HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04272004 - D1 D.1
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Date: April 27, 2004 Matter of Record
On this date, the Board called for public comment. The following persons presented
testimony:
Diane Cole, 2424 Tomar Court, (Friends of Concord Airport), Pinole,regarding the
Concord Airport;
Dale Dawson, 767 Woodwind Place, (Parents of George Miller),Walnut Creek;
R. Michael Boyton, 4448 Stone Road, Concerned Citizens of Bethel Island, Bethel
Island, regarding development through citation;
Lisa Kirk, P.O. Box 435, Bethel Island, regarding FEMA coverage for Bethel Island.
THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY
NO ACTION WAS TAKEN
L
u 3 Y" rt i 0- < 5
-f b
Y +�f2A 4
� vs
} f /
............p
J v `
wow
4. c
�R � .,.. I A M1•�E t
E
rr a
io✓j
� } Y
i aF`
4 5
ar
M,i'M
Df V
ELQPNT LL TUGA ffE APRIL 27, 2004
THIR L LLQLV
Ladies and Gentlemen, Honorable members of the Contra Costa County Board
of Supervisors,
I appreciate the opportunity to address some very important issues today,which
effect not only the safety, but also the quality_of lift of thousands of residents of
Contra Costa County. Three minutes will not be enough, so I am going to request,
that you allow me to put the issue of&EgJQV-a=t Lhrm Lidggp
.lag, on the agenda,
The two examples of this travesty to the existing communities are,The Cypress
Lakes, and The Delta Coves,developments. Both are being allowed to proceed,due
to litigation, and judgements against the Counties Planning and Development
Department,with the net result of developers, being allowed to proceed with
projects inadequately planned, without current, Environmental Impact Studies.
I have heard that litigation on Cypress Lakes,will be underway shortly, if its
not already in progress. The fact that any project can be allowed to proceed,
without a current and up to date EIS, which includes the effects of Dynamic
Compaction on the comminutes infrastructure, and its residents, is an #blW_4k
dis,gracc not only to the residents, but also to the entire CEQA process. The
Governors Office of Constituent affairs, has an interest in this situation. Their
findings,could greatly effect the states funding for Contra Costa County, in the
future. Could it be, that the county in allowing a discretionary process, is putting
the developers saving dollars, ahead of the safety of the residents, and their local
communities? If you allow this discrecsionary cost cutting procedure,which was
not mentioned in the original EIS, to proceed, could it leave the County open to a
large and costly amount of litigation,which the tax paying citizens will be stuck
paying? These are questions, the Board must answer in a public forum. Is the
Counties past performance, an indication that the County, could be in danger of
losing again?
Is the $1,500,000.00 dollar judgement against Contra Costa County, in 1989
over the Delta Cove's project, pocket change,compared to the liability, that CC
County,and the Planning and Development Department face, if they allow the
developers of the Delta Coves project, to use Dynamic Compaction over a period of
several months, to several years,with it's grave consequences on the community?
Some residents say,"the Cypress Lakes Projeci serves as an prime example, of
the amount of disruption, this process can cause, to the local residents, their
properties, and their overall neighborhoods." This has been covered by KPtX 5
Eyewitness News, and there exists, a recent video of Dynamic Compaction at The
Cypress Lakes Project, that I would be willing to show the Board. Is it not the
Citizens of Contra Costa Counties Tax dollars, that pay your salaries, and the cost
of this litigation? The Citizens of Contra Costa County need some answers, and we
need them now! This will also be published in numerous media sources,therefore,
I hear by formally request, the you put the these issues on the agenda for the next
board of supervisors meeting, Tuesday, May 4, 2004.
Respectfully Submitted,
R. Michael Boyter
A Concerned Citizen of Bethel Island, California
` y Fedcral Emergency Management AgenEgSig
R WITH
Rcgion IX
1i ,ilding 105
PrCsidlo ul San Frarr(.isk
San Fraimsco, Calif'Ornia X4121) r
r ,
Ms Christine Thresh
for the Board of Directors
Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District
P 0 Box 244/.,085 Stone Road
Bethel island, CA 0451 1-0244
Dear Ms. T hre,�h.
