HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05232006 - D.4 --- 4
ED
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS r'; `` ; Contra
Costa
FROM: CARLOS BALTODANO, BUILDING INSPECTION °' `"' ;r County
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ~
rlll:elr
DATE: May 9, 2006
SUBJECT: HEARING ON AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO ISSUE A
GRADING PERMIT FOR THE DELTA COVES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. LISA
KIRK (APPELLANT) (DISTRICT V).
SPECIFICREQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)& BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony, CLOSE the hearing.
B. Deny the appeal by Lisa Kirk of the administrative decision to issue a grading permit for
the Delta Coves project.
C. Sustain the issuance of the grading permit.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
✓RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RETOMMMENDATIO OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BO D N cls APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED O R
Speakers:
Paul Lai,Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants; Joseph Fanelli,DUC Housing Partners;
Michael Boyten,resident of Bethel Island; Leonora Bron,resident of Bethel Island;
Samantha Turner,Homeowners of Bethel Island; John Tuxaw,DUC Housing Partners.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
,10 UNANIMOUS(ABSENT` CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Carlos Baltodano(925)335-1107
ATTESTED
JOHN C01-14h, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVIS RS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Orig: Building Inspection Department(BID)
cc: Lisa Kirk(Appellant)
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department
Ruben Hernandez, Community Development Department
County Counsel BY DEPUTY
May 9, 2006
Board of Supervisors
Permit#348984
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND
Delta Coves is a 560 unit (495 single family, 65 condominiums) water oriented, planned
development to be constructed on Bethel Island. The project site consists of approximately
300-acres of vacant property located between Stone Road and Gateway Road, east of
Bethel Island Road. DUC Housing Partners are handling development of the project.
This project was the subject of extensive litigation in the 1980s. In 1986, the then-property
owner sued the County in Federal District Court. (L.E. Weisenberg and Delta Coves v.
County of contra Costa, USDC ND Cal. Case No. CV-86-5842-MHP.) In 1989, judgment
was entered against the County. The judgment ordered the approval of the final
development plan and tentative subdivision map for the Delta Coves project. The judgment
also prohibited the County from imposing any conditions on the project other than those
contained in the judgment.
Within the last few years, DUC Housing Partners acquired interest in the project and began
to pursue entitlements for the development. The tentative map for the project remained
valid for a number of years, and after complying with relevant conditions of approval, the
developer had the final map recorded 2002. More recently, the developer began to pursue
approval of a grading permit, and after complying with relevant conditions of approval, a
grading permit for the site work was issued by the Building Inspection Department on
October 5, 2005, (permit No.GS 348984). Prior to issuance of the grading permit the
Building Inspection Department confirmed with the Community Development Department
and Public Works Department that the submitted grading plans complied with the approved
tentative map and conditions of approval.
On October 31, 2005, Ms. Lisa Kirk filed a timely appeal of the issuance of the grading
permit.
APPEAL
In a two-page letter (Exhibit A), Ms. Lisa Kirk stated her reasons for appealing the issuance
of the grading permit. The appeal points and staff responses are identified below.
Appeal Point#1: The Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District has not issued a permit
or resolution for the proposed grading operations.
Staff Response #1: There is nothing in the approved development permit requiring the
County to obtain approval from the Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District (BIMID)
prior to issuance of a grading permit. Condition of approval #22 does require the developer
to obtain a resolution from BIMID (or other County approved agency) indicating the district's
May 9, 2006
Board of Supervisors
Permit#348984
Page 3
agreement to accept and maintain the levee and lagoon. This requirement was met when
BIMID passed Resolution No. 05-02-03 on February 3, 2005, which indicated BIMID's
acceptance of maintenance responsibility of the Delta Coves perimeter levee and lagoon.
Appeal Point #2: Is the use of deep dynamic soil compaction technique allowed under the
grading permit?
Staff Response #2: The judgment in the above-referenced case required the conditions
contained in the judgment to be imposed on the project. Condition No. 14, which is
contained in the judgment, requires the developer to perform geotechnical work.
Condition No. 14 states as follows:
"Geotechnical work shall include levee breaching, soil and excavation,
dewatering, removal, replacement and compaction of soil, on-site water
development, erosion control measures, and design and installation of
subsidence measurement."
Deep Dynamic Compaction (DDC) is one of the compacting methods to be utilized by the
developer and is recognized by the County as an acceptable method for compacting
liquefiable soils (sandy soils). Utilizing DDC was recommended by the project soils
engineer and was determined to be consistent with the approved development permit by
the Building Inspection Department.
Appeal Point #3: This appeal point is divided into eight separate items (a-h) relating to an
August 12, 2005, letter prepared by Hultgren-Tillis Engineers, who are in contract with the
County as the geotechnical consultant for the project. A contract with Hultgren-Tillis was
approved and executed by the Board of Supervisors on October 26, 2004, as required by
condition of approval #13 of the Delta Coves project.
Appeal Point #3a: Who is permitting the levee construction and oversight — Contra Costa
County?
Staff Response #3a: The Building Inspection Department grading permit covers the
activities associated with the excavation for the lagoon and the fill placement for the
construction of the project levees under the recommendations from the project soils
engineer. The oversight of the levees while being built will be observed and monitored by
the soils engineer of record, and inspected by the Building Inspections Department. The
Army Corps of Engineers and other appropriate agencies and jurisdictions may also have
an interest during this project. It is the owners' responsibility to obtain those approvals.
Appeal Point #3b: Once mass grading starts under permit 348984, what is the amount of
soil to be removed?
May 9, 2006
Board of Supervisors
Permit#348984
Page 4
Staff Response #3b: The estimated earthwork quantity as shown on the reviewed grading
plans is 3,100,000 cubic yards of material. All distributed soil will be used on-site with no off
haul.
Appeal Point #3c: Once mass grading starts under permit 348984, at what point is
substantive ground water to be encountered?
Staff Response #3c: Per volume 1 of 2 of the Berlogar liquefaction investigation report
dated May 27, 2003, ground water was encountered between zero and twenty feet below
the surface. However, water levels are expected to fluctuate depending on the time of year.
Appeal Point#3d: Under permit 348984, what is to be done with the "dewatering" water?
Staff Response #3d: The dewatering water will be utilized on site for dust control and
moisture requirements for the fill placement. At this time no off site discharge is anticipated.
Appeal Point #3e: Is permit 348984 allowing construction dewatering to be pumped back
into the existing drainage ditches on the island that flow to the surrounding slough and
affect the California drinking water?
Staff Response #3e: Any dewatering water being discharged to any existing on site or off
site drainage ditches will require prior approval from the Bethel Island Municipal
Improvement District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Appeal Point #3f: Does permit 348984 address the volume of water (construction
dewatering), the amount of TDS that will be pumped into the drainage ditches?
Staff Response #3f: The amount of ground water that might have to be discharged has
not yet been determined. Any dewatering water being discharged to any existing on site or
off site drainage ditches will require prior approval from the Bethel Island Municipal
Improvement District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Appeal Point #3g: No individual NPDES permit has been issued by CURWQCD. Does
permit 348984 authorize the above activity? Construction dewatering and discharge into
the State of California waters without obtaining an individual NPDES?
Staff Response #3g: No plan has been submitted for the dewatering discharge locations.
If the determined location does become the drainage ditches, which then discharges to the
waters of the state, the grading permit does not cover this activity and a separate permit or
approval from the appropriate agency or department will be required. The issuance of the
grading permit does not relieve the owner of the responsibility of securing permits or
licenses that may be required from other departments or divisions of the governing
agencies.
Appeal Point #31h: I protest the project based on statement BIMID comments on page 8
paragraph 214 pg. 16 on 10/27/05. 1 request a copy of permit 348984 and date issued and
May 9, 2006
Board of Supervisors
Permit#348984
Page 5
activities permitted under the Freedom of Information Act. I only received a date issued
statement and no copies of activities permitted under 348984. 1 received this information
on 10/31/05. 1 request again a list of activities to be permitted under permit 348984 along
with this appeal. I request the right to amend this appeal when the information is
forthcoming under the act.
Staff Response #3h: The appellant is protesting the issuance of the grading permit based
on a BIMID document. The grading permit was issued to the applicant based on a number
of documents and submittals including geotechnical reports, grading plans and numerous
other related documents all of which are public record. Copies of the grading permit, plans,
geotechnical reports and other documents were provided to Ms. Kirk on 10/31/2005.
CONCLUSION
The County Building Inspection department issued the grading permit only after confirming
with the Community Development Department and Public Works Department that the
proposed grading plan is consistent with the approved tentative map and development plan
and that the grading plan has complied with all relevant conditions of approval, zoning
codes and building codes. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors uphold the
issuance of the grading permit and deny the request to amend the appeal.
The judgment in the above-referenced case prohibits the County from denying the issuance
of the grading permit for this project.
LISA KIRK
PO BOX 435 _
BE1'1i>-1, 1,S1,AN1:) CA 94511
925-684-9250
05-23-2200-
MEMBERS
5-23-2200MEMBERS OFTHE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTR COSTA COUNTY
GRADING PERMIT 348984
1 WOULD LIKE TO•THANK THE BOARDTODAY FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE PUBLIC
TESTIMONY ON THE DELTA COVES GRADING PERMIT. I UNDERSTAND THE BECAUSE OF THE 1989
LAWSUIT JUDGMENT, THAT IT PROHIBITS THE COUNTY FROM DENYITVG THE ISSUANCE OF THE--
GRADING
HEGRADING PERMIT FOR THE PROJECT. WHICH WOULD EXPLAIN THAT ALTHOUGH I FILED THE
APPEAL ON 10-31-2005, THE GRADING WAS ALLOWED TO PRECEDE IN MARCH OF 2006 AND THIS
HEARING WAS NOTSCHEDULED UNTIL MAY OF 2006. THE 16 YEAR ULD JUDGMENT HAS ALSO
DENTED MY RIGHT AS A CITIZEN, AFFECTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT, TO INCORPORATE MY
CONCERNS REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY.
I AM NOT HERE TODAY TO STOP OR HINDER THE DELTA COVES PROJECT, ACTUALLY I THINK,
NEW RESIDENTS MOVING TO BE•THEL ISLAND, WILL BE A GREAT BENEFIT•1'O THE COMMUNI•I'Y
IN MANY WAYS. BUT, THE 38 CONDITION THAT FOLLOWED THE LAWSUIT, COULD HAVE NOT
FORSEEN THE CHANCES OCCURRING IN THE DELTA_AND TTS PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FLOOD PLAIN.
MY CONCERNS ARE
1. THE CHANGE IN THE ARMY CORP POSITION AS IT RELATES TO CONDITION 11.
2. THE COUNTY OVERSIGHT ANT—)PERA ITTING OF A BREECH STRUCTURE
3.. THE LACK OF THE CURRENT APPROVAL FROM BETHEL ISLAND MUNICIPAL DISTRICT
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AS IT RELATES TO THE COUNTY GRADING ORDINANCE 716-2.606 AND
B1MID'S OWN ORDINANCE 9
4. THE LACK OF STUDIES REGARDING THE USE OF DEEP DYNAMIC.COMPACTION IN FLOOD
PLAINS AND THE IA PACT TO ADJOINING PROPERTIES AND LE`•TES.
5. THE BUILDING OF NEW LEVEE OF FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED SAND.
ARMY COE LE'T'TER
PLEASE NOTE A JUNE 30, 1995 LETTER FROM THE US ARIt4Y CORPS OF ENGINEERS, STATING TO
MR WEISENBURG,"THAT THE COE WILL NOT EVALUATE OF VALIDATE YOUR LEVEE DESIGN".
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EVALUATION AND DECISION DOCUMENT SIGNED 6-1-1998 PAGE
27 STATE THAT THE COE WILL REVIEW THE PLANS AND DESIGNS TO ENSURE HAVE BEEN
DEVELOPED AND REVIEWED BY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, ONLY. THE 1989
CONDITION 11 STATES THAT GRADING PLANS SHALL INCORPORATE L IQLTEFACTION-RESIST_ANTT
DESIGN ACCEPTABLE TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS, YET THE 1995 AND 1998 DOCUMENTS FROM
THE COE STATES NO EVALUATION OF THE DESIGN, ONLY REVIEW IS TO CONFIRM THAT PLANS
AND DESIGN HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED AND REVIEW BY LICENSED ENGINEERS.
page 1
LISA KIRK
PO BOX 435
I3LI- bL I.SLAW CA 945].1
925-684-9250
COUNTY OVERSIGHT OFTHE BREACH S'TRUCT'URE
TIE BREACHING OF THE E_XiST?NGLE1,TTE IS A SEPAR-NTE ACTION, THAN CONSTRUCTING A
BREACH STRUCTURE. SINCE THIS ACTION COMES UNDER THE GRADING PLAN AND IS AN
EXTENSION OF THE NEW LEVEE SYSTEM, I CAN ONLY CONCLUDED FROM THE STAFF RESPONSE
3A, 'THA'T OVERSIGHT OF'THIS SECTION OFTHE LEVEE WILL BE INSPECTED BY 'THE BUILDING
INSPECTION DEPARTMENT.
THE PROBLEM WITHTHIS FORM OF STRUCTURE 1S THAT, THE COUNTY HAS NO EXPER'T'ISE IN A
STRUCTURE THAT ATTACHES AN NEW URBAN LEVEE TO A 125 YEAR OLD AGRICULTURE LEVEE,
EVEN THE RECLAMATION DISTRICT BL tm- HAS NO EXPERIENCE iN THiS FORA;T OF STRUCTURE,
NOR DO.THEY HAVE A FULL-TIME:ENGINEER ON STAFF.NOR ARE THERE`DEFINE STANDARDS
FOR ATTACHING A COMPACTED FILLED,ENGINEERED LEVEE TO A NON COMPACTED, NON
ENGINEER LEVEE SYSTEM. THIS BREECH STRUCTURE 1 S A PROT'O'TYPE OF A'TT'ACHING AN OLD
LEVEE TO A NEW LEVEE. THIS IS NOT DISCOVERY BAY, THEY DID NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH AN
EXISTING 125 YEARI OLD PEAT LEVEE ,,AXr!TH OLDER RON ES,MANY ENR_OACHING iNTCT Ti-iE
LEVEE OR SITTING BELOW SEA LEVEL
PLEASE NO'T'E A LETTER DA'T'ED 06-23-19139 FROM RICHARD MEEHAN, AN GEOTECH ENGINEER
AND PROFESSOR AT STANFORD. HE WAS ASKED TO COMMENT ON THE DELTA COVES PROJECT
BY THE BETHET ISLAND N41-fl-W-CIPAL LRQROVENIENT DISTRICT.MR MEEHAi 4 OUTLINE THE
AGGRAVATION OF FLOOD HAZARD TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ALONG STONE ROAD. UNDER
MANAGEMENT OF GEOTECHNICAL SAFETY AND QUALITY HE STATES, 'THIS MISMATCH OF OLD
AND NEW DEVELOPMENT IS A COMMON CAUSE OF TEURNICAL PROBLEMS, COST OVERRUNS,
AND FAILURES. IDEALLY FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT A MUCH BETTER PROJECT COULD BE
F-EALIZED IF THE ENTIRE STONE ROAD ARE,OLD AND NEW,WERE RFBi TILT TQ CURRENT
STANDARDS. PRECEDE IN HIS REPORT HE WRITES ABOUT AN EMBANKMENT SEISMIC STABILITY
ANALYSIS FOR THE EXISTING LEVEE, ADAM BREAK EVALUATION: AND FLOOD ROUTING.
SUCH A PROJECTREQUIRES EXAC iNG MANAGEMENTOF SAFETY '1'HROUGHOU'T.DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION,MUCH THE SAME AS A DAM PROJECT . EXISTING SUBDIVISION
ANT) BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS DO NOT PROVIDE, AND ARF NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE,
ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OR CONTROL. THIS IS THE FiRST BREACH STRUCTURE THAT CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY HAS EVER PERMITTED THROUGH A GRADING PERMIT. SINCE CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE CODES TO COVER SUCH A BREACH S'TRUCT'URE, WHAT BUILDING
CODES ARE BEING FOLLOWED? HAS ANY CONSULTATION BEEN INITIATED WITH THE BOARD OF
P-ECi ANU TION OR THE iiFPARTMENT OF WATERRESOURCE'?`NOTE CONCERNS OF DWP.LETTER
DATED 10-4-1977,POTENTIAL LEVEE FAILURE CONCERNS). WAS THIS BREACH STRUCTURE
DESIGN TO A SET OF CODES OR TO THE PROJECT ENGINEERS' OWN DESIGN?
1 STRONGLY URGE THIS BOARD'1'O CON'TAC'T APPROPRIATE STATE:AENCIES FOR EXPER'1'1SE
AND INPUT INTO THIS STRUCTURE AND CLEARLY DEFINE WHAT BUILDING STANDARDS AND
CODES WERE LIED FOR TIM, BREACH STRUCTURE DESiGN.
I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND A COMPLETE SET OF SIGNED OFF PLANS ON THE BREACH
STRUCTURE. 1 CAN NOTCOMMENT ON 'THIS ASPECT OF'THE GRADING PERMIT, BECAUSE THE
INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE. I ASK THAT THE HEARING}BE CONTINUE UNTIL THIS PLANS
ARE FiNA.L1ZED.
page 2
LISA KIRK
PO BOX 435
BE-1 E L 1 S-LXN), CA 94511
925-684-9250
LACK OF CURRENTAPPROVAL FROM THE BEl'HEL ISLAND MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT AS IT RELATED TO ORDINANCE 9 AND COUNTY GRADING CODE 716-2. 606
THE COUNTY'S GRADING ORDINANCE 716-2.606 S'I'A'1'ES 'I'HA'I'APPLICANTS'I'HA'1'UU ANY WORK
ON LEVEES OR DRAINAGE GET APPROVAL FROM THE LOCAL RECLAMATION DISTRICT. THE
PROCESS THAT EXISTS FOP.PROPERTY OWNERS ON BETHEL ISLAND IS AS FOLLOWED,( WED YOTT FIRST
APPLIED TO BIMID, AND AFTER THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND APPROVAL, YOUR APPLICATION
AND PLANS ARE STAMPED AND THEN YOU PROCEED WITH THE COUNTY AGENCIES. THIS
PROCESS ASSURES T'HA'I"I'HE ACTIVITY COMPLIES WITH BIMIDS OWN ORDINANCES. ORDNANCE
9 SECTION LI (F)STATE THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS INTENDED TO SAFEGUARD BIMID'S ABILITY
TO PROTECT ITS LEVEES AND TiiFRFRY TFTF HEALTH ATV7) SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS Of,
BETHEL ISLAND, AND TO ENSURE THAT DEVELOPMENT ON THE ISLAND CONFORMS TO STATE
AND.FEDERAL STANDARDS.
