175,860 79,589 31 % 29%
1994-95 666,500 149,821 94,528 55,293 37% 30%
1995-96 - 208,000 92,056 59,095 32,961 36% 31%
1996-97 208,000 72,554 45,309 27,245 38% 37%
1997-98 290,000 153,01 9 106,081 46,938 31% 30°/a
1998-99 639,810 191 ,113 131 ,179 59,934 31% 31%
1999-00 600,000 196,393 131 ,896 64,497 33% 30%
2000-01 699,000 179,194 123,181 56,013 31% 30%
2001-02 729,772 133,272 83,369 49,903 37% 30%
2002-03 699,772 122,716 59,454 63,262 52% 48%
2003-04 699,772 218,728 96,806 121 ,922 56% 50%
Total = $ 8,927,685 $ 3,706,370 $1 ,925,630 $ 1 ,780,740 48% 37%
D \1-wordfiles\Projects\Bethel\bethel payment history.xls
A CalHoM4 CorpotA?!On
' SpeC+011zinq in Coo!�Chr110oI Enpin�Q►ing
10
44
1 r
March 17, X005
File 156,10
Bethel island Municipal Imp roverrent.District
3085 Stone Road
Bethel Island, Callforrila 84511
Attention: Mr. Paul Harper
Review of Planned Development
Mariner Cavi Project
Bethel Island, California
Dear Mr. Harper-
I ntrod ucti on
We have reviewed project plans by Humann Company, Inc. dated February 2, 2005 for the
planned levee alterations and improvements for the Mariner Cove property at 1204 Taylor Road
on Bethel Island, California. This letter presents our comments in two parts. First, on levee
safety considerations and, secondly, on spedfic el-ements of the proposed plan. The Mariner
Cove development plans show widening the existing levee gest to Sa feet and placing up to
about 11 feet thickness of fill on the landside of the sxist(ng levee. The development world
Include placing 35 lodges on the crest of the levee. Each lodge would be 12 feet by 32 feet in
plan dimension. We understand that the lodges are small enough to be considered temporay
structures. The lodges extend over the landside slope. Two parking spaces are planned
adjacent to each lodge. Wood decks are planned on the landside of the lodes. The rear of;he
lodges and decks wNt be supported on foundations located on the landside slope. The bilges
will have utility services that include water, sower and Joint trench. The plan shows the water
and sewer buried within the levee under the lodges. The joint trench will be located within the
existing levee crest for a distance of 1,100 teat South of the planned area of development.
Within the development area, the joint trench will be located under lodges 1 through 2$.
We understand that a series of permits have been Issued by BIMIL)for the Man"ner Cove
project. The district may have committed to allowing construction of this project through
issuance of these permits. We have some significant concerns vorfth allowing construction of this
project or other projects on the existing levee without requiring or-addressing the existing
deficiencies within the laves. In the balance Of this letter we discuss some safety issues that
have not been addressed by this project. That discussion is followed with our comments on the
minimum requirements that should be Included with this project should TIMID allow its
construction without requiring a significant upgrade of the existing levee.
Overall Levee Safety Considerations
We have not performed a comprehensive assessment of Levee safety for the Mariner Cove site
or the remainder of the Bathel Island levee system. In our work on Bethel Island and other delle
levees we have identified several common areas of concern with the existing levees. Two
significant concerns for levoo safety and reliability are seepage through the existing levee and
1
2221 Cornmvrce Avenue,Sults A-'f Concord,Calliomla 94524-4987
Phone(025)6854300 Fax(82S)65"768
W. Paul Harper 3
March 17, 2005
1
embankment have consolidated and gained sLfficlent strength to support the next istage of
fill.
2s We conclude that placement of the now flli will cause settlement of the existing levee crest.
VYe recommend that B1MiD require that the creat elevation be maintained at or above the
BIMID minimum requirements as the levee embankment settles. Aftemately, the crest could
be oonstructed high enough to accommodate settlement and to maintain the minimum creat
54vatlon of 10.2 foots The widened portion of the levee crest will settle more than tht
existing crest leading to differential seftment The utilities and structures will also settle.
3. About 1,100 feet of joint trench js planned within the existing levee. The placement of
utilities within the existing levee presents a serious concern for levee safety and Is not
consistent with safe levoa practices. 1Ne recommend that no utilities be allowed within the
existing levee.
Joint trench, water and sewer linear are also planned within the widened portion of the levee
(between 20 and 50 feet from the waterside edge of the levee), The depth of joint trench
has not be determined. The water fine depth Is not shown, The sanitary sewer invert WII
very, The lowest elevottion of the sonftry sewer Is shown on the plans at Elevation 5.5 feet
This lit below the I 00-year flood level,
YVe recommend that no utilities be allowed wftWn the existing levee or the widened portion
of the levee. The utilities and the baokfill around the utilkles could create paths fo*r seepage
flow. Settlement of the levee vAll stress the pipe*and muld lead to rupture. Leaklng or
ruptured ptpea could caused erosion of the levee and reduce levee safety. The current plan
does not consider the effecW of settlement on pipes and structures.
A better alternative Is to pace the OUtft to the landslde of the love*too. This would
require laterals extendIng up the levee slope to each of the 35 units.
4. The plans;show that the lodges will*pan over the landslde slope and be supported on
ioundaUons within the elope. The docks will also span over and be founded on the slope.