T}_is is in respt�nse to your letter to the Regional Director dated March 3, 1999,
�uncerr itig the availability of disaster assistance funds for emergency %vork perl'Wnt�:d
by the Bethel l;land Municipal improvement District (BIMID) following the P-)95,
I9�)7 and 1998 winter storm disasters (FEMA-1046-DR-CA, FEMA-1 155-DR,-CA
and 1203-DR-CA, respectively), The Response and Recovery Division is
principally responsible for the management of disaster assistance, therefore, the
Regional Direcior asked me to respond to your letter.
As noted in yi7ur letter, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has
determined that the BIMID was not eligible for disaster assistance under DR-1044,
DR-1046, DR- 1 155 and DR-1203. BIMID was determined to be ineligible for
assistance bec:i. e it had not complied with the Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan (HN1111)
rcquiremc;ntsset fol- 7 amendment #5 to the FEMA/State Agreement for h_E%I,A Sri-
i)R-CA (Amendment #5)....Although BIMID does not dispute this point, it has
previously contended that it was in "substantial compliance" with the HMP
requirements at the tirne of each of the disasters in question.
stated in Amndment 45, its purpose is two-fold. First, it was intended to estahhl h
the recluirentents for FEMA's approval ofDarnage Survey Reports under.. UR-75s
Sc t�rtd, it was intended to define eligibility criteria for reclamation districts requesting
hedcral disaster assistance in the event of future declarations under the DisasterRelief`
Act of 1974 or subsequent applicable law (i.e., the Stafford Act) Amendment #5 does
not provide fora "substantial compliance" exception to the September 10, 1991 }IMi'
�:Wllphance deadline. Instead, it recognizes very specific and limited clrcWnStanCC,� a;
)u-;nfwin,Lan extension by FEMA ofthe HMP implementation schedule
BIMli.) did not ;turnply with the HMP requirements by September 10, 1901 Al'hough
BIMID submitted a request for a time extension, FEMA did not grant BIMID additional
time to bring its levees into compliance. As stated unequivocally in Amendment ry5,
unless granted an exception by FEMA, a reclamation district that did not co7iplete the
%Vt)rk necessary to meet the HMP is not eligible for future disaster assistance I note
that FEMA Director James L. Witt has affirmed this position in a number ofthird
appeal decisions. Thus, BIMID will not be made retroactively eligible for FEMA
assistance stemming from damages suffered during DR-1044, DR-1046, DR-i 155 or
DR-1203 regardless of whether and/or when it accomplishes the levee mitigation and
intprovem(:nt work required to comply with the HMP requirements of Amendment
Although I realize that this is not the response you hoped for, I hope that it provides you
with a clear understanding of FEMA's position on this matter
Sincerely,
MtcN'ael W. Low, Director
Response and Recovery Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S.ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT,SACRAMENTO
- CORPS OF ENGINEERS
J STREET
AEPLY To
SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA 95$14-2922
ATTENTION OF
June 30 , 1995
Regulatory Branch ( 199400393 )
Delta Coves. L. P.
Attn. Mr. Warren L. Weisenburg
29 Sorrento Way
San Rafael , California 94901
Dear Mr. W,. isenburg :
I have reviewed your response to comments received from the
Public Notice for your prcposed Delta Coves project on Bethel
Island, California .
You have adequately addressed the comments and concerns
raised by federal , state and local agencies and individuals
except for the questions involving an alternatives analysis and
appropriate mitigation. As stated in your May 17 , 1995 , cover
letter , thz-se two issues will be addressed under separate cover.
Also , your March 15, 1995 , letter adequately summarizes the
district court 's decision. Along with the Amended Judgement , the
Conditions of Approval , the Order Amending Judgement, and the
Special Verdict, we have the information we need and will not
need addit; cnal information from the trial .
Lastl;, , I need to clarify a misunderstanding you have
regarding Validation of your proposed levee design . You have
stated in , our response to comments that the Corps will approve
final plans and construction procedures for the levee . Although
this was a permit condition when this project was authorized in
1978 , it is no longer the case. The Corps of Engineers will not
evaluate of validate your levee design. As you know, your
project will also require approvals from the Reclamation Board
and potentially the Department of Water Resources ' Division of
Safety of rams . These agencies would be the appropriate review
agencies f )r authorizing levee construction.