ALTHODUH THE 38 CONDI'T'IONS MAKES REFERENCE TO BIM1D, I'1'ALSO ALLOWS OTHER ENTITY
TO TAKES ON NEW RESPONSIBILITIES. RATHER OR NOT BIMID PASSES RESOLUTION TO TAKE ON
THE NEW RESPCINSMII ITIFS,IT DOES NOT RELIEVE THETA(FROM TIFF BASIC RFSPONSIBLI ITIFS
OUTLINE IN ORDINANCE 9.
I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND A CURRENT BIM1D BOARD APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT. AFTER
NUMEROUS PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST I WAS GIVEN A LETTER DATED 12-29-1975, STATING
THAT THE BLA;IiT1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVED THE PRESENT PLANS FOR DELTA COVES.
ALTHOUGH THERE IS AN APPLICATION NUMBER,I BELIEVE THAT NUMBER IS THE COUNTY'S
FILE NUMBER, NOT THE BIMID APPLICATION NUMBER, AS THE DISTRICT MANGER REFERENCED
ASTHE BIMTD APPROVAL NUMBER IN A LETTER DATED MAY 17, 2006.
MORE CONFUSINIG IS A LETTER DATED 06-73-198z0,STATING,THAT THE DISTRICT ORIGINALLY
SUPPORTED THIS PROJECT,BUT SINCE IT'S APPROVAL, HAVE BEEN ABLE TO OBSERVE AND
STUDY MORE THAN FIFTEEN DELTA LEVEE FAILURES, AND THAT THEIR CONCLUSION IS THAT
THE "STONE ROAD CORRIDOR"PRESENTSTHE POT'ENT'IAL FOR A DISASTROUS LUSS OF LIFE
AND PROPERTY WHICH DOES NOT EXIST TODAY.
BIM.IDS COMMENTS '1'O THE REISSUING OFTHE CEO PERMIT 6063 A PAGE 8 GRADING S'L'A'T'ES
`CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE THE SOLE AUTHORITY TO GRANT LEVEE GRADING
PERMITS. INT IE CALF OF DELTA COVES, THE FIRST PERr.IITT_ING.AGENCY IS BLA41D. NVITITOUT
AN CURRENT APPROVAL FROM THE BIMID BOARD STATING THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THIS
PROJECT HAS BEEN DEEMED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR OWN ORDINANCE 9, WHAT
ASSURANCES DOSE THIS COUNTY HAVE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WONT IMPACT'
THE EXISTING LEVEE SYSTEM OR PROPERTY, AND THAT MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN
APPRON-TED BY THE Bal-11)BOARD WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOF MAKING THAT DETERMINATION?
page 3
LISA KIRK
PO BOX 435
UETH-ElSi_.ANU, (;A 94511
925-684-9250
SINCETHE COUNTY ISSUED THE GRADING PERMITWITHOUT"THAI'WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM
THE B1MID BOARD, I CAN ASSUME THAT, ONE IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT,OR TWO THE CONCERNS
TO THE EXIST_rNG LEVEE SYSTEn4 WERE ADDRESSED UNDER THE, SOIL ENGINEERS REPORT AND
MITIGATED BY THE GRADING SUPERVISOR. ONE EXAMPLE IS THAT CREST SURVEY OF THE
EXISTING LEVEE WERE TO BE DONE, SO THAT IF THE EXISTING LEVEE STARTS TO SUBSIDE,
(EITHER BECAUSE OF DEWATERING OF THE PROJECT SITE OR SETTLEMENT DUE TO
COMPACTING TECHNIQUES), IT WILL BE NOTED. BUT THE SOIL ENGINEER MAKES NO
REFERENCE WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECTING.A SUBSIDING EXISTING LEVEE.
ON MAY 3 2006,BIMID DECLARED ON EMERGENCY AT.4472 STONE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1/2
MILE FKOM THE BREACH SITE. A'IEMPORARY SOLUTION OF SHEETPLILING WAS INSTALLED.
THIS IS THE SECOND DECLARED EMERGENCY IN THE LAST 5 MONTHS.
UNFOR'TUNAT'ELY, THE 38 CONDITIONS FROM THE JUDUMENT, DID NOTRECOGNIZE ANY OF
THESE SITUATIONS,NOR DID IT ANTICIPATE THE FAILURES OF THE LEVEE SYSTEM IN
CALIFORNIA. BOARDS TR T HAVE OVEPRSIGHT OF PROJECTS A,PPROVFID IN FLOOD PI AINC
PROTECTED BY A LEVEE SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT HAVE 100 YEAR FLOOD PROTECTION, SHOULD
ASSURE THAT MAXIMUM SAFETY GOALS ARE REACHED. SINCE THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE A
CURRENT B1MlD APPROVAL ON 'I.'HIS PROJECT, IS THIS T'O BE TAKENTHE COUNTY HAS REVIEW
AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY OF THE EXISTING LEVEE SYSTEM?
DEEP DYNAMIC COMPACTION
STAFF RESPONSE 2 STATES,T'HA'T DEEP DYNAMIC COMPACTION IS ONE OF THE METHODS TO BE
UTILIZED BY THE DEVELOPER AND IS RECOGNIZED BY THE COUNTY AS AN ACCEPTABLE
METHOD FOR CONTIPACTING LIQLTFIARr E SOILS. YET, IN A STATEIMErNT OF FINDINGS AND
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION FOR THE CYPRESS LAKES AND COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT,(NOW
KNOWN AS SU A ER LAKES), ADOPTED BY THE BOS IN JUNE 8, 1993, PAGE 35 STATES,"DUE TO
THE PUBLIC'S CONCERN ONTHE USE OF THE DEEP DYNAMIC COMPACTION METHOD, 'PHIS
METHOD SHOULD NOT BE USED". 1N 2001, THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING
CONfMISSION SIGNED OFF ON THE DEVELOPERS REQUEST TO USE THE ALETHOD, WHICH NOW
HAS RESULTED IN DAMAGES TO ADJOINING PROPERTIES AND PENDING LITIGATION.
SINCE THE COUNTY HAS ACCEPTED THIS METHOD, CAN THE COUNTY PRODUCE STUDIES
CONCERNING DEEP DYNAMIC COMPACTION IN FLOOD PLANES?
THE'TRIAL TESTINCLUDED A 9 T'ON BLOCK DROPPED A'I'A HEIUHT OF 50 FEET, YET THE
LIQUEFACTION INVESTIGATION REFERS TO A20 TON BLOC WITH DROPS HEIGHT OF ABOUT 40 TO
60 FEET.
WHAT WOULD BE THE PREDICTED ACCELERATION AND WHAT COULD WE EXPECT AS FAR AS
DAMAGE'1'O OUR HOMES?
HOW DO YOU EXPECT THE ENERGY TO TRA TE L AFTER MIP ACT IF NO STUDIES NAVE BEEN
CONDUCTED IN FLOOD PLANES?
page 4
LISA KIRK
PO BOX 435
BETHEL,I�LANtj, CA 94511
925-684-9250'
ALSO, WILL DOWNHOLE AND SEISMIC AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS OF SURFACE WAVES IN THE
VICINITY OF THE COMPACTION AND AT VARIOUS DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE COMPACTION
CONDUCTED AND IF SO SVM .ALN OUTSIDE PARTY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEWING THE
RESULTS?
IF DRAW DOWN METHODS ARE SUCCESSFUL WILL THERE BE WATER BEl'WEEN "THE SOIL
PARTICLES AND IF SO HOW CAN YOU COMPACT SATURATED OR WET SOIL AND IF SOIL IS
CONSIDERED SATn?ATED FONT ACCEL ERATION ABOVE FASTER THROUGH TILE SOIL INDUCING
GREATER DISPLACEMENT IN THE NEAR BY STRUCTURES?
SINCE STABILITY OF THE NEW LEVEES WILL BE A CONCERN TO FUTURE PROPER'L'Y OWNER., AND
A MAJOR LIMITATION OF DDC IS THE LACK OF MONITORING AND QUALITY CONTROL DURING
THE PRODUCTION PHASE, WILL THE OVERSIGHT OF THE LEVEES BY THE .SOILS ENGINEER OF
RECORD INCLUDED WRITTEN STATEMENTS OF QUALITY CONTROL FOR DDC?
NEW SAND LEVEE
THE NEW LEVEE.ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED FRO11%4 SAND LOCATED AT TI-IE PROJECT SITE,
PLEASE NOTE THAT AN EXPERT PANEL MONITORING RECONSTRUCTION OF NEW ORLEANS ,
WARNED FEDERAL ENGINEERS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF WEAK, SANDY SOILS IN THE NEWLY
REBUILT LEVEES. RAYMOND SEED, AN ENGINEERING PROFESSOR Al' UC BERKELEY, AND PART
OF THE PANEL FUNDED BY THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, STATING IN A LETTER THAT
HE OBSERVED CORP CONTRACTORS CONSTRUCTING]A SECTION OF TI-TE LEA-TE USING"CLEAN
FINE GRAINED SAN,WHICH IS HIGHLY ERODEABLE. THE SAND DESCRIBE IN THE DDC FIELD
TRIAL ARE DESCRIBED AS FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED SAND. WHAT PERCENT OF THE NEW
LEVEES ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED Wl'1'H THIS TYPE OF SAND?
IN CLOSING I lI lU D LIKE TO ACTS FOR A CONTINUANCE I NTIlI THE BREACH STRUCTURE IS
FINALIZED AND CAN BE REVIEWED AT A PUBLIC HEARING, I REQUEST THE BOS ASK FOR A
CURRENT APPROVAL FROM THE BIMID BOARD OF DIRECTORS, STATING THAT THE PROJECT
COMPLIES W[TH THEIR ORDINANCE 9 AND ALL CONCERNS TO THE EXISTING LEVEE SYSTEM
HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, AND THAT MY QUESTION REGARDING DDC AND SAND LEVEES BE
ADDRESSED IN WRITTEN FORA1. I WOULD REQUEST TII?T ALL DOCr mENTATI4N SUBMITTED
TODAY BE PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD
1 WOULD ALSO LIKJ~TO'LHANK THE COUNTY STAFF FOR ALL THELK ASSISTANCE. 1 HAVE
ALWAYS BEEN TREATED WITH RESPECT AND PROFESSIONALISM
ALMOST EVERYDAY, TRE MEDIA PRESENT A STORY REGARDING THE FRAGILE LEVEE SYSTEM.
IN 2001 A CONTRA COSTA TIMES STORY, INTERVENING MR DAVE MARZ FROM THE DEPARTMENT
OF NATER RESOILTRCES, STATED THAT IT WO ULD T AKE N,AII LLIONS TO BRING THE BE T 14EL 1SLAND
LEVEE SYSTEM UP TO CURRENT STANDARDS.
LISA KIRK
page 5
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
S. ARMY ENGINEER DIS I RIC T. SA(-RAML:N 7
CORPS OF ENGINEEFIS
1325 J STREET
SACHAMEN TO. CALIFORNIA 95614 2922
A11EN11-OF
Branch ( 1994 �
helua Cov, L. P .
C C n Mr . Warren L. We : sevLurg
29 Sarrenyw Way
Son Rafae — California 0490 !
�aav Mr . .. isenburq :
I ha . - reviewed yes
our rponse Lo comments, rwceiveA : cu� 7 �::
I- ' is your priposed Delva Coves prctecl
Nni . se fcr
island , C : Afornia .
. You ve adequately addressed the comments and coNoerns
inLswd Ly : ederal , scate and local agencies and
.xcepu to: the questions involving an alternatives sra _ ysis nn ..
nppropriamitiyat ion . ks stated in your May 17 , LOS ! , _ - :
! ezver , r �-se two issues AQ be addressed under sepsuoto _.. = Y .
yuur Ma rch ! n , 1 99V etodr Idequats 1 y yus 7 n-.:�
trict . ufr ' s decisiLr . Along with une Amenv :
c �"Hu ior� of Approval , the Order Amending judqeme7L o . _-
. a - V, rdict , we have one irfornatLyn we reej
vidi : onal inEormanicn trom the tiial .
Last : i need to ciarify 6 misunderstanding yaw
r erd 1 nu . a 1 idat ton of vcur proposed luvee des iqr . f .
soared in our response to comments that the Corps w : 1 1 rL
1 1 nil p! a�:'; and construcza or procedares for une 1 even A 1 UK Dc a
this wbs permit condivion when this proDect was aurharizet 2 :.
1175 , , it no lonyer the case . The Ccrps of ENqikeeys vil : no *
ovdindLe val- jdaue your levee design . As you know , you .-
pro j I al-so requ) re approvals Ercm the Rec2amanicp Kcar
nnd pole: , . vl Q the Department of Water Resources ' Div s inn 4 ::
army 01 '.tams . These aqenckes would be the apprvpwlav
r author i Anq evee construct ton .
IR
e
F F
cpy Fur-is ed
Sac ramenL a I i
DEPAR'rATENT OF THE Aiaty
AND DECISION DoCU11TENT
.applicant: Delta Coves L.P. Application No: 199400393
This document constitutes my Environmental Assessment, Statement of Findings, and
review and compliance determination according to the Section 404(b)(1 ) guidelines for the
proposed work described in the public notice attached as Appendix A.
1. Proposed Project: The location and description of work are described in the attached
Public notice. There have been no modifications of the location or the description or the
proposed work since the public notice except for the mitigation described below. "Thr
applicant will implement an off-site mitigation plan as described in the docum-Init titled "'C?elta
Cx.)ves Project Weiland Mitigation Pian," prepared by Earl Cooley, Manager, Medk rd Island
H.lhitat Conservation Area, dated May'1996, and revised October 7, 1996. Additionally. the
applicant will conStruct shallow-water habitat ori-site for mitigation required as a result xif
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the pro ject's effects (:)il the
threatened delta smelt, HVonlesus tiwn.Jpcicificus.
Project History:
1 . Oil AtlgtlSt 20, 1973, the applicant filed an application for rezoning and a
preliminary development plan with Contra Costa County, On September 21 , 1976,
the county Board of Supervisors certified the final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR),, rezoned the property P-1 (planned unit development) and approved a
preliminary development plan.
?. On November 11, 1976, Public Notice Number 6063 for a Department of the
Arirly Permit was issued. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was
completed by the Corps in February 1978. A Public Hearing was held oil June 15.
1978 and Department of' the Army Permit Number 6063 was issued on i.)(_tohCI
1978. This permit expired on Octobcr 31, 1983.
May 11, 1982, the applicant submitted a fina
al developmetlt plan nd tcnta[i L
tiubdlvlslon slap ti-) Contra Costa County. On April 12,. 1983, the County P1L-lnnln-I
Commission determined that a focused EIR would need to be prepared for the pl-OJV�A.
4. Oil June 6, 1983, the Corps issued Public Notice Number 6063-1' requeS(ing
comments oil an extension of time for the ])Mje I. Contra Costa Count, subsequently
denied approval of the final development plan and tentative subdivision map. In
compliance with regulations supporting denial when local authorization is denied, time
request for a time extension was denied without prejudice by the Corps on AW-lust >,
IQS
g
tkp2nment of the Army EVallla[IOn and Decision DC)CUnlent Past
b. A plan for a boater education program consisting of signs and 113-ers about
the effects of excessive noise and erosion resulting from boat operation oil
resident fish and their habitats shall be submitted to the Service for approval.
The plan shall be implemented at least 30 days prior to boating activity occurring
in the project area.
c. No gas.docks shall be constructed within the project boundaries. Restrictions
on bilge pumping within the proposed project area shall be strictly, enforced.
d. The permittee shall create 1.25 acres of shallow water habitat on-site. This
mitigation shall be located adjacent to the landward recreation area (tennis
courts) or in another area with minimal boat traffic. Tile permittee shall develop
a detailed on-site mitigation plan. Two copies of the plan will be submitted to the
Corps of Engineers, one of which \\'ill be forwarded to the Service for approval
prior to implementation. Upon approval front the Service through the Corps, the
on-site mitigation \will be graded and prepared for planting prior to breaching the
levee. The area can be planted once the lagoon is filled or after the levee breach
occurs but must be completed within 60 days of breaching the levee.
4. The marina will be designed to include pumpout facilities for sewage and an oily
water separator for bilge waters.
S. The permittee shall ensure that the CC&R's for the individual home lots include
language stating that: a) each of the individual boat docks will be constructed as shown.
on drawing number 7 and in a manner such that neither the floating portion of the dock
or boats which may be moored to the dock will come to rest ort the levee bench during
low water; and b) a Department of the Array permit, separate from that authorizing
this project, will be needed prior to any work in, over or Linder the constructed lagoon,
including any individual boat docks \with a design other than what is authorized by this
permit.
6. The perillrttee shall provide an updated supplemental soils report to the District
Engineer tip later than 90 days prior to the proposed date of initiating construction, For
ruvic'\5 and approval to ensure that (lie soil report (dated June 1980, is still valid.
7. In ordelfor the C Dips t0 ensure that plaits and designs have been developed and
reviewed by licensed professional engineers, the permittee shall submit final development
plans and construction methods of the proposed levee system to the District Engineer no
liter than 90 days prior to the proposed date of initiating construction. 'These plans
shall include a description of the procedure for breaching of the existing levee, details
()It joining proposed and existing levees, and the location of all utilities and plantings
\\ithin and oil the proposed and existing levees; \which shall incorporate the following
restrictions:
I ailcd 1.11ld[I Ick cc kvIvIr—, I'rorn the s I,trt. cmirt I(dd I'a,c I cit 4
iV
()t '1,,-� I -�
Publishcc!/'riclut .1 Aril /3. •'Illi/
Failed Linda levet wrong from the start, court
told
SrcIWOI-cl prolt's.vur 1r.Mfies (11./loot/Trial
nA j
1 Y
/Appeal-I)emocI'tlt
Richard ;1irrlun7. cr f.ivil C17('U7eCI- (IIIc!
�f c,rc�lrrric frl rr7�irrcu r ur crrl/ (.i,rcl rriVCI_ it l.
�•.�/,lcrin.� lri.� /iriclin�.� 7 hlu scicn
al.07c Yuba
110041 trial.
\ppcal-1)enlc,crat
IIIc Linda kite was located in the
wrong place, hulll p6orly and dcstined
to Lail. a Stclnlurcl LJIiiversity prod.Cs�4()r
tc�tilied I hurscla�-. :.:
"The Linda Icvcc post(./ a rclativcly
hiuh risk compared to most levees."
said Richard Meehan. "It's a IiILh-risk
)eycc fr0117 191 1 until it IiUled in
IQ86. '
I'hc Icvcc "clilcrcd linlc resistance tk)
seepaLc" anti the resultirt�-1 Fchruan
1980 disaster "\vas hasically [I scepaLe
lailurc." he said. "The sail was Idose
rind 1.111SUthle and very suu:elllihle W
seepage instability."
htt�}:''������. tanlill'd.c'dU ` Il1Cl11alUlii nlarVS\'IIIC.l1lI11 i 1 ir.,.il=4
RICHARD L. MEEHAN
CONSULTING ENGINEER
701 WELCH ROAD,SUITE 1120
- PALO ALTO. CALIFORNIA 84304
(415) 323-0525
1 •
Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District
8 5 Stone Road
O. Box 244
Bethel Island .CA 94511
June 23 1989
^: Attention• Christine Thresh
-Re: Proposed Delta Coves Subdivision
-..