We understand that the units were designed to be readily removed. VYe need darificatlon
on support tvr the units. VNa recommend that permanent attachment to foundations not be
allowed. To allow quick removal of the units, the lodges should not be connected to the
decks.
S. A retaining wall is planned on the lendeide elope. We recommend that the well be
eliminated.
Closure
We conclude that wideru'niq the levee to 50 feet would provide a modest improvement in the
overall levee safety but not bring the levee to current istandarcla for earthquake design. To
maintain the safety of the levee and not overstress the peat,the new fel should be placed in
several stages. It may take considerable time between stages to allow the foundation soils to
consolidate and gain strength,
We believe that the construction of utilities and structures will limit options for BIMID to Improve
the levee In the future and limit axess for emergency response. We conclude that constructing
Mr. Paul Harper 4
March 17, 2005 -�, --
the development on the love*will increase future costs to upgrade the loves to M9111t
earthquake shaking and/or reduce potential for seepage through the levee. We rwomnvnd
that 61MID consider the long-term needs of the levee In this aroa before alloWng the project to
be constructed.
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely, �,�Fust
Hultoren-T1111a Enelneers � ��
NO.ON 2100.
14 -
R. Kevin Tiflis
Alb
�,�►�r
Geotechnical Erx�ineer COMW09f�u
RKT;EMH:iia
File No. I WVLOeMariner Cove.doc
Be,,t.hel Island Municipal
Meeting Minutes
Improvement District Regular Meeting of 1/20/05
Paul Sosnowski stated that he had appeared before the District Attorney and
made a statement that Director Gearhart had not worked on any, of his projects
and not voted on any of his projects and he resents any suggestion that any laws
were broken by him or Director Gear-hart.
Announcements
A special meeting was announced for Thursday, January 27, 2005 at 7PM at the
Sugar Barge recreation room for a presentation by Duc Housing regarding Delta
Coves. Joe Fanelli from Duc Housing was introduced. He stated that next week
will be the second informational meeting to bring the community up to speed as
to where they are on the Delta Coves Project, the timeline, etc. The will also
answer any questions the public may have. President Phippen requested that
any specific questions the public would like to have answered be given to staff so
that Duc Housing could prepare. Various consultants, project managers and
attorneys will be present to answer questions.
Sheryl Alvernaz stated that at the Board of Supervisors meeting, she found out
that Contra Costa County Code Enforcement & Community Development
Department are working on a dock ordinance and maybe BIMID would want to
get involved.
Project Applications
BIMID ordinances were reviewed prior to the meeting -and it was determined that
4550 Stone Road was not an encroaching structure. Director Gearhart stated
that the application to repair fire damage should be approved.
61 Taylor Place Aluminum deck cover Approved
4466 Stone Road Trench across levee Approved
for electrical
2304 Taylor Road Finish dock improvement Not Reviewed Yet
Sugar Barge put in an application for a revised plan for dry storage. They want
to put in several storage units which will cover approximately 12 acres with
blacktop. Director Gearhart stated that when a new house is built, BIMID
requires a drainage fee be charged. He thinks a drainage fee should be charged
to Sugar Barge for the proposed storage units. Director Lawry will find out what
the county charges for drainage fees. Director Cameron suggested road base.
Sheryl Alvernaz stated that Public Works requires black top instead of road base.
Director Goodson asked what the long range issues could be for the district as
water quality regulations change for making sure the water is clean before going
back into the Delta. Would the district incur any expenses to regulate that and
does BIMID currently have any ordinances that allow drainage fees to be
charged for this type of construction? President Phippen suggested forming an
Ad Hoc committee to took into any fees that could be charged to Sugar Barge.
Jack McNamara suggested to keep any drainage fees separate from the general
fund and to use them only for drainage problems. A motion was made by
Director Goodson and seconded by Director Cameron to appoint Director
Approved 2/17/05 4 of 12 4
Gearhart has received 'income from Paul Sosnowski above the threshold limit that triggers the
conflict of interest statute. I met with Mr. Gearhart and we discussed this issue at some length.
-_� In reviewing all the facts and circumstances., it was my determination that a warning letter should
be issued to Mr. Gearhart advising against any future participation in any discussions or decisions
regarding Mariner's Cove. Said letter has been issued. I further determined that, in the interests
of justice, a warning letter instead of a criminal filing was the most appropriate course of action at
this time
Thank you for bringing the above issues to my attention. As all these issues appear to be resolved
at this point, I will consider these matters closed.
Very Truly Yours,
ROBERT J. KOCHLY
District Attorney
1_
.� s L. epul a
Senior Deputy District Attorney
Contra Costa Regional Medical Center
2500 Alhambra Avenue
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear District Supervisors,
We would like to inform you that we're disappointed with the
County's negotiation delays and insistence on takeaways. We'd
all like to continue working here without disruption and rather
focus on providing the highest quality patient Gaze to our under-
serve/indigent families.
We ask you to please intervene in our behalf and facilitate on-
going and progressive contract negotiations resulting in compara-
ble community wage increase and no takeaways as proposed.
Thank you,
CCRMC RNS (CNA members) r ��
i 0---AZ
C�lt.lR—P� /Zl� 414oAl
I It iai I?, A,,_)
O�j
Io
%.Oof
00,
01
06
'0011
Ile