__
2
If you have any questions, please write to me at the
Letterhead address , Room 1444 , or telephone (916 ) 557-5266 _
t Sincerely,
Jim onroe, P .E . , Esq .
Chef ,
S cramento/San Joaquin. Delta Office
Copy Furnished:
Jim Gibson, Gibson & Skord.al, 100 Howe Avenue , Suite 155N,
Sacramento, California 95825
Rscx.ARD L. MEEHAN
CONSULTING ENGINEER
701 WELCH ROAD, SUITE 1120
p'#Lo ALTO, C.d.LIrOHNIA "004
{415) 383-OS25 ".)o t } } G
Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District
3085 Stone Read
P. 0. Box 244
Bethel Island CA 94511
June 23 , 1989
Attention: Christine Thresh
Re; Proposed Delta Coves Subdivision
Ladies and Gentlemen;
At your request I have reviewed various documents pertaining to
the safety and environmental impact of the proposed Delta Coves
project, among which are the William F. Jones Inc. "Sail and
Geological Investigation for Delta Coves" dated June 1980; a
followup letter regarding the potential for disaster at Bethel
Island by the same firm dated April 14 , 1988 ; and a letter from
Ray B. Krone and Associates on the subject of flooding of the
Bethel Island "corridor" dated Decmber 28, 1987. 1 refer to
these particular documents because they are pertinent to the
concerns which I will raise herein.
I have also made my own engineering review of certain impacts of
the Delta Coves project based in part on the information you
provided but also on my familiarity with the site and the
condition of the existing Bethel Island levees attained from
` work which I have performed there in the past. My comments are
based as well on experience working on many similar problems
over the past twenty years.
I conclude that the existing documents do not adequately
evaluate at least two adverse specific technical impacts and one
general safety management .issue arising from the project.
Permits for breaching the existing levees should not be granted
until these Issues are adequately investigated and appropriate
plans for their mitigation devised.
The two potential adverse technical conditions are (1)
BIMID Comments, page 14
aggravation of flood hazard to existing development along Sterne
Road, and (2) increased seepage due to underf low beneath the
proposed new levees. The third management issue relates to the
absense of a suitable plan allocating and managing future
geotechnical risks associated with the project. A discussion of
the basis for my opinions follows.
INCREASED FLOOD HAZARD
In the past Bethel Island residents could depend on the presence
of a large flood basin provided by the interior of the island to
absorb floodwaters in case of a break in the existing levee
system. The Delta Coves project largely eliminates this
protection and results in increased flood hazard to the several
dozen homes, businesses, public buildings, and their occupants
within the mile-long "corridor" between old and new levees along
Stone Road. This adverse impact arises from the project-induced
confinement and redirection of floodwaters in the case of a
failure of the old levee. Such a failure is a realistic
passibility and could came about in several ways, e.g. through
natural deterioration of the levee, construction accident, or
earthquake.
Consider the latter as an example. The 1980 Jones report
concludes that the silty sands beneath this part of Bethel
Island "satisfy all the requisite conditions for liquefaction"
(p 27) . The preliminary engineering plan for the new levees
calls for appropriate measures for stabilizing the ground
beneath the proposed new levees. But the ligefiable sands
underlie the existing levee as well and are likely to fail
during a strong nearby earthquake, say M=6+ on the
Greenville-Mt. Diablo fault. Moreover the existing levee
embankments have a low factor of safety against slide failures.
Either way, there is a significant risk of seismic failure of
the existing levees.
Liquefaction failures of embankments or their foundations are
sudden and would probably involve simultaneous failure of
hundreds of feet of levee. If the breach occurred at high tide
the failed levee would be subject to a head difference of
typically 8 feet (elev. -5 land side, elev. +3 water side) .