`Ladies and Gentlemen;
t your request I have reviewed various documents pertaining to
e safety and environmental impact of the proposed Delta Coves
' roject, among which are the William F. Jones Inc. "Soil and
eological Investigation for Delta Coves" dated June 1980; a
followup letter regarding the potential for disaster at Bethel
1'; : 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
Island "corridor" dated Decmber 28, 1987. I 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
,y 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
V
over the past twenty years.
- -;`I conclude that the existing documents do not adequately
evaluate at least two adverse specific technical impacts and one
eneral safety management issue arising from the project.
Permits for breaching the existing levees should not be ranted
g g g
'- 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 Stone
Road, and (2) increased seepage due to underflow 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
f.: 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
E
:. . 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
E; possibility and could come 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 liqefiable 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) .
r, A 1986. 1evee 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
'F BIMID Comments, page 15
order of 10, 000 cubic feet per. second. Flood damage was
k..; Substantial as it was; however, if the waters had been confined
by another parallel dike system, similar to the proposed
,Y
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
,pro]ect.
'.' '` '.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;
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
r. '' ', 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
i` :` relieve other reviewers and parties from responsibility for
' .: insisting that state-of-the-art techniques be used to allow the
of the project to be properly understood by the people
' .who will be affected by it.
Krone December 28, 1987 and Jones April 14, 1988 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
f:
".;indeed" , the report dismisses the hazard ("very low indeed")
only because the failure has not occurred in the past! This is
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 for 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) ,
k: 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
i; 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
f 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
i
:J'
k
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
early 1970s or in stabilization and development in the Palos
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 Corps of Engineers, to other responsible
agencies, and to the developer. I would be happy to nPet with
any of the parties involved to explain any of the :issues raised
here.
Ve Tr, y Y rs,
Richard L. Meehan
LZ '
4:
BIMID Comments, page 19
c:T A.TC OF !A FGR! PS�Dli I'mc '-,_-N'c
THE RECLAMATION BOARD
1415 9;!l STRFE; IRA,,?,L N 10 551 i 4 n
XT
STAW.I,\ V- KIR01,49-K. P,il..:7f
J. J. MADIGAN
WALLACE McCORAIACK
GEOWE W. NTM A.
HAROLD J OBANiON
MAX S. VANN, TZ
DONA& L. WEILER October F , ick-
COL. A E. YC3LLi,M. --ro!
RXrW
Atnel island huninval
in�rovekent Distric-C,
U. -sox.
islanc, Gelifornia
hz �entlon: Ers . keud K. Peterson
Secretary
Wentlemen:
Reference is made to your ieLter of SepreoUn
inforp� ny this office that the board of Directors of the Bethel
islana Y1njclyai improvement District ayprovsd E reavest N;
W.r . L. eisenuurg, jr . for the abandonment of a portion of
Stone Am! . We are greatly concerned with your . statenent tno-
tnis
pr. a' included the r6location of the District ' s main WVe , .
in accordwace with Section 8710 of the Californis Wooer-
CA5 every plan that proposes the alterution or ingroveme7t cy nAy
leve� w � tniq Lne
ave s of jurisdiction of
sc,Kthe Reclanstiu!
eqirhe pprovel o ,said asr , srd
opco s t,s,,_ h,e
�n your ic-tur is definitely wirhin the jurisdictfan of vae �wnrj .
Thenefore, it is necessary thot an a;ylicntign for wy�ruvyj oi
Mns fon the 0- 10�etion of the M21n levee of .
zhe both ! lslunY:
Anicipal im,rovement District oe submitted Lo the Rei ciamstion
unald ap�_vrecieze knowing the present status of ttis
Sincerely urs,
Genera l/Anbeer
4�1
Assistant Secretar.-i
his : A:
cc : M . i . E. Weisenburg, jr .
Q . S. Corps of Engineers
Department of Water Resources
of rHE SFC5 aAa EDMUND G. BROiti'I^J JR,
UES BUiL'DING GOVERNOR OF Alf RaSJ1,rcos Board
.i BC _ Colorado River Board
CALIFORNIA Sz F,tl
.: c eco Bc.', %on]nrVulc:i. tl.,.
0 NINTH STREiT r IDBVeI()prlltll 11 i., IIRII SSCI
9561a Solid Yrnnto 61 nn u;;ern tlnl He ur.l
` Suutl L I.J.is
b) Q4iJ--JbUU •' '`� Stain Rur.lnrnauun Hon ri
1; I E-on enrvuiwn y� � i-I HnUuo.a, .:nluU..u.•.:'. ;,,, , ;,i 6.,n.,•:.
L i
ul F.
eh end Gump V.� °i
,nl , J tri nrUy kn nli,.ru tl:, •_,: ::uvni: ,,:,.i
,nof Nnvi pu4un and Jnvnl,r L'm uni i:..omixsp .
nDOVRIopme"I California Coastal
;�`�: p, , I Purl.w nail Rar.rnnuun
1:., ,il Wninr fl.,...iir..uw
Commission.
rtment of ForestryTHERESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA State Coastal Conser-
vancy
SACRAh:1E1NTO, CALIFORN4A California Conser-
� vation Corps
1�
V.
f;
' OCT 41977.
Colonel Donald M O' Shei
District Enqineer
Sacramento District
U. S . fumy Corps of Engineers
650 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Colonel O ' Shei :
The State of California has reviewed your "Draft Environmental Impact
Statement , Delta Coves Proposed Subdivision, Permit Application"
transmitted by Notice of Intent (SCH 77080255) dated August 7 , 1977,
p� and submitted to the Office of Planning and Research (State Clearing-
house) in the Governor ' s Office . This review fulfills the requirements
under Part II of the U. S. Office of Management and Budget Circular
>I A-95 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 .
The State ' s review has been coordinated with the Departments of
'i Conservation, Fish and Game , Parks and Recreation, Water Resources ,
Food and Agriculture , Health, and Transportation; the Fir Resources
'r1 Board , the Solid Waste Management Board , the State Water Resources
Il Control Board, the Energy Resources Conservation and Development
>I Commission, and the Public Utilities Commission.
{ Air Quality Concerns
�-ie have sone concerns about this project since its design. seems to
continue a high dependency upon the automobile for transportation .
The location of the project will require residents to travel several
gel Donald M: O' Shei
age 5
i-
E
ap-proaches the around water table , a pond site will be
prr •%-icied for the containment of water. A well point system
f7 .ill be utilized to lower the water table and provide suit-
able traction for the machines engaged in the haulout of
material . " (Emphasis added)
Page 3 , Paragraph 8
"Ac this point in time the water cul-de-sac would be gradually
' filled by siphoning procedures thereb,,,7 eliminating any hydro-
static differential_ which could induce water seepage or
failure of the Bethel Island Levee. " (Emphasis added)
Page 18 , Paragraph 2
"The present Bethel Island levee in several locations does
not meet the requirements for a standard project levee . In
some places , the levee crown is +8 . 0 feet mean sea level (MSL)
or less . In two locations, it is as low as +6 . 9 feet (MSL) . "1;
Page 28 , Paragraph 2
" In summary, the island has unique geologic conditions due to:
a. A high water table .
b. The presence of low bearing strength from compressable
muds .
C . Loose , water-saturated sands .
d. Susceptibility to earth shaking and potential amplification
of movement on the surface due to subsurface soil
characteristics . "
Page 36 , Paragraph 2
"Bethel Island , as compared with other Delta islands , has a
sand soil base . The integrity and stabilitCy have not . been
pi-oven ..
race 37 , Paragraph 1
"Bu.i.ldi-ng a bridge large enough to meet these requirements
would necessitate the use of heavy equipment and construction
along Stone Road near the proposed entrance channel . Heavy
construction in this area could jeopardize the existing peat
evee . (Emphasis added)
December 29, 1975
Contra Costa County >`is
Planning Department
Martinez, Gal .fornia 94553 moo
got
£_O DELTA COVES (Application No. 1832"1'.G.) L.E. :'eL.Qi e1Fburg, Jr. avvyK fi' S:`.`.`'
Gentlemen:
_ht the regular meeting of theoard of Lirecto;.s of Bethel Island!-='_:.:1
is :..._
Municipal improvement ;;,...;.
District, held on �ece��er �I, 1975, the �','••'>'<= ;-,�'.� s:;. '.
Board unanimously approved the present plans for Belts Coves,
instructing the secretary to advise the planning Department of
the hoard'' actioa in this regard.
TWA you fay your past considerations.
Yours ssiacerely,
Gladys C. Brlllon
Secretary
to the
Board of Directors
i'
Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District
3085 Stone Road
PO Box 244
Bethel Island, CA 94511-0244
(925) 684-2210
Fax: (925) 684-0724
Ernail bimid@sbcglobal net
Web site www.bimid.com
.May 17. 2006
Lisa Kirk
PO Box 435
Bethel Island. CA 94511
Re: Public Information Request dated May 8, 2006
Ms Kirk:
Item #1 of your request is "final changes of the breach structure You indicated you wanted a
copy of the final plans with a signature of a District (Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District:'
representative. The District does not have a signed copy of the final changes of the breach
structure in its records.
Itefti #2 of your request is a pre-construction survey of crest elevations of the District evee a.,.ang
Stone Road' The District does not have this survey in its records However. Duc Housing 1;;.35
contracted with "Exponent" to independently perform site'and visual surveys of property iii tre
mirnediate vicinity of Delta Coves
Item #3 of your request is an 'embankment of seismic stability analysis for the existing Stone
Road levee' This information is not currently available and if information is received by the
District in the near future, it can be forwarded to you
Item #4 of your request is 'an application number for the Delta Coves breach site'. rhe District
approved the entire Delta Coves project (Application No 1832-RZ) on December 11, 1975
(Copy of letter to the Contra Costa County Planning Department regarding same is attached'
Sincerely,
Paul Harper
District Manager
Bethei Island Municipal Improvement District
PI iih
Bethel Island Municipal Improvement '(strict
3085 STONE ROAD
POST. OFFICE FOX 244
BETHEL ISLAND, CALIFORNIA 94511
(415) 684-2210
June 20
of swpervysor-:�
cw� tfa Costa Count:,
Kan7Aqz , _.-. - -_. . . _
Deny Supervisors :
Ti-' s ? _ r by _.!_ice_ ,__. ._`1_'._ _ _ .. . asked - -
T)V District originally supported this jro:ect , but Sin—
._ ,_.,.. r. . Delta -
...� r,.-. , '- - rr - r - - -
ond
s
Ap nelievo that this matter deserves 010 sn �c.Y a�c. 2 on
„
... �- � will '�� 1l 1.
Very lruly yours ,
1 _
Board of Slrv�nVrl�
- -�-... �� �•�,LyL _ C...'% �:x`.4,1 1
The Department of the Army, South Pacific Division, Corps of
Engineers , San Francisco, submitted material for the October 1988
:l: .. Congressional Subcommittee hearing record. The Corps ' statement
Y
was
made b Brigadier General John F . Sobke, South Pacific Divi-
..
;.ri.
.
Sion Commander . His concluding statement included the following :
XT will continue to monitor relative sea level rise on the
coastal environment . In doing so, the environmental impact as-
gessment process will continue as an integral part of project
G - .feasibility studies . Also, regional geology will be careful '_ )
considered along with the historical records of relative sea
,`;� ..' level rise . Where warranted and economically feasible , our pro-
. .` . posals will include sufficient flexibility to accommodate future
change.
In light of the foregoing, the Corps ' decision-makers must
take a hard look at the proposed Delta Coves project which lacks
.mitigations to accommodate future changes in sea levels .
z Grading:
The conditions of a
,;t.. pproval for Contra Costa County state
(#15) "Grading permits shall be required for each phase . All
` grading and earthwork plans , whether temporary or permanent
changes , shall be reviewed and approved by the County Community
Development Department prior to issuance of a permit . " The Coun-
`;: . . ty' s own ordinances specifically prohibit issuance of permit for
levee grading without prior approval from the agency responsib'• e
. : for maintenance of the levee . C . C.C. ' s Ordinance Division 716 -
`. Grading, Section 2 . 608 , "Prohibited action -- Levee work . No
person shall excavate, or remove any. material from any levee or
i.. . do any work on levees required for river or local drainage con-
trol without prior approval of the local governmental agency
responsible for the maintenance of the levee. " Contra Costa
k., County does .not have the sole authority to grant levee grading
Permits . In the case of Delta Coves , the first permitting agency
is the Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District .
Drainage :
No provisions. have been made for new drainage courses to
replace those removed if the proposed project is built . In 1983 ,
' the Contra Costa County conditions of approval for the project
acknowledged this
g problem, however the final conditions approved
` t..
BIMID Comments, Page 8 � � �
i:•
i 716-2.425
Z ZO
i � Ina :',;,;;,•,
716-2.428 Natural grade. 716-2.604 Prohibited action—Gradi
�_
"Natural rade"is the vertical location of the ground No person shall grade,whether or not a unit
!.;
i
surface prior to any excavation or fill. (Ord. 69-59 § 1, quired therefor under this division,so that dirt;soi)ltr'1:x
i 1969). debris,or other material washed,eroded,or mo'ed fi ;;
the property by natural or artificial means.cresite3".1'*'
i! 716-2.430 Quarry. public nuisance or hazard,or an unlawful encroac
:.; "Quarry" means any premises or site from which on other property or on a public road or street:Auy,tii
i ;
rock,sand,gravel,stone,earth soil or mineral is removed matter deposited within the right-of-way of apubli 4 :"
or excavated for immediate or delayed disposition away or street which may constitute a nuisance or.hazard b.
from the premises,except: public traffic shall be removed immediately;and,fyil!lt¢ .
(1) Excavation which is necessary for the devel- to do so on notice from the county,authorizes theCotll
opment of a lot or parcel,if permits for construction have to have the matter removed at the expense.of:lhet0i'`.
been issued pursuant to this division, and if the s onsible party and/or permit holder.(Ord.
development conforms to the provisions of Title 9; 1969).
(2) Excavation which is necessary to bring the
contour of the land,within a subdivision for which a map 716-2.606 Prohibited action—Water
has been recorded, to the grades shown on a land obstruction.
development plan for subdivision,which subdivision has No person shall obstruct,impede or interfete'wllh'1
been approved as a part of the grading permit authorizing natural flow of storm waters, whether unconfine 'ypd$
the excavation. Ord.69-59 § 1, 1969 . the surface of the land,within land de ressions f
drainage ways, within unimproved chain'
716-2.432 Rough grade. . watercourses, or within improved ditches;.chameltE�;
"Rough grade"is the elevation of the ground surface conduits,except for construction operations pelted :,
established by grading that approximates the final the.county. (Ord.69-59 § 1, 1969).
elevation shown on the approved design.(Ord.69-59§ 1, F
1969). ff 716-2.608 1 Prohibited action--Levee wotii;'
NoerseW shall excavate, or remove an
P� Y:
716-2.434 Site. from any levee or do any work on levees requiied` 4.
"Site"is any area,lot or parcel of land or contiguous river or local drainage control without prior approvllN
combination thereof, under the same ownership, where. the local governmental agency responsible fot':1
grading or development is proposed orper-formed.(Ord. maintenance of the levee. (Ord.69-59§1,1969 -Ar
69-59 § 19 1969).
716-2.610 Prohibited action--Co
i .A ..
716-2,436 Soil engineer. public rights-of-way.*
"Soil engineer"is a civil engineer who is experienced No person shall perform any work or Constii><'t f
in soil mechanics, who investigates and reports on the facility(including excavation or embankment;treoi
stability of existing or proposed slopes,who controls the driveway construction, or drainage facility)ivithi>; ;�:.
i ' ..
I.: ! installation and compaction of fills, who recommends right-of-way of a public road or street, Or VA
soil bearing values,and who provides design criteria and easement under the jurisdiction of this county;IMI! ut
calculations for special earth structures such as buttress permit from the county agency having jurisdiction:(OIdS
fills.(Ord.69-59§ 1, 1969). 69-59§ 1, 1969).
kI
y' Article 716-2.6.Prohibited Actions * For encroachments of public rights-of-way,see Div:.1Q01
U) code.
W
Z. 716-2.602 Prohibited action—Work without 5
ermit Article 716-2.8.Administration.
P +1 !.
Q i No person shall perform any work within the scope of f '#xis.
Qe this division without first having obtained a permit from 716-2.802 Administration—Authority. . ';
The building inspection department shall building inspection department Pursuant to this atimia ',;
division. (Ord. 69-59 § 1, 1969). this division. (Ord.69-59§ 1, 1969). , '
* For building inspection department,see Ch.72.2,
7 t'''1.
i >a 366 `
'R! I W Y
M .,v
(Revised September 15, 1988.
(Revised July 20, 1989.)
:)rdinarce Of LK BETHEL QLAND YUKIMPM, 1KPP0VnMKT
P1 9TR T CT Pega Q E ing Ac i i v i L 1 es a nd Cons C_ 1_'r 1 oA Up ik, ?P : a� i r.
Over An Di sz r A 1- is Le- ;eE. S'ys-, em
he it Onjained by Llie Maid �;f Direllors �t 7rY MTKK;__
PAL TMPROVEMENT DISTPVT as fn! Ws :
I . !-- Purpose and FindOgs
(a) Bethel -slant _-.'-s s',--r-ro'uncied by the waters -.-,i-_e 3c'r
Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta, and is prnrecn-�-�d from
Ov che levee system operwed and noinzained by BIMID. The integr1r..i
A tno javees, and BIMID ' s ability La inspect, M00LDr,
Mairrain, repair, and rehatilitate tl:em is essenlial W t K�-.
heaM, safeEy and welrare of the residenEs of Bethel lsiaLd, anci;
is nathorized by section 96 of [he BT ,':ID
J_).', _-:r0pe_r mainueriancc.L and operaT_-...ori tne '; e-,,reE:
Tequires a program of continuouc
s inspeticri and rEqWY tb' EANQ
and iis agents and employees, as well as r", We i�iv�n47nd oil,:,'
'cut-.l Lc.
RAID receives financial WsIsCancl for loyno 10�011 ---
Wton spa vaintenance trom MG State of Califocnin
Code sec7LG2 12980 ek seq. and onnwn laws . Sn�h ±Tf : �Lonod
par= of BIMID' s budgeL, siuhouL whiah RIVP
tm be ON Lo MaKLain As Avees in &Eir aoifent =mLion .