A 1986 levee failure at Marysville occurred with a head
difference of 12 feet acting across a 20-ft high levee. The
breach was only 140 ft. wide but even then had flow rates on the
BIMID Comments, page 15
order of 2o, 000 cubic feet per second. Flood damage was
substantial as it was; however, if the waters had been confined
by another parallel dike system, similar to the proposed
condition at Bethel Island the rise in flood level would have
been much faster and potentially dangerous to life. I believe
that with the proposed project a breach of similar magnitude
occurring along Stone Road would confine and direct the flood to
the area of existing residences. The hazard to life would be
particularly serious if the breach happened at night. It follows
that this is an impact on public safety attributable to the
project.
The impact of such an event can and should be analyzed 'using
current engineering techniques, including probabilistic seismic
analysis incorporating current information on local seismicity;
an embankment seismic stability analysis for the existing levee;
a dam break evaluation; and flood routing. if this were a dam
rather than a levee project, all but the last step would be
required by state engineers. Apparently such evaluations have
not been made for this project. Levee projects that do not have
control structures are not` subject to the same review as dams
because of a loophole in the regulations, but this does not
relieve other reviewers and parties from responsibility for
insisting that state--of-the- art techniques be used to allow the
impact of the project to be properly understood by the 'people
who will be affected by it.
The Krone December 28, 1987 and Jones April 24 , 2988 letters
dismiss the flood hazard on the basis of misleading and
meaningless anecdotes and negative evidence.
The Jones letter aims to respond to the concern of increased
flood hazard arising from earthquake failure of the existing
levee system. Having earlier concluded that liquefaction of the,
existing levees is a potential hazard ("from which the 'Delta
Coves project itself can be isolated") , and agreeing that
instantaneous failure of the old levee (the normal mode of
failure in the case of liquefaction) would create a situation
in which the "prospects of the residents on Stone Road are dim
indeed" , the report dismisses the hazard ("very low indeed")
only because the failure has not occurred in the past! This is
not an acceptable method of risk analysis where life and major
property damage is at stake.
The Krone letter adds the misinformation that "recent studies
BIMID Comments, page 16
show that failure of earth structures due to earthquakes is not
catastrophic. " I believe that this statement is incompetent and
irresponsible.
The writers of these letters claim that they are "not aware of"
such accidents as I have outlined here (other than "lurid
descriptions given in novels" , according to the Jones letter) .
The tone of the letters is contemptuous toward the concerns of
Bethel Island residents, which are in fact valid concerns. I
believe the letters are inadequate by current standards of risk
analysis, which require a balanced and, where possible,
quantitative presentation of any changes in the probability of
future damage brought about by a project. Such an analysis is
standard for any project such as a dam where there are
significant safety issues at stake. To my knowledge the
applicant has not produced such an analysis, and the Jones and
Krone letters should not be accepted as a substitute for it.
INCREASED SEEPAGE PROBLEMS
Preliminary plans call fors provision of a toe drain to handle
seepage beneath the new levee. BIMID will apparently be
responsible for maintaining the drain system. Flow rates of 1000
gallons per minute are estimated.
Drainage flow rates are estimated by the applicant's consultants
on the basis of a single laboratory permeability test and use of
the Hazen 'Empirical Formula (an older "handbook" method) ,
coupled with the unproven assumption that the foundation
permeability does not vary significantly with depth, i.e. that
there are no significantly more permeable strata within the
sands. These methods are highly approximate and generally not
acceptable for a case where quantity of seepage► may be
significant. Not surprisingly the seepage flows estimated by the
two techniques differ by a factor of 36 times. The higher value
is used for the final estimate because it is closer to levee
pump rates observed elsewhere. But considering that the seepage
quantities calculated by the two methods differ so greatly there
is little assurance that the estimated seepage is accurate by a
factor of 2 or even 5. Hence there is no real assurance that the
rate wont be 2000 or 5000 gpm rather than the estimated 1000
gpm. The impact of such flows might well be important. A
standard pump test would permit an accurate estimate; this
should be required. In addition, if permeability increases with
depth then seepage may bypass the shallow drain system proposed
BIMID Comments, page 17
in the preliminary project plans and cause rising groundwater
beyond the drains. This occurs commonly with levees. This
condition can be treated by expanding the drain system to
include a deep trench drain or pressure relief wells. The soils
report seems to recognize this potential in its suggestion that
the drain system proposed is only a preliminary concept. But the
impact of an inadequate drain system would be substantial .