(d) Part of rhe levee rekabiliZdLiul Carriet C� ty B ! 147 �:
Liicjudes raising the levees zo the height ! : D . 2 ' USGS) reccmmendel
W srare and federai agencies, ar the slopes ( 3 : 1 lanaside; 2 : L
by Ehose agencies .
also wnchslonally Z-e(.IL-' LeS --isaster assiszance
from Ll_\ rederal governmenu, in order to pay for levee repa±rs .
Ordinance is innended to safeguard 1IMID' s abMuv,
7n prore v ins levees, and thereby _.Cie healih and SafeLV A vim,
residepns of Berhel island, wid to enshrc III t
a
Bache! RAW corf._=ns uc s-c-ate and federal s7and ards for FTocw-
� Icln of levens and in, f_' C' _.'C
sv3A1M ! ] ±cy wT aucivreedeo suana anj Eadets! YiqaP& n !
jesLj(n, j , 2- - Finding Regarding Levee 2nke snA
--aised Q adding MaLYKa� Y :� M�11 1 K 4 YJ
szope . T�nrefore, as levAs a---e !J
axtocn furEher Lowaros the inreri& of Bad:_l .7 :7,-
tance to which the landward slope of any givem par _ of rne
Ail exwnd as a result of being raised to 10 . . " USGS denends ol:
iis existing Wight and slope, as well ---as ',A-_.e
surface of BeEhel Island in Ehe area Cr chat par E A &e levee .
Ebr zhds reason A it impossible zo de-tirie a spe(_'-iric, infl-L�:,,iLle
etback ihab wili adequately pr,otect BIMID' s c
sompelling iAreresr_c_�
ir levee mainnenance and rehabilitation, wjrhouL unfairly tzrdenln;j
some landowners .This Ordinance cherefore sers forrh a sewnc-_
i cr wi 1 1 be subjec7 ro modif 1canion on a case by case tnn!5,
I SM nq at uempOng w camh A sh, Val I
�ish, or Othar auuavic aninlais Q use of a rMe, live, q�[,
IMP— to esunNish 01 PVCh, or nVOMPO no eHLanl3sh
resKn
at otkarwise in any canp, Lent cr temporafy Shelter .
Boaz— My vessel for Eransport Vy water regafaless V
5 A Z Q� ase, or met't-,:."rJ of
M M An' , horses, cal tin, sneep, goats, ps,
an anHOAS, exceptj �; honsehold po�g, A
Mer- The leual owner, equirsci, o�pn � , �rn
Firearms— pav/ handgun, s h a 0
an 1GAI USGS elavatinp-- �M r- ! �7 "7
line ezvennen pErpendscalm 2c: cne ievee nowinas wo rv��w :
MOO island, at a slope or 2 : 1 , frcm M upqeuvnn� pnMn
waterside slope of Che exiscinq levee, reaches an eLevon -
� Z2 Van, accirding tc USGS dara :
Phu rOMWng a7mvinies on, cver cc trum ME levee cc lwv&L
zw�v ary ;Twhibited, except as perminen Oy BIM:D Or mad a3�:Sa
wars�SP7 to section 8 nerect .
in ) leaving, placing , mairtalniw, ridi�q, Klvl �q
CoUroti.ng .�.Ilv stock;
�'il 1__.-a 17113
a
Vj Lawnchipg aAy boat, eXCEF7 fro� 0 A"P��t �q ! �� p
other faci!icy regul ar i y Nc ! KY. . s� ;
Q ) Driving, paf A ng, or operauinc onv ven 1 �T� ,n ��i� ;An-z
kirid crKer than official ennrgepn VVKI�IAV
;y kriviKq, apera7lng or parking any
n --�Vlrq cocys or o r n e r w i c
G cad ing , exy Va;yg 1 1 eve j 2
raisinq, Watling, JiggIng, C emv�!
4 -- prunitiVed Objears, Things Q :
WAS, VelenDnieR, 3ad Vehicle-i
51in ne a ACIStion of this DIOIKOin� 7, OMSKY��I'
Inaw, "�Vcn, Kare, maintain, Pdann OY park, �nv 0 � F03 1
i_-.,ver the �vvee, 1&vee zone, or proiecW Ac
"All i
Any building cr major struin"i o �O.ec " Ke� YsPA
Y;
i!.,Lmuter, pipe, pipeiine 4naiaQina
lines, or sJun-L-lar iPOCes fOL the
C,.--)I i 1 ic herewi tri
Sectiln K - Enforcemenn, Pubfic Nuisance, Coscs , an:-i
P e na-1 t i e S
(a) All -v-,-' olat ions of this Ordinance awe decla,--e.,:a' �_C? b((, 3
pub! i c raiisance, and may be summarily abated by the Leis crici:
pursuant co Government Code sections 38170 thr!)Ugh 38790, Ur
remedied pursuant co Civil Code sections 3490 througn
3495.
b) Vin ac.-?or, Z.c enforce this Ordinance, in whin, the
Discrict is the prevaKing party, it shall recover izs Costs,
wnich shall become a lien upon the property where the viclanion
occurred.
(c) Any owner or other person commicring any acc erumeraEs-J
in section 3 or undertaking any consrrucEion enumera:ed in sec-
cion I without or in excess Of a permit, shail snop such yc�k
)istrLU an Ion
C"afr�/ CoUt any corrective work ordered b. LAhie i
represencative immediately upon vwriMen �Dkificazion by Lr:e
Discrict or any representative thereof chat he or she A
(d) When iLhe District s?-m-,minarily abates
C.,rdi- r�ance more than seventy-Liv.o (72) hours after notik::e t.,,
mail, by publication (in accoMance wic'n Gover.-mienz Code sec�,ion 6U6_,.,
pursuant to section 11 (c) of , this Ordinance, such sugmary a:: s neaten
stall be az the cost and expense of the ow-ner, and shall be a lier, 'L,-i-pon
upcn i.-Jrich te viciation,
(e) Pursuant to Section 96 of Chapter 22 of Srac&as of 1960,
any viqlaLion of Ms Ordinance consticutes an infraction. As such,
- I -e I I -:
violc4c.ioiis oC this ChAinance ai ymmishab-' e. b:y 1 a. fi :,.,e
exceeding one hundred dollars ($100. 00) for a first violation; a
fine r.cc two l-,"u-1-dred do _Lars ($200.00) Lor .a second vbjIaLi,::)n
1--ii.thin one year; and a fine !-,or e.xceed'Ing
five hundred dollars (Y500 . 00) f o r e ac r. a a d a L. -,-o r!a-, -v :L 0 'L 5 E 1 C F.-
wichin the. same year. Each tea`, for which 3 J
sepnLace v_iblacion.
W The remedies and penalties proMded by this Ordinance an,�-
cumulative co each other and to che remedies aid pon& nes
Section 12-- Amendment and Adoption
-` .'1E_ b c.)a r d from z_,,Trie t .r. Lima establish nenva .],
MaHdauds and guidelines for its implementation, which snall W,
nondinions to the issuance of any permiu . The board may from
:!.me co cime in its discretUn adopt a standardapplicarAn form
or forms, for use in administration of the permit procedwre pro-
vided herein . This Ordinance, any general standards ancz guide-
lines, and any standard permit application forms adopted by tM%
board shall be Mifable to the public at the District offices,-
(b) This Ordinance and any amendrents to it , and aw penerm
sEaNdards and guidelines for AS implementation, shail posted
--I e ',%, he Ai=st..-cjt-:c
0 1 eek in three public places in
take effect upon expi,acion of fifteen days ca" s= posLAg . A
subsecuenc finding of p board, entered in its s, i.h,-. C.
posting , has been made is conciusive evidence chac Ae posArc ha: -
�40mer?ts of ;ra:. , ,r er', r G'... _
Love FII! and Mass Grading r' f
T.-1e e 0 F;S �' ,!!c des; ;ners for :he p.,o;ec; ncri,de recc)n;rl:rr'Icf.,t cf, t
:poi.: [ a reino`✓ed ;iGlow the tootprin: cd ieV(-';'._.'. Sar1C7 ::'i!l tnC'n De Dla�t:!.! anC
(?;._,,. Ih(' I"rFl 1:�.Ie F'.avt nd C.:!(JlriC'.lJ ;)r e?: coris f C, 7.asba ]•r
2. Liquefaction
Lle.siylnE::`: :,aye evaluated the potential for liquetanon ana neve onif ie:ic:u.ii;rl .:
�:atlOii
cif areas ';'!th tf,e potent!ai for liquefaction. l.''`e have re.1�vlell P-ie
Ia;, fv: rerr',ed!ali-,n. Fhe rpmedlallon Alan Includes removal ano cornpact!C;r-I of
6!i,iilov' sarid deposits. For the thicker deposits, the plan, is to 'Jse diver, i ;n a rn I;: -om L. iiC!:
DD' ` ! e :cep: vithlr. 20. feet Oi eXlsuric residences. Within the 2rJ(.' fee: z o r i t sis"', e C if.:!::' ._.
rc.p anne(�. VV''e cencluce that the remediation plan is a reasonacle
C t f ar-,Ll redJce the fist; of carriage to the Ie.VEeS dfid IrTlpro`;C !rlc".!`: JII. t; . ,..
cK;.-)Q. Tspecifications on DDS, and stone columns have not bec-rl rt':`.'Iced.
a' lr:c- ,'Jrl?rac;or A,i.I provide the specifications and constiuct!on sell.:i::!I; ;"i:_:: ..'I 'I'.' .... L:'
:;I--io of the stork columns. The contractor should provide the iniorm ar,c'f: ;,, : le " ,_.
i ol_,r !e'✓ie`,N prior to proceeding.
aiid other construction aclivities v,.ill cause ground vibration. Vvu •Jnoer,ianc' t'f ai ir:!-
"'faUiv' `+rill mc'r,3F -vibration during constructlo�,. he ConlraClO' a'�G IJrI iC• rCriur'l' u .
:jt exisii g cof.,ditions on adjacent properies prior to construction. i ht� preconstrL:l; psi:
!I ;+� s.nouid Inclr,dr� documenting the cr-est elevations of the B!MID 'e',ee along `-:tCirlE ;c.
oulc! case some settiemer o` lite e:is:inq evee. Tne conn-ractor s c)L,ic sot=:,,!:_G—
:iC;c: fllCinrlof'rlg Jlaf� tC tfle OUntY and for cur re:'le`:' before start:m,, '`)DC-.
3. Slurry Wal! and Dewatering
r: :Ie': IS ll- Cilcn;l i:_, :3Itef
The i2-ccentia! IIIIPci :! of `uepage Is consideraE,!`j greate, u,i i;
fC,7 _I..Jrlr ns."Jct:c-, tr,c _ )rlt,aclo pial , to lo'::E r gr 'u' :;l•:c:..: � _... .: .
rernod a 'ci burro:•: rTlater!a: and Ir1S121 ailUrl iif ut!litiet(r.i ;'1':: :-:':isi:
the Gr'o(!nd`::ater levels beneath the property :":Iii be raise l :e-1
:eve!s Feat and ;•trier marsh deposits Jnderlle some of uI' ai d ic,. +tri; )rl
II r,a pea' Is hlghi) conlprrasslble and lowering the gFOUnd`:;aler below., aiu::t n! 'Pr:);
J. ];;e t.1-le stress in the peat aric cause grounc se'.l!eme, .. and
oil grate. Obviously; this Is uildaslrable.
C. CC:: `:.ill curlst'uct a siurf, ,:'alb is a depth The ,-, r-r r 1
r i dl aoout -+� IEf:I. .1_ ''.1t_ f tl:::
II iviII be Constructed by slurry Irenctl (Tletnods. I; 'L:+lli e.,�,Iencl tr I gri trlE'.U(IUcrl}'
ii: atlur't_r ttlat starts at exlStlrlg grade and penetrates Into arl l !' Icy ta`r'e r Ti;'
i?i mon OC tnC SiUr"� '✓VGII `,n•'ll be COn5IrllCtC'd V':Itr': IOv:' pert Tl Evabinij• „OII"1 ri Fj CCE'l. III'
= uli `,i%ry s.:wo funCtlorls. Uurirlq site grading the s!urn:" v:a; .:i ;�Il",•., :] ,:st ,i 1'
ail;, Iiilt;fi(Df .:Itti(:l:l iC.:il?i'I(I�' -�roL:rldl':titer levels or. till; U[�jjC;J'tC '�Illt;' ;Jl .'Ifs ..=;i:
HULTGP.EN-TILLIS ENG PAGE
05/02/2006 15:44 9256856768 •
. , , . .. '� •-A•Co�fc�riila.`CorPn�dfldn: •.
5peclalbJng In Gd6techn1cal•Eng1n•3ering
;fir t! • '�� �. �"
May 2, 2006
Project 156.10 BIMI®
Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District MAY — 2 2006
P.O:'Box 244
Bethel Island, California 94511
Attention: Mr. Paul Harper
'SheetPiles for Seepage
4472 Stone Road .
Existing Levee
Bethel Island, Callfornia
Dear Mr. Harper:
This letter presents our recommendation for installing interlocking steel sheetpiles for seepage
control at 4472 Stone Road on Bethel Island, California.. This letter is a follow-up to our letter
dated May 1, 2006. The purpose'of the letter is to provide design details and recommendations
for installation of the sheetpiles.
We recommend that sheetpiies be driven Into the existing levee crest and extend to at least 26
feet'below the levee crest The top of sheetpiles should extend below the levee crest. The top
of the sheetpile should be at or above Elevation 8 feet (1 foot above the 100-year flood),
nominally 2 feet below the existing crest top. A 2-to 3-feet deep trench should be excavated
into the levee at
to facilitate installation of the sheetpiles. The viall should be installed in the
levee crest, within 5 feet of the slough-side hinge point. The sheetpile wall should extend 20
feet beyond the projected edges of the existing retalning walls and the point sources of
seepage. The nominal length of the wall is 90 feet.
The sheetpiles should be Larssen 600 or equivalent. The sheetpiles shall have a section
modulus of at least 9.5 cubic inches per foot of sheetpile and a minimum wall thickness of 318-
Inch.
The intent of the sheetpiles Is to cut off flow of water of 4472 Stone Road and stop the
movement of sand. The extent of the sheetpiles is based on our-Judgement and the general
belief that water Is flowing directly across the levee from the slough. Additional sheetpiles may
be. needed If the Initial sheetpiles do not effectively stop the movement of fines. The bid should
include a provision for installing additional sheetpiles beyond the 90 feet limit.
The installation of the sheetpiles may lower the water level within the levee and existing .
properties. The reduction in water levels will increase the effective lrveight of the peat and cause
the peat to consolidate. Some settlement.of the downslope properties may occur due to the
installation of the sheetpiles.
2221 Commerce Avenue,Sulte A-1 • Concord, California 94520-4987
Phone(925)685-6300 Fay.(925) 685-67,38
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE CYPRESS LAKES
& COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT
ADOPTED BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
JUNE 81 1993.
� J c_
approved by Contra Costa County prior to the
.issuance of building permits .
Facts : The liquefaction potential of the .project site was
thoroughly assessed by Kleinfelder, Inc. , based on soil borings and
other tests conducted for the geotechnical analyses . (This issue
was discussed previously with respect to Mitigation Measure 3 . 7-8 . )
These assessments analyzed techniques to minimize. liquefaction.
Such techniques include removal of the liquefiable material and
recompacting it by conventional means, deep dynamic compaction,
vibrocompaction and vibroreplacement, soil mixing, pile foundations
and slurry wall cutoff and permanent site dewatering. Due to the
public' s concern on the use of the deep dynamic coma action meth=,
this mettiocl `s all not i iga ion Measure 3 . 8-1 is
modifte o reflect this change and Mitigation Measure 3 . 8-2 shall
not be adopted. As briefly mentioned above, other techn.iq..aes have
been thoroughly analyzed by Kleinfelder , Inca to nait.igate.
liquefaction . Prior to the building of any structure or facility ,
a site specific analysis will be conducted to determine the use of
the appropriate liquefaction method. Mitigation. Measure 3 . 8-5 is
modified to be mandatory as opposed to optional .
Findings : The Board of Supervisors rejects Mitigation Measure
3 . 8-2 for the reasons stated above . The Board of Supervisors
adopts Mitigation Measures 3 . 8-1 and 3 . 8-5 as modified , and 3 . 8-8 .
The Board of Supervisors finds that the project plans (which
include Measures 3 . 8-1 as modified) , in addition 'to the adopted
Measures and conditions of approval , will mitigate the project' s
potential impacts on liquefaction to a level of insignificance .
2 . Impact.: Construction of the project will result in
significant grading for the homes, golf course, lakes and otiaer-
facilities . These activities will expose soils to wind erosion .
rhe- site is located in an area of strong winds , which r.i :,
in a significant loss of soil .
Mitigation: The project plans include this followinc3 e-ruls Lun
control measures to address this impact :
• 3 . 8-4a . Existing vegetated areas sl}e-u-fdl--shall be left
undisturbed until construction is actually
ready to commence .
b. A1.1 disturbed areas should shall be protected
from both wind and water erosion upon the
completion of grading activities .
C . Runoff she id=s b. 1a be directed away from all
areas disturbed by construction , if practical .
d . Temporary check dams , sediment f:,onds, 0C
siltation . basins s1r�3t-1-6--sball be uscad to traE
35
i'
DEEP DYNAMIC COMPACJ ION
FIELD TRIAL.
DELTA COVES
GATEWAY ROAD
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, C.AI_tEORNIA
1-OR
Dt_ICHOUSING PARTNEI:S, INC.
March 1,2004
BGC
BERLOGAR
GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANTS
�1r Si:-% Spence
110LIS1rlg Partners, Inc.
111, Winchester Boulevard, Suite 11
I.os Gatos, California 9503?
Subject: Deep Dynamic Compaction field 'hrial
Delta Coves
Gateway Road
Contra Costal County, California
Dcar Mr. Spence:
']'his report presents the result, of our observation and testint, during f luld trail of'dcc1) dymilllic
compaction (DDC) at 11o Delta Coves project on Bethel Island in Conti-1-1 COSLz, Cuunt�
California.. The fieftrai was performed at two locations 1. \IZI:.� I and .ARI1 21 as hOW11 on
Plate: I (Vicinity Map). and Plates 2 and i (.Site Plan). Densification, Inc. \\as the deep d\rlanllc
compaction contractor.
The deep dynamic compaction was generally conducted by dropping a 9-ton block at a height of'
about >U Deet at square spicing of about I ) feet. Each impact point received > drops and t',vo
passes were applied at each treated area. The first and second passes were separated by a ��aiting.
pel'lod of ahciut 3 d111'S. as sho��ll on Plate 4; the impact holI1IS for the hist and second passes
kwere off set M• about S-Ih feet diagonally. The organic soils and/or peat were not removed
prior to compaction. The craters created by the drops were generally backfilled with louse sails.