Rising groundwater could infiltrate into and overload the local
sewer system.
MANAGEMENT of GEOTECHNICAL SAFETY AND QUALITY
These and other potential geotechnical problems arise from the
attempt to accomodate both old and new development and ,levee
systems in this part of the island. This mismatch of old and new
development is a common cause of technical problems, cast
overuns, and failures. Ideally from a technical standpoint a
much better project could be realized if the entire Stone Road
area, old and new, were rebuilt to current standards, replacing
the old levee and re-siting the existing threatened corridor
houses on higher ground, like the proposed new lots. This would
eliminate the "corridor" flood safety problem and other',
technical problems as well such as those that arise from
connecting a fragile old system of levees with a new levee
system. it would eliminate the penalty of increased hazard which
the present proposal imposes on many existing residents.
The history and documentation of this project suggests that it
is likely that if approved the project will proceed into and
through construction and operation phases as if it were ',just a
standard subdivision housing project. But the soil and flooding
conditions make this an exceptionally difficult project from a
geotechnical standpoint. Such a project requires exacting
management of safety throughout design, construction, and
operation, much the same as a dam project. Existing subdivision
and building code regulations do not provide, and are not
intended to provide, adequate assurance or control in this
regard and local agencies do not have the expertise or staff to
adequately assure that minimal safety goals are achieved.
Nonetheless it seems clear that participating agencies will
ultimately be held to reasonable standards of responsibility
for damages caused by the project. This raises a significant
problem in risk management and liability exposure for
participating public agencies.
BIMID Comments, page 18
As an alternative to avoiding participation, BIMID or the county
might consider a policy of actively managing the risks. For a
project of this complexity and difficulty the latter approach
would require a substantial program of quality assurance
including independent review of design, construction, and
operation. This might involve use of an consulting board, as at
the comparable Redwood Shores project built in Redwood City in
the early 1970s or in stabilization and development in the Pales
Verdes peninsula area currently. It would also require a special
program of quality control during construction. All of this
would require a substantial commitment, which in itself would be
a significant impact on the responsible local agencies. The
impact of imposing clearly identifiable risks and liabilities on
local agencies has not been dealt with to my knowledge.
I hope this report will help BIMID in effectively presenting its
point of view to the carps of Engineers, to other responsible
agencies, and to the developer. I would be happy to meet with
any of the parties involved to explain any of the issues raised
here.
Ve Tr y Y rs, t°a
Richard L. Meehan L `r r ;� t
No. 19' 2
BIMID Comments, page 19
LISA KIRK.
PO BOX 435
BETHEL ISLAND,CA. 94511
925-684-9062
CONTRA COSTA BOARD OF SUPERVISOR APRIL 27,2004
ENCLOSED IS INFORMATION REGARDING THE DELTA COVES PROJECT AND THE LACK OF FEMA
COVERAGE FOR OUR RECLAMTION DISTRICT,BIMID,
PLEASE REFER TO THE LETTER BY RICHARD MEEHAN,PAGE 15"INCREASE FLOOD HAZARff,.
IT COMMENTS ON THE REDUCE FLOOD BASIN FOR STONE ROAD RESIDENTS. TIES IS NOT
ADDRESSED IN THE 1989 LAWSUIT JUDGEMENT APPROVED CONDITIONS. ALSO PLEASE REFER
TO PAGE 18, 19"MANAGEMENT OF GEOTECHNICAL SAFETY AND QUALITY,REGARDING THE
PROJECTS RISK.MANAGEMENT AND LIABILITY EXPOSURE FOR PUBLIC AGENCIES.
ALSO INCLUDED IS A LET'T`ER.DATED JUNE 3a, 1995 FROM THE COE TO THE DEVELOPER, THAT
THE COE WILL NOT EVALUATE OR VALIDATE HIS LEVEE DESIGN.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS DOCUMENTS IN TIiE,DEi.TA-CQYES-PROJECT.FILE,
THANK.YOU
.LISA K.IRR