The contractor also measured the ground vibration and the results are presented on Plate �.
fo study the effectiveness of the (deep dynamic compaction. three boring-s II,,\o in :\I- a 1 and otic
In .`ilea ?) wele drilled within the treated areas tlsink a track-mounted drill riL� %\III 1A.,h
equipment about three to four weeks atter the second pass (A'conlpacti<)n �tand,.ud pcn;:tralu ti
tests .were perfOrnied and soil samples were taken for m(.)11 tWre content. dr\ derlsit\ and passfflLl
��flt.l ;leve tests at each horim, at a vertical interval of ahout , fc.et. Hit: daiC� .d CoInpLILt1 111 :ald
borin�� are listed on Plate 6. The boring logs showing the blow cOunts. soil CLISsilicalloll.
moisture content and dry density are shown on Plates 7 through 10. A Kc� to Borin_ Lu,
Svmbols is included on Plate I I. The results of the passing 4r.'200 sI'C%'e tests arC sLill lrnarli/c d on
Plate 12. The hammer energy was measured to be about 7? percent of� free fall. The calculated
pic-DDC and post-DDC values are fgraphicaliv depicted on Plates { ; and 14.
.... .As shown or, Platcs I ; and 14, we conclude that DDC.' usin" a e)-ton hlocl< .with aAli-ii)i)t drop
can generally remedy the liquefiable sod condition to a depth of' about 1.i ti) 15 feet bc1cm the
1 existing ground surface. The Lipper about 4 feet of the soils relllain relall%el loose :old require
PERMT PdUMIBER
R LEE
FGF'. C',L:F��i c ?:, ';OU ,T
THL ;TAMPING i ',,tSS (LAN ANL
TO F=F.V:i OR TO EF" �DVA:GF TFE
aA'y v)C�KT'�OR�i}ik}—
t3tJt L.tplhl Ce�f!`,i?E';'TIJN
kosf,7 OL-,f� it
to the inspa,-Lor at ail tv:ies
l 4 p
Mav 27, 2003
V. .fc.lh W O-i , l!.Ill
('-tp N
i
`lind should 11: llc;lt:d 10 Ila\c tl mil1111111111 (�' 1 ),:,,C� of lo. PIC 01 !hC
r�" null:nd d r:nit=diatiun arras are shown oil Plate 5.
O11enabicAl wondldon can gellc'1'all\ he lemic limed by rei110\cel of'Ll1C ICllll.;\ :l`, ioo, .: �,Illd _Ill,:
hl:!CCnlc!1', v,Itli :n'_incel_ed Illi. 'Ibis uplloll is more apprclpi—ime in al'Cas \\here Itow wnd is
!+.aic:d I1C,11' Lhl : \I�[IIl'_' �211VLlild SL1ri`Lice and Illi' ground \\';llcr is i-C L!ll`.'el\ deep. '�izulliIIC:wl
11111 hC C:CILIIr a lli I1ru\'li;{C it rCl;.11t\:f\ al'\ C i.)Ill{1LI11!1 (l l"Iii 1^C anCl O\cl'C\ l\;Ill .ill ad
pi,icC111_ 1 .''! 1111. Ground ,\.,iter >IIOLIW be lowered lei ill lc;l.>l _ !i� lcct !:I(,\\ the
i1,�ll:.�!li ��ltll';��\`CI'C\C�t\Alli:I1. :X11:1"Il:l!I\'Cl\, (1"ill;li: t'�'lilC�lll?Il:ill!'ll`�lll�:'Ci'll?'� i;llllillll�!I11. i;lll�iif. 11`.
Is 11-trc:IICil ,AI-till: i;111d1 rune\' b: l.sccl to hdCkfIII the 0VCreXCa\;pilin. 1110 U. ;iII ( Cc11-1C211t.
Ash lrcal_._1 i',IC:I'A-dl Call lcs�.Crl LI-lc dcilland oI deep CIc"vint-in`! aili_I Ina\ all,!\\ unkIcr\\',ilei' plac.IllC!'!
01 c:ll"ICIiL l;'', hacks-ill li\ "tvernit�" incl od. .\dditiol"l'il shill''• Llli,.l II,:ICI �:ial :t!--
Ilce:l:t1 pri\'l to til: use C1( .,.,hent Ov add-lr:it ed back All in farm scab-'
titI'LlctUreS arc berated 1111le than 110 li ,011 IC'CI ;I\\.I'. . I::i ! .I'. i:;llil:'_
Il?1' :clitil . 1)I 11. I Call ,ilC LItiC d It, _Icll.ill\ loosC sand Ill-place. i.)cup ,.I` li;lnd .: .yip l! m .'il I , _
li\11 :1 h":�I`.`. .itCCI or C: 111CI'clC 111010:1`, illi We `rCamd surkwc at a
Ile i1C1`'llL ()l 111' C.11'011 is a 1Llllcllon of tht: \\'C:i`_'lll i�I' [11�- hk,cl. ;lilt! 'It:I?il: i�, tilt
i.lt'_ Iwl!:!I;lf?le {":'il[l!_' ;l 2I-1-Bill {1lt,K ClI"c)I) IlelLllts o F aNall A l,' t,!...I lCc1 Ili;;\ fir;'
Cl\ trc;o licluehilble stills Ii) depths of allllllt 10 L•,:1 15 I:Ct. I I-OLMill i1!
ciilT;l?'.I ll.:';1 .lI'C l\hical appllCd. I_aCh rOUIld of i_C)nitlaC: on is sepanakwd h\ a \\a:l!n'_ pCri,nl iii ;:ill'.'\\
PO: \\;I!cl 111-Z�UrC L!CllerLllcLl J111-illi-, comp l�!Ij ill to dissipatt• ! riiir 1'., ill: 1111: lie tIioll i?I ill".I
lOund Of 11i11:iC1!011i LO II1CI-CaSC LhC ClteCtl\':Il:ti; of Jcep CIN mimic ctimpacuon. I he hdocl•: 011:_11
;ll iii creme:' I'cl;.ltl` A, ll' '
1 i C c'raICIS LIt impact pmts and SI`?Ililicarlll\' Lhwurll the upper about 4 to l
ail the ;; els. l ile critters are to he filled with loose soils and the entire: treated area \\ill h.:
icoiled the block from lower heiLdit-s. AItCI'ilall\'Cl\. tll: CraL'el' aIle{ diSltlrh:d ;(-Ii!
col-ldhi\in can hi• renlediaLed bw removal of the upper 4 to 5 feet of tile stills and play:cnl' at ,'!
Cn`'inCCrca till COII\'CllnolliI Carthlllil\', equIpnlenl and corllpactors.
i i:id trial sll,iuld bC Carl-Od om t0 deur!ilintl Lhe optirriunl lirelp hCighm. Ic' ah ul \\aitir:y fieri wl mid
t:oIllpat.tlkill ;11aC1i1'_'. hiput. {rom the speckly (DDC)contractor should be c:onsidcrcd i\i !':?;11!,'.c life
"dell (_il'1.)llnd 1 Ihi-Mi Irl Should also be nlorllimed during Ad tl'lal and priiductlon ciirnpai 110;11 w
i-,duce tilt risk 11I darlla`ing Lhc c`:1SLIng SIrLIClllres locate.,{ in the \`ICIillt\ of tile nvatlnam arc:l . lel
\\h:!: shcl{I(,\\ -,ri.lulIJ. \\atcr condition exits. partial dewatering of the treatm:nt area `.\ill h�'
required to provide a ;table \working plaffornl and increase the effectiveness ol' deep c{\namnc
CC)Inpaction h.c!6vt;N W soil,. such as the omarlic soils or heat Ioi:m& "Am the trcat!1 em mm"
should he i' ',IlU\ed prior it) Cleep d\'nand., Compaction.
REOG,\R GEOTECHWAL ( N91 it TA wyc
BUilding Inspection
Contra
Departrnent
Costa
1.J m n s t ra t --j n B 1i;i d inq
County
P1 a.-i i n e-7. C I i i u i r)i a 91555 12, 5
FA X 2 754 6
.]Line 7. 2004
I-Asa Kirk and Robert Bovter
116() Chess Drive, Ste 12
Foster City, CA 94404
Subject: Delta Coves Project
Dear Ms. Kirk and Mr. BoNqer:
This letter is in response to your meeting with Supervisor Federal Glover regarding the Delta
Coves Project. The Building Inspection Department would like to clarify fbr the record that the
Deep Dynamic Compaction DDII) . method was not authorized at the discretion of the
Community Development Department Director. The method of DDP is an accepted industry
process that is applied in a variety of cases. While there may be other alternatives. they may also
cause additional costs and problerils. One such alternative could be the removal of all soil 10
I This would require leet below grade level and replaced with new imported soil. I ire a monumental
efli-)rl in hauling off all existing dirt and bringing new soil to the site, not to mention the
compaction that would be needed f0r future building 101S.
We have no knowledge that the DDP beim; used at C%-press Lakes has had problems. In 11WI, It
is our understanding that the process has been successful. We have recently requested that the
developer furnish documentation on the process and we NN 111.1)e revie.\N im,, these doCUrnenis \:ci-\:
shortly. Also_ it is our understanding that the DDP will probably last another lour to live mollifis
01
Lit the Delta Coves Project. The statement that the developer has seven years is a reference to the
project time lines not the DDP process.
If' you should have any question oil the DD.P, please feel free to contact Kevin DumCord,
Supervisor Inspection Services at 92-5-335-1158.
-58.
Sincerely,
Carlos Baltodano
Director
p, Board Members
of die Board
Kevin Durnford.Sllpel%:15or Inspection Semtxs
Car\ Fana,Senior Grading Inspector
STAFF RESPONSES "I'O
CITIZEN CONCERNS REGARDING; THE DE-LTA C 'OVL- Pl:t..:UI--'.'G
BETHEL ISLAND
July 1 , 2004
Purpose
1\'e understand that you have expressed concerns about development activity and procedures.
At the request of Supervisor Federal D. Glover, the Community Development Department
staff has prepared this report to try to summarize concerns about planning agenc}
procedures, and to address the concerns raised by the community.
Background
The Delta Coves project is a planned unit development that was approved i-)\ a j ud-mew
made in the United States District Court in 1989. The judgment overturned the Board of
SuperVlsors decision to require additional environmental review for the project and approv l-d
the project as proposed. As part of the judgment, the County was barren from requiring
additional conditions of approval and/or fees, except for the fees specified in the conditions
of approval.
The Delta Coves project consists of a 495 single family residences, a 65 unit condominlUill
complex, planned unit, water-oriented, project %vith numerous commercial areas on a OU-
acre parcel located north of Stone Road and east of Bethel Island Road. The project incluil-s
flue construction of fill-er levees and lagoon, which mill require breaclliilgof the existUhl,
Island levee.
Summary ol*Citizen Concerns
1. Citizen Concern- There is c•cnacern that the pr(.)jCC1 '.s UAL 01 117C ILVIZI7i(llle
Di-namic Compaction (DD ) nI(Ilhave adverse impOc is (-li lsilan l orof-Ici lrL'S.
Staff Response- The Court decision allowed the project to proceed as shop\n on
the numerous exhibits that were referenced in the judgment. One of tile exhibits
(Exhibit "B" Tentative Map and Grading Plan) identified the proposed gradiil`1
that will take place for the project. The proposed grading is based on
recommendations contained in a geotechnical report prepared by,geotechnical
professionals. The techniques for grading the site were not specified in the Colirl
decision or on the approved grading plan and are left to the discretlon of the
developer consistent xvith the requirements of the �Iradim-, ordinance.
EZ-i
_17110 COLIFt decision did ]lot CIIII)ONVCI' UIC County lu detcrmffl:.: % 11,11 ICCIIIII�.ILJC [h"
dC\.eIOPtI_ could be employ in completing the project F11C.CL)Lill t" 's role IS
Iar,_,cly Hnifled to deterrnlmin(.�, whether the. subdivision developer has In11 the
conditions of approval associated with the Court decision. and III(: I)ro_'cCCS
compliance with the grading ordinance.
Condition of Approval T'i14 of the project approval states:
"Geotechnical work shall Include levee breachina, soil and excavation,
clewater-ling, removal, replacement and compaction of soil. on-site water
development, erosion control measures, and dcsj`.,:n and Installation Of'
Subsidence measurement."
Deep Dynamic Compaction (DDC) is one of' the methods bclll, Used 6C)v III-,-
Cypress Lakes project near Bethel Island.
The Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District (BI-N-11D.) is the Welic"
responsiblefor maintaining and reQLIatI - use Of existing
lei ees around theisland, and will be responsible for review'Ing the plans for the proposed levees.
Citi -
en Concei-n - There is cov,ern about the existing condition of rhe leives. To
_- -
Which Imblic cy-enc.V should concerns be clii-eciecl on ihescifetY cjf(he levees.,
Staff Response -The Bethel Island Municipal Ufflmr District is the public agency
responsible for maintaining the Island levees. If you have concerns about the
sal'etv of the levees, we suggest that VOU contact that agency. 'File B11\411.) office
is located at 3085 Stone Road, Bethel Island.
i. cc -n about the zoning regul-
Cilizell C atioll-S C171a1 onceivi -.Holl' in one lem
Plan, including policies relating to Bethel Mand.,`
Staff Response - Interested Citizens may cotyle to the C011111-11_1111tV l-) eIOI�I11CIlI
Department during normal Department bLISIne.ss 11C)LIF5 to I-eVIC"N tile L/011111`'
ordinance and maps, and the General Plan. One portion of the Land 1,-Ist Flement
of the General Plan specifically addresses planning policies for the Bettie] Island
area.
C_'i1i_7C17 C017C(-'7-11 - 11771' (11-e SOMe bllilciill-s 017 the W(117f] 170[ elevated(IbOl c the,
. - a
floociplain level that has been determined bY the Feclerul Emergence, Mcmcilemcw
A(Tenev C117CI regalatecl b); the c1esigI7 7_eqU11-e177e17[S oi 1110 C'0111711!'S F100C1j)1L1i77
,�lanagc�n7cnt Ordinance.
Staff Response - The County adopted the Floodplain Management Ordinance HI
1987 (Chapter 82-28). Sti-Lictures that obtained and complied V,71th I-mildlM,
permits Prior to the effective date of the ordinance are not Subject to its
I)K)VIS1011S. A 111.1111bCr of conventional residenccs and trailers III (I-Lallcl 1)a I i.:-,
R-2
very coarse sand: 2.00 - 1.00 mm diameter
coarse sand: 1.00 - .50 mm diameter
medium sand: 0.50 - 0.25 mm diameter
fine sand: 0.25 - 0.10 mm diameter
very fine sand. 0.10 - 0.05 mm
Although these values may not mean much, but if you compare sand to clay in grain size
the differences is on the order of .000005 mm smaller.
I hope this brief understanding of sand levees helps you. I would like to further substantiate
my opinion with other.geotechnical and scientists working in New Orleans.
Warning Sounded About Levees
If the only thing standing between you and a powerful storm surge or high tidal
conditions is. a levee made of sand, you might consider moving.
These are the types of comments made by engineers and scientist investigating the
failures in New Orleans. By the way this was considered compacted or engineered
sand. Roughly 80 percent of the city was flooded - with up to 20 feet of water in places -
because of levee failures in Katrina's aftermath. The most likely causes, researchers
said at the hearing, ranged from overtopping and seepage to improperly set pilings
made from steel sheets. Steel sheet piles typically range from 20 to 25 feet in length.
This inability to penetrate deep foundation soil for support diminished there integrity to
act as a proper water cut-off system. Allowing seepage beneath the steel.
"if it's earth versus concrete, the earth will lose," Dr. Nicholson noted in the USA Society
& Culture from the November 3, 2005 edition.
An expert panel monitoring reconstruction of New Orleans's hurricane-protection system
warned federal engineers last month about the presence of weak. sandy soils in a newly
rebuilt levee, the panel's leader said yesterday, escalating a dispute over the soundness
of the government's rebuilding effort.
Ar
Raymond Seed, an engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley, also
disclosed in a letter to Lt. Gen. Carl A. Strock, the Corps' commander. "These same levees
eroded catastrophically during Katrina, and were the principal source of. the massive
flooding" of neighborhoods east of downtown New Orleans.
Seed's group, an engineering panel funded by the National Science Foundation, and a
separate Louisiana panel of experts have questioned the reconstruction effort: saying
the Corps is misleading state residents into believing the levee system will be safe by
summer.
In the letter, Seed said he and another Berkeley engineer personally observed Corps
contractors constructing a section of the levee using "clean, fine grained sand, which is
highly erodeable." The soil properties of the levee recently constructed along
Sandmound has similar grain size characteristic observable by the significant erosion
from recent rain events.
Prohlcros with the: upper Sacrarncntu River
"Rivers have been.formed and wandered back and forth over the flood plain for millennia.
depositing all kinds of soils and sediments. Mud, sand, gravel, brush, dead trees -- all these
things combine to make a complicated soil structure. And. to make it even more
complicated, when the levees were first built, less permeable soil from "borrow pits'' on the
river side of the levee was used. The borrow pits exposed sand and gravel layers near
levees to flood waters. That made the levees more vulnerable to under-seepage and sand
boil formation."
Old Slurry ` Wall
Method 4
M-pq
1
GrandJu y
725 Court street � ..s.._' �� Contra
, --= •
;' — ,
P.O. Box 911
Martinez,CA 93553-0091 `S Costa
UNpry County
'9 COK
Contact: Antonio Medrano
Foreperson
(925) 646-2345
For Immediate Release
Executive Summary
Cracks to Patch at Bethel Island
Grand Jury issues report on the levee and water systems of Bethel
Island.
The 2004-2005 Contra Costa County Grand Jury has concluded an investigation of Bethel
Island's compliance with federal levee standards and the direction the Bethel Island Municipal
Improvement District ("BIMID") is headed in developing an island water treatment facility.
Bethel Island is an unincorporated delta community in northeast Contra Costa County that is
protected from flooding by a 125-year-old levee. "Tap water for the island is provided by wells,
some of which do not meet current or proposed water quality standards. BIMID has not
uniformly enforced local ordinances such as those designed to prohibit actions that could weaken
the levee,to provide quick access to all levee areas, and to ensure that property owners keep
drainage systems on their property free of debris.
The Grand Jury recommends BIMID develop a long-range plan to upgrade the island's levee to
the standards recommended by CALFED, a partnership of federal and state agencies. This plan
should prioritize levee maintenance and rehabilitation tasks, estimate their costs, and include
available and needed funding sources.
The Grand Jury also recommends BIMID.prepare a comprehensive study comparing options for
providing water to island residents, so that both BIMID and residents are better informed about
the ramifications of their choice.
Finally, the Grand Jury recommends BIMID enforce existing ordinances to protect the levees
and maintain the drainage systems.
The complete report is available on the Grand Jury web site: www.cc-courts.org/jgrandjUrv.
J
The island's private water companies are faced with the increasingly stringent water quality
standards being implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and DHS. For
example, effective January 23, 2006, the allowable arsenic level will be reduced. Other even
more stringent standards are proposed for the future.
Development on the island has been limited. However, the Delta Coves development ("Delta
Coves"), scheduled to start construction in 2005, will add 494 homes and 15 acres of
commercially zoned property to the island. The additional residents will increase the island's
population by about 50%. .
FINDINGS
Levee
1. Should a levee fail, and the island flood, 2300 residents will be affected, with
substantial damage to property as well as potential loss of life.
2. Bethel Island is one of eight islands in the west Delta, which are particularly critical to
protecting Delta water quality because they are adjacent to a major Delta channel
where fresh and salt-water mix. . .
3. In the 1980's, the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") adopted a
minimum standard that requires levees to be, among other requirements, one foot
higher than flood stage and required reclamation districts, such as BIMID, to meet
minimum levee standards.
4. Reclamation districts had until 1991 to comply with the requirements or be ineligible
for federal disaster assistance.
5. BIMID did not meet that 1991 FEMA deadline.
6. FEMA turned down requests from BIMID for disaster assistance fundsTor emergency
work performed by BIMID following the 1995, 1997, and 1998 winter storm disasters
because BIMID had not met the 1991 deadline.
7. BIMID continues to upgrade the levee, and recently concluded that the levee is now
compliant with FEMA standards. However, BIMID has not documented its position
to FEMA in an attempt to be formally recognized as eligible for federal disaster funds.
8. Over the past decade, BIMID has requested assistance from elected state and federal
representatives in finding a solution to the FEMA compliance issue. The assistance
involves these representatives intervening on BIMID's behalf with FEMA and other
involved agencies.
3
22. Diablo Water's filter plant has the capacity to serve all of Bethel Island. Diablo Water
plans to install a pipe large enough to service Delta Coves and to meet all future water
needs for the rest of Bethel-island.
23. The Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO")was petitioned ("LAFCO
Petition") to designate Diablo Water as the supplier of Delta Coves.
24. BIMID appealed the LAFCO Petition.
25. The LAFCO Petition was approved after BIMID and Delta Coves entered into a
written agreement as follows:
• The developer of Delta Coves agreed to pay BIMID $250,000 to drill test wells to
determine if BIMID could find water in adequate quantity and quality to supply a
proposed BIMID water treatment facility and distribution system.
• If the test wells identify an adequate water supply that is certified by DHS, the
developer of Delta Coves agreed to pay BIMID an additional $2,000,000 towards
the design and construction of a water treatment facility.
• BIMID agreed to withdraw its appeal of the LAFCO Petition.
. 26. The two primary options for replacing most private wells on Bethel Island are:
• Water from a new Bethel Island water treatment facility ("Bethel Island Option").
• Water from Diablo Water.("Diablo Water Option").
27. No comparative study exists for the above options that includes:
• Advantages/disadvantages of each option.
• Adequacy of flow to provide service to the island including fire suppression.
• The quality of water to be provided.
• The infrastructure needed, including capital and operating costs.
• User connection and usage costs.
• Financing options for infrastructure costs and for individual connection fees.
• Emergency backup requirements and source(s).
Other
28. BIMID has adopted ordinance numbers 4 and 9 to protect emergency levee access, to
protect the drainage systems, and to regulate activities upon, through, or over the levee
system.
29. BIMID has seldom taken action to enforce ordinances regarding locked levee access
gates, residents' requirements to clean out drainage ditches and boxes, and the
planting of vegetation on the levee.
5
Water
7. Negotiate a revision to the agreement, immediately, with the developer W'Delta Coves
so that the $2,000,000 is not restricted solely to develop a eater treatment I'acilit.. but
can be used for other purposes that benefit the entire community, such as le\CC
maintenance or installation of water mains servicing the entire island.
8. Prepare and make public a comprehensive study of the Bethel Island Option (defined
in Finding 27). Include in that study a comparison to the Diablo Water Option and the
status quo. Funding for the study could come from the $2,000,000 provided by Delta
Coves.
9. Conduct a series of public meetings whereby residents may direct comments and
questions to the BIMID Board of Directors regarding the proposed water system
options.
lu. 1I'BIMID selects the Bethel Island Option, establish a reciprocal agreement with
Diablo Water to interconnect the water systems and provide back up should there be
an interruption of service..
Other
I I . Communicate with property owners and residents regarding their responsibilily,
B1MiD's responsibility, and BIMID's enforcement authority tier the lCVCC and drauiage
systems, as outlined in BiMID ordinances 4 and 9.
Make regular use of BIMID's enforcement authority under ordinances 4 and 9,
including fines, assessments, and liens.
I Adopt a written policy regarding the acceptance ofcontributions that requires Written
agreements and full disclosure of such contributions.
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Findings:
Board of Directors, Bethel Island'Municipal Improvement District: i-18, 23-33.
Recommendations:
Board of Directors, Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District: I-I
7
Y23��i4�+
Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District
••II 'i1Ff' .
3085 STONE ROAD
POST OFFICE BOX 244
f I.'r�,-.:�i; `rte L,,• .
r'�a': _ BETHEL ISLAND, CALIFORNIA 94511
(415)
:;; ;s,'�.•._' .. �. : :;..:. 684-2210
•�=Fier?;1:•=iv1 ,,,`�y�::^l'i �..;:,
UA
:+
'•'� "�;r .' -,��,;'-�;;.;�;'�' . The Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District .welcomes
opportunity to comment on public notice 6063A, Delta Coves '
o Y
" "> application for the reissuing of an Army permit to breach Bethel
x
' nd's Sandmound Slough levee and to place fill materials in
�:.
34Iti°` >Y'wetlands on Bethel Island.
'i •:' 1:�, - r:='•'`' Much time has passed since the original permit was issued
, and circumstances have greatly changed. New information is avail -
`' gable now on potential detrimental effects of the proposal which
.. , ;
were not considered or .not known in 1978 . A new or supplemental
'MiTnvironmental Impact Statement should be prepared to thoroughly
>explore the new information and changed circumstances .
The District' s written comments present new. information,
flµ:"•��' ,;.y.=ji�y . ,
ej a'•; :
x,engineering research, and technical material regarding the pro-
,a.:;:posal . These comments will follow the guidelines outlined in the
f, public notice (page 4) .
I4..
-
f;,;
:ECONOMICS: .
' + At the time of the Environmental Impact Statement (1978 ) and
s 'rthe final Environmental Impact Report (1976) the property taxing
" = F-R� tructure was different in California . It was then believed that
:;increased service demands , capital expenditures , and infrastruc-
":ture costs would be covered b the increased property tax base
Y P P Y
x --provided by new development . This is not true today . Since the
passage of Proposition 13, economic reality has changed.
Yra ;
The proposed project ' s perimeter levee. section would consti-
_ Ft. :;.: ute a continuation of the District 's levee system and would
erefore be under the
jurisdiction of BIMID. The project will
pr. add approximately 7 miles of waterside slopes to the District ' s
`:: :existing 11 . 5 miles . This will increase the District ' s mai; te-
- ance responsibility by approximately 60 percent . Additional
PersanneI and equipment will be needed to handle this new respon-
T.
BIMID comments, page 1
`..Y.
A.
F. sibility . ongoing staffing may be covered by increased property
tax revenues , but facility and equipment costs will not be ade-
quately funded. Moreover, since the Corps ' notice indicates the
project is planned for lot sales , not a housing subdivision, full
property tax revenue may not be forthcoming for many years . In
the meantime the District will have the responsibility for rou-
tine inspections and maintenance of the new waterside slopes . At
least one new patrol vehicle and an additional dump truck will be
required. The developer will be responsible for these necessary
t capital expenditures .
The District ' s annual levee maintenance budget is supple-
mented by State Levee Subvention funds administered by the De-
partment of Water Resources . Levees constructed after March 1988
(SB-34 enactment date) will not be eligible for state subvention
j+ monies . Therefore , an assessment district will have to be estab-
lished for any new levee sections on Bethel Island to fund ongo-
ing maintenance requirements over and above routine inspection
covered by BIMID' s budget from local property tax revenues . Rip
rap replacement , slope failure repairs , rodent control , rodent
damage repairs , and other maintenance activities are necessary
for new levees as wel.l. as old.
Preconstruc.tion fees will be needed to cover engineering
review of the project design, monitoring , and inspection of con-
.h
struction by the District . These expenditures will occur before
any new tax revenue is generated and they cannot be taken from
{
the District ' s current budget which must cover maintenance and
improvement of the existing levee . Preconstruction fees will also
be neededto hire and train new personnel in water quality man-
agement procedures and to purchase required equipment for this
work.
New District drainage pumps .will be needed to accommodate
some of the project ' s storm water runoff . Higher drainage pumping
costs can be expected if the project is built . Expenditures for
new pumps , a drainage study, and the relocation of the District ' s
existing drainage channels must be paid for by the developer.
AESTHETICS:
Standard county-supervised landscape plans as specified in
Contra Costa County' s conditions of approval may not be suitable
:i
P
f.
BIMID Comments, page 2
�....
levee plantings . The Corps ' public notice drawing. sheet 3 of
. 7 indicates trees and other vegetation in the patrol roadway area
on the waterside crown. New plantings on levee slopes and crowns
in Bethel Island must conform to the "Interim Guide for Vegeta
tion on Flood Control Levees" adopted September lb , 1988 , State
of California Resources Agency, Reclamation Board. The guidelines
vegetation on the levee crown which interferes . with
prohibit
maintenance and inspection of the levee . Also, the California
Department of Water Resources Superintendent ' s Guide to Operation
and Maintenance of California ' s Flood Control Projects notes that
some levee areas , including crown roadways are usually kept free
of any vegetation: "
GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN:
New information which sheds light on potential detriments
posed by the Delta Coves project has been discovered and studied
since 1978 . This new information must be thoroughly evaluated
while considering the project '.s application.
1 . There have been new studies of subsidence in the
Delta by the State Department of Water Resources and
other agencies.. (See. Burns Engineering sectio=n of these
comments . )
2 . The rise in sea level caused by the greenhouse
:.. .. ...' effect , now recognized as a significant environmental
.: .. constraint by the Federal Environmental Protection
Agency , was not .a consideration in 1978 . (See Burns
Engineering and D.B. Flett & Associates .sections of
these comments . )
3 . Dewatering problems and resulting damage in .the
s ..
Bethel Island area were experienced during the sewer
system installation in 1979. (See D. B. Flett & Associ-
ates section of these. comments . )
4 . There have been many levee failures due to instabil -
ity, rather than overtopping, since 1978 . This new
p .
'� . information requires reconsideration of the comments in
r
the final EIS submitted by the Resources Agency of
y ..
California, Appendix D, page 4, : regarding potential for
_p
failure of the existing Bethel Island levee as a conse-
;d
BIMID Comments., page 3
r
quence of Delta Coves construction. ( See summary of
levee failures in D. B . Flett and Associates section of
these comments . )
n 5 . In 1980 , the Corps of Engineers stopped all rehabil -
�:;;
i.tation assistance to non-Federal levees in the Sacra-
mento-San Joaquin Legal Delta under PL 84-99 until such
time that the non-Federal levees could be considered
``' .. flood-control levees that provide a dependable adequate
degree de of protection . Subsequently, the Corps of En i-
iii; �J
neers developed National Guidelines that were published
in 1986 and amended in 1987 . These guidelines prescribe
minimum standards that non-project levees such as
�, ,, •;:, Bethel Island .s existing levee must meet to be eligible
for assistance from the Corps .
" 6 . The State of California' s Flood Hazard Mitigation
Plan, 1986 , identifies seepage as a contributing factor
to levee instability .
' = 7 . There is new recognition of the interaction of
flooded island affecting seepage rates of neighboring
islands and the detrimental effect excessive seepage
J
has on levee stability . (see Burns Engineering section.
of these comments
if
8 . The Federal Emergency Management Agencyhas issued
FIRM maps for the Bethel Island area . The proposed
..Z.r—d.•.:;.' parallel levee corridor which would result if the
project were constructed would necessitate a reevalua-
='``'_ tion of the flood hazard zone rating in this area .
y{ The project 's own soils study, "Soil and Geological Investi-
:#.•:..:gation for .Delta Coves , dated June 1980 by William F. Jones
g g
. .:.;.�V:.•:�:..:, .. nc . , recognizes that changes can occur over the Passage of time .
The report says on page 47 :
"The findings of this report are valid as of the date
o f the report .�;• �::;� ;-:.. . port . However , changes in the conditions of a
* ' ;`;: :''.:::�_: •• -!�-
property can occur with the
passage of time , whether
they be due to natural' processes or to the works of
k, man on this or adjacent properties . In addition
changes in applicable or appropriate standards occur ,
whether they result from legislation or the broadening
of knowledge . Accordingly, the findings of this . report
N.
,; f BIMID Comments, page 4
7' . may be invalidated, wholly or partially , by changes
•I:,s
outside of our control.. Therefore this report is sub-
ject to review, and should not be relied upon, after a
period of three years . " [Emphasis . added]
Discrepancies :
There are discrepancies between the original Corps ' permit
based on the 1978 EIS; Contra Costa County 's Final Development
Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map including the 38 conditions of
approval attached to the
app judgment based on the 1976 EIR; and the
Jure , 1989 Corps ' public notice .
Water quality control and levee maintenance jurisdic-
tions are not consistent between the Corps ' EIS and the
County ' s conditions of approval . The county conditions
11
call for a resolution from BIMID . . .which shall indi-
cate the District ' s agreement to accept and maintain
` : the new levees and lagoon. " The Corps ' EIS indicates
that a Homeowners Association will be responsible for
"levee maintenance (though not for lagoon water
quality) , but that BIMID would accomplish any required
repair or rehabilitation not accomplished in a timely
or satisfactory manner . A homeowners group cannot
s "accept" a . new levee section in Bethel Island, nor can
it pass a resolution. indicating the District ' s accept-
ance. Furthermore, District supervision of homeowners '
Jmaintenance and rehabilitation efforts to ensure that
they are carried out in a timely and satisfactory
s manner would entail constant patrolling and supervi-
'l' Sion. The proposed project ' s levee section would con-
stitute a continuation of the District ' s existing
levee. It would be under BIMID' s jurisdiction if a
permit is granted by the Improvement District .
r
There are no lagoon water circulation pumps in Contra
Costa County 's Final Development Plan, and yet the
Corps ': permit application includes discharge pumps
located at the head of each interior cove to flush the
coves and maintain water quality . The county ' s condi-
tions call for "an adequate lagoon flushing system
approved by the Public Works Department . "
= Setback areas on waterside slopes are shown as
4.
BIMID Comments, page 5
three-foot "non access areas" on the Final Development
Plan, while the Corps ' public notice , sheet 3 of 7 ,
indicates a five-foot unidentified area on t'-_e water-
side crown.
Waterside "benches" are shown as 10-feet in Corps '
. . notice and 15-feet on the county's plan.
- The project ' s entrance opening is specified as 150
k : feet on page 2 of the Corps ' notice and as 160 feet on
sheet 2 of 7 in the same notice . . :
'.`s: - Levee elevations and lagoon finger elevations are not
-A
specified on the Corp ' s notice , sheet 3 of 7 , and
s scaling of the typical sections in the notice does not
.�.. ., appear to match those on the Final Development Plan.
Waterside levee "benches" indicated on the Final Devel -
opment Plan and on sheet 5 of 7 o the Corps ' s notice,
are not shown on sheet 3 of 7 . The county ' s condition.
number 29 . E. says the "minimum top of levee elevation
of the perimeter levee shall be at 10 foot USGS datum. "
¢ : BIMID' s minimum levee elevation is set at 10 . 2 feet and
=C ' the District ' s long range plans call for a levee height
A; —
of 10 . 5 feet .
;. Inadequate Subsidence Mitigation:
Contra Costa County' s Condition 12 calls for an automatical -
ly recording tide gauge or other subsidence measuring instrument
;t to be installed in the project marina and maintained by BIMID or
,T . a county agency or the homeowners to monitor subsidence . The
condition specifies that "If at any time the maintenance agency
has reason to believe subsidence threatens the development it
':; .. shall report its finding to the Contra Costa County Water Agency
with recommendations to mitigate the hazard of flooding due to
subsidence ."
Mitigation measures for hazards of flooding must be con.sid-
ered and planned long before it becomes an imminent threat .
s .. .. Expecting an agency to come up with recommendations to mitigate a
. ..::;r .: life or property threatening situation when it is in progress is
not reasonable. The project proponent must be required to have
mitigation measures specified or in place prior . to the granting
,.;..: any approvals . BIMID' s Ordinance 9 requires levee
,,.,{. .. '. .. y permit
'` " '` BIMID Comments, page 6
-;,.. building setbacks which provide adequate room for increasing
freeboard if needed to compensate for subsidence and/or sea level
rise.
Sea Level Rise:
A Congressional Subcommittee Hearing on Global Warming ,
entitled "Implications of Global Warming for Natural Resources , "
held in San ' Francisco' in October of 1988 brought together re-
pected experts from all over the United States to discuss the
;;,::`greenhouse effect and appropriate planning for the possibility of
rising sea levels . Richard Morgenstern, Directorof the Environ-
mental Protection Agency ' s Office of Policy Analysis , Washington,
D.C . , testified at the hearing . He said, when speaking of Cali-
+::'"+ .'' forma concerns , "Another possible concern for California is sea
levelrise, which could inundate wetlands and low lands , e::acer-
bate flooding and increase the salinity of surface and ground
.water . . . . Sea level rise would also jeopardize the delta islands
if levees around the islands are not maintained. "
Jeffry S . Blanchfield, Chief Planner for the Sari Francisco
Conservation and Development Commission, also presented mate-
rial at the Congressional Subcommittee Hearing . He said. "If the
...
sea level were to rise four feet in the next century , as has been
' suggested by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as
useful figure for long-range planning purposes , the following
on the Bay-Delta system could be expected: . . . ( 2 ;
levees protecting . . .Delta islands would fail . " He co^timed ,
ocal state and federal coastal agencies should take into con-
sideration
on-sideration the relative rise in sea level in project development ,
and and water use planning, and in land and water use regula-
tion. Agencies should include projected sea level change in the
design of . . . any project reviewed and approved . . . Shoreline protec-
E. -tion devices should be designed so that the facility can he
easily increased in height during the normal maintenance process
:°.y : .,.•: ..
if relative sea 1 evelshould increase at a greater rate than pro-
': .:;;...r.:....:.:.:::.:.: jected . . . .Local governments , special purpose districts with
responsibility for flood control , and FEMA have major responsi-
lities for assuring that new structures are not located inap-
P p y . . . [M]any of the adverse impacts to coastal a:-eas
caused by relative sea level change are gradual and can be avoid-
k.,....:;.i.>;.,., ;.:'. ed or mitigated by planning in anticipation of future significant
. hanges in sea level .
+ BIMID Comments, page 7
.;;..in 1989 did not contain mitigation measures for island drainage
roblems . The 1983 conditions stated, "Construction of the per4rr- .
ter levee will block or disrupt the existing surface drainage
here surface and ditch flows enter the site. Adequate provision
for storm drains should be installed to pick up and convey all
runoff entering the site that would be blocked by the new levee.
p, particular. concern is where the new perimeter levee will front
existing residential lots blocking lot drainage . . . The
;:'....Bethel Island Municipal Utility [sic] District (BIMID) states
that the existing pumping capacity is not adequate to handle the
.-..,..Volume of water generated during periods of heavy rains and high
'' tides which increase seepage flows . The district requests that
the project assist the district in adding to the present capacity
either at the site or at existing or an alternate pumping sta-
tion. "
A drainage study of the entire island drainage. system is
:needed prior to the design of replacement drainage courses for
the project . Higher pumping costs can be expected if the pro4ect
built . Expenditures for new pumps and a drainage study must be
paid for by the developer .
Building Sites and Setbacks :
The residential building sites and setbacks on the proposed
levee as shown in the county ' s Final Development Plan and the
{
Corp 's public notice do not comply with BIMID' s Ordinance 9 or
Contra Costa County ' sZoning Ordinance 84-34 . 1006 or the State of
'California Department of Water Resources Standards for Encroach-
7 ments , Resources Agency, April 1976, page 30 , "Buildings will not
.::,�....:.::...... be permitted on or over the levee section within the area bounded
by the levee toes . " [emphasis in original ] Public notice sheet 3
of 7 , shows what appears to be five-foot setback from the water-
" side crown edge . The County' s Final Development Plan drawings
indicate a "non access strip" of 3 feet . BIMID' s Ordinance 9
,..
prohibits construction of structures on or over the levee or in
e levee setback area. The District ' s "General Standards and
. .:'.`► :: '`::.:..:..Guidelines for Permit Applications" defines the levee setback as
approximately 60 feet from the waterside edge of the levee crown.
-contra Costa County' s Ordinance prohibits construction of new
tructures within a 50 foot setback from the centerline of the
levee .
BIMID Comments, page 9
F+'`
Vh
Setbacks are necessary to provide an easement for a 2C-foot
} : de, all -weather driving surface for levee patrols along the
-;Waterside edge . The waterside easement area also must be wide
enough to allow for additional fill. to maintain the required
;-levee height and slope in the event of subsidence and/or sea
level rise . Easements for patrol vehicles and fill will preclude
the planting of vegetation such as trees and shrubs in this area .
The concept of placing patrol roads between residences as
` .:.:, discussed in the EIS , page 3 , 1 . 03 , f . , is not acceptable to
IMID . All levee maintenance , patrol , and emergency procedures
outlined in the State of California' s Department of Water Re-
sources , Division of Flood Management Superintendent ' s Guide are
based on levee crown roadways . BIMID, along with many other
reclamation. districts in the Delta, relies on the state Guide as
.a basis for proper operations . There is no necessity to charge
well established, proven levee patrol , maintenance , and emergency
'`� ' operations .
t...
'� Theoretical Levee Section:
Contra Costa County' s Final Development Plan indicates a
"theoretical levee section" of 20 feet on the landside of the
- proposed perimeter levee . This arbitrary placement of a theoreti-
<'•`.:--.:'.:cal levee section ignores the .true function of a levee which is
. to hold back water . Any theoretical levee section would have to
':.be situated on the .waterside of a barrier levee . The Final Dever
... . opment Plan shows the invert of the outlet of a storm drain pipe
at an internal lot at +2 . 0 waterside . The inverts of all pipes ,
longitudinal. and transverse, in the theoretical levee section
P
flood ear
-must be above the 100lain.
Y
BIMID' s minimum standards for its levee call for a crown
'F' .. width of 20 feet with a 2 : 1 waterside slope and a 3 : 1 landside
slope . Any meaningful theoretical levee would have to include
theoretical slopes which the plan does not .. BIMID' s minimum levee
standards,
. and ordinance 9 waterside setback regulations are based
={ on the need to inspect , monitor , maintain the levee for the
safety of the island residents .
"' WETLANDS :
The wetland areas outlined in the Corps ' public notice on
BIMID Comments, page 10
p the 310 acre Delta Coves property are less extensive than those
found in the most recent study of the Bethel Island area, Draft
EIR, Bethel Island Specific Plan , 1989 . ( See EIR Maps in appen-
dix . )
` Contra Costa County 's Revised Draft Bethel Island Specif'_c
plan, June .1989 , specifies low density in areas identified as
wetlands . The Plan says on page 3-3 , "Areas that have been iden-
4 tified as seasonal or permanent wetlands have been designated as
Delta-Recreation. The density in these areas would be one dwell -
ing unit per 20 acres . The County policy requires that there
shall be no net loss of wetlands in either quantity or value . "
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES :
Erosion of the large Sandmound Slough tule island, directly
'% in front of the entrance to the project , is likely due to the
flushing action and increased water velocity at the project
~� entrance .
Wildlife islands in the project lagoon, as a mitigation for
loss of habitat, were an important part of the Environmental
Impact Statement of 1978 . Now, these islands have been eliminated
in the Final Development Plan and the Corps public notice draw-
t °` r Ings . What mitigation is provided for loss of habitat?
FLOOD HAZARDS and SAFETY :
Contra Costa County ' s Revised Draft Specific Plan for the
Bethel Island Area , June 1989 , says on page 3-4 ,
"Safety �, _
y of t �
study area and its residents from flooding and .levee failures is
a key concern of the Specific Plan land use program (Po.licy
3 . 1 . 11) . As a result of this concern, the opening or breach-ing
_g
levees will not be permitted in conjunction with development in
the planning area . " [emphasis added]
j` '=` '' Delta Coves is not a standard subdivision housing L
'' - g p 'o ject
`'' ` j` :"' Subdivision and building code regulations , under which this
project was granted approval in January 1989 , do not provide
: •.,; .;.;,:.:,,. ,: adequate safety standards for a lagoon project in a below-sea-
^ ,�=e ==:::; .level island protected by levee .
BIMID Comments, page 11
ry5 .LTi .
The configuration of the project ' s proposed perimeter levee
parallel to the District ' s existing levee along Stone Road poses
a significant potential hazard to residents and property in this
1 s . .
narrow corridor area. Should the island ' s existing levee in this
area break, flood waters would be confined in a 300- to 400-foot
Wide channel and move through it with great speed and depth.
gecognition of this hazard, which was not discussed in the Corps '
1978 EIS, has caused much concern . Because BIMID has the respon-
sibility of protecting residents and structures in Bethel Island,
further studies of this hazard were deemed necessary . In 1988 ,
the District contracted with D.B . Flett & Associates for a study
of the project ' s potential problems which could affect Bethel
Island. Flett ' s report was submitted to the Contra Costa Board
of Supervisors . His complete report follows in this comment
section on flood hazards and safety. In 1989 , the District so 'ght
=� further information on the Delta Coves project and engaged Rich-
and Meehan, a geotechnical engineer to study the project . Mee=
han' s report follows in this comment section. A report by Burris
Engineering , BIMID District Engineer , is also included in this
section .
f:
:t
!i
is
'S
-� BIMID Comments, page 12
A
i1
B &A
CIVIL ENGINEERING
D, B. FLETT & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1280 Civic Drive, Suite 210, R'alnut Creek, CA 94596 (415) 935-7710
June 27 , 1988
Contra Costa County -Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
1st Floor , North Wing
Martinez , CA 94553
Subject : Subdivision 6013 (Delta Coves )
Honorable Supervisors ,
We have been retained by Bethel Island Municipal Improvement
District (BIMID) to review the proposed Subdivision 6013 and its
impact on the existing and future Bethel Island Levee System.
In completing this review we have examined the Soils and Geologic
Investigation, EIR, several recent California Department of Water
Resources reports published between 1982 and 1986, and other
documents listed in the attached bibliography . In addition we
have consulted with Board members and staff of BIMID.
BIMID's primary concern is the safety and integrity of the levees
which form and protect Bethel Island . The Bethel Island Levee
System is probably one of the best systems in the Delta . The
Corps of Engineers estimated the statistical frequency of the
Bethel Island levee failures to be 0.20 failures per 100 years in
1974 . However , the Corps also indicated that without a levee
improvement project after BO years , the frequency of failure
would rise to 4.29 failure=_ per 100 years , or about once every 25
years . BIMID's mission is to improve and maintain the existinq
r:
levees so that levee failures do not occur .
iS
t Historically , Bethel Island levees have not failed since 1907 .
R Although there is some recollection of a possible failure in the
1930's, the only documented failure is one that occured in 1907.
The location of the 1907 break however , was near the site of the
;j: breach proposed by Subdivision 6013. It is this concern for the
levee system which has caused BIMID to request that Subdivision
6013 not be approved in its present form.
In the last 6 years several additional studies of Delta Islands
and levees have been completed by the State of California,
Department of Water Resources (DWR ) and additional data affecting
the levee integrity have become available. As a result of this
information BIMID has concerns in the following areas:
STABILITY OF THE EXISTING LEVEE: -
A. The April 1984 Nonproject Levee Hazard Mitigation report by
DWR lists the following principal causes and contributing
factors for levee failures :
BIMID Comments, page 20
Principal causes of levee failures are:
Structural failure of levee by surface erosion or
internal erosion (piping ) .
* Foundation failure of underlying soils .
Overtopping by floodf-lows, tides , and waves .
Contributing factors include:
Improper levee design or construction.
Poor construction or foundation material .
* Erosion by current and wave action.
Seepage through or under the levee.
Rodent burrows in the levee .
Improper levee repairs .
Improper structures placed in or on levee .
Lack of regular and adequate maintenance.
The 1980 soils report for the project indicates that the .existing
levee near the entrance channel area and for almost one mile
along Stone Road is underlain by up to 10 feet of peat . It is
recognized that this foundation condition is less favorable than
in other areas of the project .
Two possible causes of failure of the existing levee related to
the construction of Subdivision 6013 which are of concern to
BIMID are:
a . Structural failure related to internal erosion. - The
1980 borings actually encountered a void in 'the levee.
Although the soils engineer declined to speculate on
the reason for the cavity's existence he did suggest
that there must be other cavities in the existing
levee .
I.t is possible that these cavities are evidence of
internal etosion. Neither the 1980 soils report , the
1976 EIR or the 19BB letter from Mr . Jones addresses
the impact on internal erosion resulting from lowering
I the water table to facilitate construction of the new
t
levees. BIMID's experience with dewatering on a much
;i smaller scale for the installation of the Bethel Island
:A sewer system indicates that this may be a significant
problem.
..F
l
BIMID Comments, page 21
�. D. B. FLETT & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1280 Civic Drive, Suite 210,Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (415) 935-7710
-,:
b . Foundation failure of underlying soils . - Given the
fact that about 1/2 mile of the existing levee is
founded on peat and that the 1907 levee break occurred
in this area, BIMID i= concerned that any additional
weight on the levee or increase in the water pressure
caused by lowering of the water table inside the levee
may result in a failure of the poor foundation
material . Between 1983 and 1986 there were over 25
levee failures in the delta , most of which were a
result of structural or foundation failure rather than
overtopping . Some of these failures occured during the
summer when repairs were being made to the levees and
the weight of the levee exceeded the strength of the
underlying foundation.
II . SUBSIDENCE RELATED ISSUES:
Levee Subsidence.- As part of the increased levee
}* maintenance and improvement program in the delta , BIMID
completed a survey in September 19e7 of the existing
>rr'. centerline profile and levee cross sections . Comparison of
this data with earlier data indicate that the levee
4 centerline is subsiding at a rate of about 1 to 2 inches per
year .
BIMID deals with this subsidence by continual maintenance of
the levees which requires that the levees be constantly
- ` raised . For this reason BIMID has adopted a rule
prohibiting structures within 50 feet of the centerline of
"' ``''`•` lan existing levee. The proposed plan for Subdivision 6013
locates residences in this area making maintenance of the
new levees more difficult .
B. Deep seated subsidence, - DWR Bulletin 182-82 indicates that
there is deep seated subsidence in the vicinity of the Rio
Vista gage that may be permanent and ,on-going . DWR began a
Delta Subsidence Investigation in July of 1985. Specific
data . relating to Bethel Island is inconclusive in regard to
the rate of subsidence. At this date a deep subsidence well
has been drilled on the island , but instrumentation has not
:''•'"' yet been installed . The actual subsidence rate has not been
determined .
`':<^ -'',': C- Sea Level Rise. - The BCDC sea level rise study is the most
recent study available . An analysis of the tide level gage
at the Presidio in San Francisco indicates that the rate of
rise of sea level over the last 100 years has been 0.0039
feet per year . More over , 'this rate appears to have
increased to 0.0072 feet per year in the last . 19 years ..
This report concludes that when the sea level rise is
►,:;:'...: coupled with deep subsidence the relative mean sea level
r projection for Pittsburg for the year 2037 (50 years from
the date of the report ) is 0.8 feet above the present level .
In view of the relative increase in sea level , the BCDC
BIMID Comments page 22
FLET']'& ASSOCIATES, INC. 31280 Civic Drive, Suite 210, Walnut Creek, CA 945% (415) 935-7710
report is recommending a sophisticated approach to the
determination of levee height in order to provide protection
to the new structures. The existing project plan has not
considered this data , nor developed a method of providing a
continual levee protective device over the life of the
project . The conditions of approval do require monitoring
for possible subsidence , but do not require development and
implementation of a plan for controlling settling and
subsidence.
The conditions of approval call for a levee height of 10 ft .
This may or may not be adequate for the present conditions
when allowance for the still water height and wave runup is
made . Under likely future conditions it is most probably
inadequate .
It should also be noted that raising the floor level of
structures protected by the levee above an elevation derived
by adding a freeboard allowance to the expected maximum high
tide does not provide adequate protection. Especially if
the ground on which the structure rests subsides.
On the other hand it is not necessary that the minimum floor
level be - above the top of the levee . BCDC recommended
criteria require that the structure be floodproof , floor
level be above maximum still water elevation, and levee
crest above maximum water surface elevation.
III . CHANGED GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS:
The DWR Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan prohibits dredging
material below -35 feet for levee repair or restoration
within 135 feet of the centerline of the levee . The reasons
for this relate to levee stability and a concern regarding
seepage when the impervious river bottom layer of silt is
removed . The removal of soil within the proposed lagoon may
have a similar effect . Furthermore , subsequent filling of
the lagoon may alter seepage patterns elsewhere on the
island and thereby impact SIMID 's seepage control program.
It is recognized that soil removal will not be as deep as
-35 feet . However , recent experience with dewatering for
installation of the Bethel Island sewers and subsequent
infiltration problems have caused BIMID to be concerned
about this factor .
There does not seem to have been any study or
consideration given to the effects of flooding a significant
area of the island. Therefore, it is BIMID 's positionthat
the project as proposed not be approved .
In summary, BIMID opposes approval of the project as
proposed based upon new data relating to changed
circumstances since the last review of the project . These
4 BIMID Comments, page 23
B. FLETi & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1280 Civic Drive, Sufte 210, R'alnut Creek, CA 94596 (415)935-7710
y,R
data relate to : .
Stability of the existing levee under conditions
created to facilitate the construction of the levees
for Subdivision 6013
2. Lack of consideration for maintenance of the new levees
required to offset the effects of sea level rise and
subsidence, and ,
3. Lack of consideration of seepage and groundwater
migration resulting from the creation of the new
may.
lagoon.
hank you for your consideration.
{s.�..
' Sincerely .
'1 Douglas B. Flett
`RCE 0 15227
:t
5 BIMID Comments, page 24
D.
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (415) 935 7710
B. FLE'I'T& ASSOCIATES, INC. 1280 Civic Drive, Suite 210,
P.O.Box 761 Bethel Plaza, Bethel Island,CA 94511 4151684-3470
SURRIU�
.::ENGINEERING C,.Eng.No.26M4 • Gen.Eng.Con.Co.41WW
July 2, 1989
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Sacrarr-tento District
Re: Public Notice 6063A
Delta Coves, Bethel Island
There is new information available since 1978 that is useful in evaluat-
ing the impacts of the proposed Delta Coves project.
SUBSIDENCE:
The problem of subsidence in the Delta is not new. But, there have been
studies since 1978 that have given.us new information on causes and rates.
The Department of Water Resources published a report in August 1980
entitled "Subsidence of Organic Soils in the Sacramento-San Joa(Tain Delta."
Although there was insufficient data for the authors to estimate a sUbside�-�ce
rate for Bethel Island, a subsidence rate of 0.5 inches per year due to natu-
ral gas removal was reported for the Rio Vista Gas Field, (Table 5) . Figure 2
showed that Bethel Island is adjacent to the active Dutch Slough Gas Field.
The Department .of Water Resources published a report in December 1986
entitled "Delta Subsidence Investigation." Included in the recomnendatians was
the installation -of c
ompaction recorders (extensometers) that could measure
E the overall rate of subsidence and differentiate the rate of deep subsidence
from .the rate of shallow subsidence. Bethel Island was identified as one of
nine sites because of its "proximity to areas where subsidence is of special
concern because of past, present, and future gas withdrawal" (page 46) . The
instrument was installed on Bethel Island in 1988. Another recocimendation of
the report was the use of the Global Positioning System (satellite surveying)
to determine land surface elevations throughout the Delta to measure future
subsidence rates.
BIMID Comments, page 25
- '
Geological Survey published a report entitled "Determination of
The U.S.U.S. Geo l
mark Elevations at Bethel Island and Vicinity, Contra Costa and San
aquin Counties, California, 1987." Conventional spirit leveling surveying
,.r:_':�=y". ': Sing. a benchmark on bedrock near Marsh Creek Reservoir (.T934) was used to tie
, ,.
several benchmarks in the Bethel Island area. USBR BM on Hotchkiss Tract at
`the fish screens of the Contra Costa Canal intake was reported to have an
:elevation of 11.14 NGVD Datum of 1929.
......1M The Department of Water Resources published a preliminary report in
August 1988 entitled "A GPS Control Survey for the Delta Planning Branch." The
'- ults of the initial satellite sur
included the elevations of three
Y
A" y'
���,�,:;_;;;a�• benchmarks in the Bethel Island area. One benchmark is located within the
`;'Delta Coves project site. A primary control network of stable benchmarks on
r
•;.,the perimeter of the Delta, including T934 at Marsh Creek Reservoir was used
;:
a basis. The GPS elevation for benchmark "5255" located at the fish screens
the Contra Costa Canal intake was reported to have an elevation of 10.17
NGVD Datum of 1929, 1.0 feet lower than previously reported. Another
s
benchmark' "6055" located on Jersey Island near Jackass Point and adjacent to
e north side of Bethel Island was reported to have a GPS elevation of 2.49
;feet. That is 2.0 feet lower than previously reported by conventional spirit
;..:.;:leveling.
There are differences between the results of the two methods of survey-
The USGS 'report includes the following guideline:
"Until additional data are available surveys referenced to Na-
tional Geodetic Survey bench marks in the study area may assume
that the published adjusted elevations reflect changes caused by
both land subsidence and adjustment procedures. As such, eleva-
``' tions to a new site based on a bench mark with adjusted elevations
could be in error by as much as 0.6 ft, but will probably average
about 0
The logical conclusion of the foregoing is that subsidence does occur in
Bethel Island area, and although it is being studied with sophisticated
iques, its rate is yet unknown. Thus, the design of the Delta Coves
;.'project should incorporate the newest information available and include
provi-
to protect the project's houses as well as the perimeter levee protect-
, s?�� ng Bethel Island from future subsidence. The project as presently designed,
,z I
=unposed of houses constructed on top of finger levees with minimum pad F"; eleva-
} lions of 9.75 ringed with a 3-foot or 5-foot wide setback strip does not lend
F. t.,:.... .
.VI
•�'" '�° ltsel f to future raisin
ON � ;- r:..,.. g o y
f freeboard. Neither is there an location shown
•;:::,.;� :,, gal
, � ,,: ong the perimeter levee to provide room for future raising of freeboard.
est? :•
.,,::..
._;,,There also should be conservative consideration given as to what benchmark and
r E *''.."elevation is used for vertical control for the project construction.
'rig
BIMID Comments, page 26
=F;
gEp,-LEVEL RISE:
A problem that was not even recognized at the time the EIS was written
in 1978 is global .warming from the greenhouse effect and the resulting rise in
,t:. sea level .
"Delta Levees Investigation, Bulletin 192-82" by the Department of Water
Resources, dated December 1982 reported that there was an increase in average
3::; .
ocean levels at the Golden Gate, and that a tentative study indicated a 50-
" `' year trend of 0.08 inches per-' p year (page 44) .
In 1987, a study on future sea level rise prepared for the San Francisco
Development Commission re
gay Conservation and ported.that int e previous 19
years, there had been an average sealevel rise of 0.0072 feet per year at the
t.}` Golden Gate.
In October of 1988, U.S. Congressman George Miller sponsored a hearing
for the House Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources in San Francisco on
�- the greenhouse effect. Dr. Robert W. Buddemeier, University of California,
r .: = Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, presented a paper, "The Impacts of
Climate Change on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta" which included the follow-
`.'....w ing statement:
"When we consider sea level rise predictions alone, we see that we
Ty canexpect to have to raise and strengthen the levees to withstand
water levels of at least 3 feet higher within the next century,
and that a significant fraction of that increase in water level
will occur within the next few decades. (Implications of Global
.�
Warming for Natural Resources, Oversight Hearings before the
Subca mit
,.ee on Water and Power Resources of the Committee on
'
Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1989)
The revised Specific Plan for the Bethel Island Area by Contra Costa
I
+ ' County dated June, 1989 assumes a four foot rise in sea level over the next j
100
years for planning purposes.
This new information should be considered in the design of a major
= project such as Delta Coves. Provisions should be made in the design to allow
for raising of freeboard, . not only to protect the project, but Bethel Island +
`r - as well .
:. SEEPAGE:
err.
=j ,` BIMID Comments, page 27
In the State of California's Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan, dated August
21, 1986, seepage is identified as a factor that contributes to levee failures
(page 7); "Increased moisture from seepage through and under levees, which
t reduces the shear strength of soils and thereby contributes to instability of
}` the levees." The Plan also recognized that the "Flooding of islands can have
;= several adverse impacts, including. . .increased seepage on islands adjacent to
the flooded areas."
� . .
r:
In discussions with other Reclamation District engineers the author has
learned of the following experiences:
a. A water well in the interior of Bradford Island began
flowing artesian when neighboring Webb Tract flooded.
b. Lower Jones Tract experienced increased seepage when
McDonald Island flooded and vice versa. The seepage
disappeared after the neighboring island was pumped
dry.
C. McDonald Island and Bacon Island experienced increased
seepage after Mildred Island flooded.
d. The author has noted that within days after Holland
Tract flooded on January •18, 1980, during a period of
, high rainfall , Contra Costa County Sanitation District
No. 15 experienced abnormally high sewer flow (almost
five times subsequent average flows) . Since 1980 there
.#. i
have been other periods of high rainfall that were not
accompanied by the high sewer flows. There was one
exception during the winter of 1982-83 when sewer flows
rose during a period of local flooding on Bethel Island
as drainage pumps failed to keep up with runoff and
'= many acres were inundated.
It is postulated that a pervious sand strata underlays the islands and
r:; �'e.• ..,..:,.'is fairly continuous. Thus, when a island floods the sand strata is exposed to
?E;= an increased hydraulic head driving increased quantities of seepage to the
unf 1 ooded neighboring island. The increased head beneath the levees would
correspondingly decrease their stability.
There is the proposed lagoon with
==:,�:•_ = potential that the excavation for the
water surface elevated above the existing ground water table may expose a
. pervious and continuous underlying sand strata. The exposure of the sand
FF strata to the increased hydraulic pressure from the lagoon may raise the
water table in ad jacent areas and increase infiltration into the exist-
.` r'?rIng sewer system, increase seepage under neighboring island levees with an
" . j'i`;acccmpanying rise in potential for piping, decrease existing levee stability
y. -x
BIMID Comments, page 28
due to the increased uplift pressure, and increase drainage pumping costs to
the District.
Impacts that cause increased seepage or decreased levee stability may
aggravate conditions at critical points in the existing levee system such as
levee encroachments where levee cross section is reduced.
Seepage and ground water table rise can be controlled by toe ditches,
cutoff walls (impervious barriers through the pervious strata) , interception
wells, relief wells, subsurface drainage systems, levee berms, etc. Note that
the measures employed should avoid lowering the ground water table in de-
veloped areas and the accampanyi.ng undesirable side effects.
It is reccarmended that testing be done prior to issuing a Corps of
Engineers permit. Such testing should include:
A seepage analysis and appropriate testing, including
possible effects on the existing ground water table adjacent
to the project, on the inflow and infiltration rate of the
existing sewer system adjacent to the project, on the seep-
age rates and levee stability of Hotchkiss and Holland
Tracts, and on the inflow and infiltration rate of the sewer
system along Sandmound Boulevard on Hotchkiss Tract.
A preconstruction monitoring program (including installation
of piezometers) to develop baseline data on existing ground
water levels and seepage rates and influences of river
stage, rainfall , season, irrigation, etc. on neighboring
tracts as well as Bethel Island.
CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING:
Experiences on Bethel Island during the dewatering for construction of
the sewer system in 1979 have emphasized. the fragile nature of the peat soil
ringing Bethel, Island. Subsequent to the .sewer construction there were several
lawsuits over settlement damage to houses.
j:
Lowering of the ground water table under the existing levees would
increase the effective stress on the foundation materials, as well as increase
the amount of peat soil subject to oxidation which may consequently increase
the subsidence rate.
i
r.
It is recaTMended that before the Corps of Engineers permit is approved,
the following be prepared:
BIMID Comments, page 29
A dewatering plan, including preconstruction monitoring to
develop baseline data, should be prepared prior to lowering
of groundwater elevations. This plan would include adequate
setbacks. or dewatering techniques between existing struc-
tures and the existing levee and proposed excavations based
on actual pumping tests.
A monitoring and mitigation plan to evaluate possible im-
pacts of dewatering; increased seepage, cracking, slope
stability, and long-terms settlement during and after con-
struction, including the installation of instrumentation
such as piezometers, settlement plates, slope inclinometers,
and benchmarks. Plans to stabilize and repair detrimental
effects should be prepared.
Barbara E. Burns, RC"'
BIMID Comments, page 30
FLOOD PLAIN VALUES :
Construction of the Delta Coves project would subject all
existing island residents to a degree of hazard that does not now
exist . In case of flooding , c rrent emergency safety and evacua-
tion plans are based on the s ow spread of floodwaters over the
entire 3 , 500-acre island plai . In the event of a levee break
anywhere on the island, the D Ita Coves project surrounded by its
perimeter levee section would remove 310 acres from the island
flood plain . The remaining acreage would fill faster and thus cut
down on the time available to get existing residents to safety . A
large percentage of the existing population resides at ground
level in mobile home parks and in. homes that were built before
FEMA regulations required elevated structures . District flood
J fighting procedures will be hampered by loss of time for imple-
mentation.
The EIS states on page , paragraph 1 . 15 that the proposed
Delta Coves project is similar to Discovery Bay . However , Dis-
covery Bay development is situated on a mainland, not an island.
' Should flooding occur in Dis overy Bay , flood waters could spread
over an extensive flood plai .
I
i
I� LAND USE:
I1
Levees constructed afte March 1988 ( SB-34 enactment date)
will not be eligible for state subvention monies . A recent letter
(April 6., 1989) to the District ' s engineer from the Department of
Water Resources confirms thi : "As you know, the Preliminary
Procedures state that : ' . . . t e first priority for funding is for
! levee maintenance and rehabi itation up to the Bulletin 192-82
standards ( for geometry) ass ciated with the existing land use at_
the time SB 34 was signed in -o law . '" [emphasis in original ]
IIt should be noted that the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors unanimously votel to deny the lagoon project during
the settlement hearings due o their concerns about safety
issues . At the settlement hearing the supervisors did go on
record as supporting a conve tional planned unit subdivision
development . on the project site .
i
J
iBIMID Comments, page 31
I�
1
NAVIGATION:
Navigational requirements of tug. and barge access for main-
tenance of the project ' s waterside slopes was not considered in
the EIS . These requirements impact the ability to maintain the
Delta Coves project in the future , especially in emergency situa-
tions .
In 1985 , the navigational requirements were studied by the
District engineers for Reclamation District 800 when mooring
lines were established in a portion of Discovery Bay . The crite-
ria developed were based on Corps of Engineers Technical Letter
No . .1110-2-225 , "Engineering and Design Channel Widths for Navi-
gation in Bends , " and discussions with Dutra Construction Compa-
ny , the major Delta barge operator . Influences of wind and cur.-
rents were considered. The following parameters were develope4.:
Length: 200 ' barge and 80 ' tug = 280 ' total
Width: 40 '
Draft : 10 '
Minimum channel width for one way traffic without bends
of 120 '
Minimum channel width of 140 ' with minimum 300 ' radius
bend.
Not only are these criteria not met inside the Delta Coves
project as proposed, it appears that they may not be met in the
stretch of Sandmound Slough leading to the project . The 14m-ted
data published by NOAA on the navigation chart for the area shows
depths of 6 feet and 8 feet below mean lower low water in Sand-
mound Slough near the project entrance . The design depth for the
project entrance is 6 . 7 feet at mean lower low water . Maneuvering
room in Sandmound Slough is limited by existing boat docks and
mid channel islands . Dimensions appear to be on the order of 14_0
feet width with a 300-foot radius bend around the project ' s
entrance wing walls . There are three locations inside the protect
where it appears to be less than 120 feet between the ends of the
proposed boat docks . .
If conventional waterborne maintenance equipment does not
have sufficient room for access , particularly in an emergency,
there should be alternate methods proposed, such as an access
road along the top of the slope for land based maintenance equip-
ment .
BIMID Comments, page 32
The Corps ' EIS states on page 5 , paragraph 1 . 10 , "When the
project is completed, about half of the site will be a lagoon and
harbor which will become part of Sandmound Slough waterway . "
However, the Corps ' notice, sheet 4 of 7 , shows a harbor entrance
sign which reads "Private Harbor . " Sandmound Slough waterway is a
navigable waterway and the public cannot be barred from a portion
of it .
i
SHORELINE EROSION AND ACCRETION :
There are potential erosion problems with the waterside
levee slope "benches" as shown on sheet 5 of 7 in the Corps
public notice and on the Final Development Plan ( 3024-82 ) . Ac-
cording to the public notice diagram, the proposed individual
docks are to be constructed over the "bench" area . At low tide or
a minus tide the floating dock could come to rest on the "bench"
area . over time this contact could erode the bench area if it is
constructed as shown . The bench area could also cause damage to
boats and docks at low tide, thus encouraging homeowners to
excavate and remove rip rap on the levee slope .
It is also likely that the square corners on the lagoon
fingers as shown in the plan will erode rapidly due to wave wase
and tidal action. Preventing erosion and maintaining square
corners will increase labor and materials costs .
WATER QUALITY :
According to the conditions of approval (22 & 23) for Contra
Costa County Tentative Subdivision Map No . 6013 (Delta Coves) ,
lagoon maintenance will be undertaken by BIMID.
The original Army Corps ' permit was based on the 1978 EIS
which states on page 3 , paragraph 1 . 07 , "A water circulatory
i system will be installed which will help provide water quality
maintenance . Bethel Island ' s Municipal Improvement District will
operate the water circulation system in the lagoons as needed to
prevent stagnation. " On page 32 , paragraph 4 . 29 of the EIS it
says , "The pumping system will circulate water from Sandmound
Slough to all lagoon areas . . . Stagnation will be controlled by
scheduled operation of these pumps by Bethel Island Municipal
Improvement District . " Further, on pages 49 and 50 of the final
BIMID Comments, page 33
1
i
EIS in response to comments 6 and 12 regarding the monitoring of
water quality, the responsibility was indicated as BIMID ' s . The
response to comment 6 says "The responsibility of monitoring
. water quality problems within Delta Coves and operation of the
pumping facility, will be that of the Bethel Island Municipal
Improvement District . "
Provisions have to be made to fund BIMID' s initial expendi-
tures for water quality monitoring equipment . Funds will also be
required to hire and train personnel in water quality management
systems and applications prior to the assumption of duties .
Lagoon water quality management costs are a major component of
the annual budget in reclamation districts which have water
quality control responsibilities . A water quality control assess-
ment for Delta Coves landowners will be required to fund the
ongoing costs of lagoon maintenance by BIMID.
The proposed configuration of the lagoon fingers will pose
substantial problems for water quality control . Prevailing winds
are predominately from the W-WNW in Bethel Island . These winds
are persistent in the summer (Draft Environmental Impact Report ,
Bethel Island Area Specific Plan, January 30 , 1989 , page 21.77219 ,
figure 24) . Winds blowing persistently from the west-northwest
will constantly push debris into the lagoon cul -de-sacs created
by fingers as proposed in the plan. The accumulation of debris
will create unnecessary additional cleaning and removal opera-
tions to prevent accumulation of waterborne debris (including
oily residue common to all harbors ) under the docks in the
cul -de-sac areas . This water quality control problem could be
mitigated by a reconfiguration of the proposed lagoon fingers .
Another water quality control problem will be created by the
construction of the proposed 15- or 10-foot "benches" in the
waterside levee slopes ( "benches" shown on Contra Costa County ' s
Final Development Plan are 15 ' , those on sheet 5 of 7 in the
Corps public notice are shown as 10 ' ) . At low tides and minus
tides these benches will lie in shallow water . A shallow , warm
water environment promotes growth of wetland plants as well as
algae . Wetland plants such as tules in and around docks and the
proposed dock anchor cables will entrap surface scum and algae
blooms . This will create a visual and odor problems requiring
intensive hand labor maintenance.
The 1978 final EIS states on page 50 in the response to
BIMID Comments, page 34
Comment 13 : "The developer has indicated that facilities on the
docks will be available for oily waste . " Clarification is needed
here as there is no indication in the Corps '- Public Notice sheet
5 of 7 ( individual docks) and sheet 6 of 7 (marina . docks ) of
separate facilities on the docks for oily wastes . Holding tanks
with discharge pumps to house sewer connections are shown on the
drawings , but it is doubtful that oily waste would be accepted by
Sanitation District 15 or the Oakley-Bethel Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant .
GENERAL NEEDS AND WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE :
Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District requests that a
public hearing be held on the island to consider this applica-
tion. The Delta Coves project has aroused much public interest
and apprehension in the Bethel Island area. A public hearing will
help the Army Corps determine whether or not the benefits of the
proposal can be balanced against the reasonably foreseeable
detriments .
The developer will have to obtain permits from BIMID for
breaching the island levee , grading , drainage improvements , and
construction of the project . The Improvement District was created
by an act of the California State Legislature (BIMID Act , Statues
of 1960 , Chapter 22 ) to maintain the island' s levee and make and
enforce all necessary regulations for reclamation service . In
addition, the District has property interest in the levee pro-
tecting Bethel Island by virtue of the history of reclamat=on on
the island. This interest is independent of any regulatory power
conferred by the BIMID Act or other statutes .
The District foresees problems in obtaining adequate insur-
ance if this project is constructed as proposed with inadequate
building setbacks from the waterside on the perimeter levee and
lagoon fingers . Recent news articles called attention to disputed
insurance coverage in Discovery Bay, a lagoon development in
Contra Costa County with houses near the waterside edge of the
levee . According to one article (Brentwood News , Tuesday , May 9 ,
1989) , slope failure caused extensive damage to a house on
Drake' s Drive. When slope failures occur , as they do even in new
engineered levees , house foundations are in jeopardy if the
houses are situated near the levee ' s waterside edge .
BIMID Comments, page 35
These comments contain two engineering reports by independ-
ent consultants which discussed the potential flooding hazard of
the Stone Road corridor. Both reports found that a break in the
existing levee along the corridor would cause major property
damage and hazards to life . Consultant Meehan suggested that the
potential problem could be mitigated by completely rebuilding the
existing levee along Stone Road . Short of this , the District ' s
position on this matter is that there is no compelling reason to
place existing residents in a potentially hazardous situation, or
in fear of a potential hazard. No overriding considerations of
economic or social benefit have been shown which would justify
approval of the permit without mitigation of this significant
hazardous environmental effect .
BIMID Comments, page 36
. APPENDIX
\ Figures 15a and 16 from the Draft EIE for the
` \ Bethel Island Area Specific Plan, 1989
Soils Engineer's report on cavity in Bethel Island
\ . . levee, January 21 , 1980
\ \ Comments on 1978 Drat EIS from State of Cali£or-
/ \ Sia Resources agency , pages 4 , 5 . and 6 regarding
\ ?. potential levee failure concerns .
\ \
/ \
A \
$ � .
� y .
± 2
/ \ .
\ \
`s ca
a) d
T•;" 'u
�a
i s
s
p N
i � G
•ct � N �
Ct
tiJ U N U
U 3 n n.
•ij.s p �N p N p
ire-,
1 0 �
U
N
0
v�
p
1 _
t
t
t
/ FRANKS TRACT �I
J� (n.a RaaAiia ARA)
it
s4A�
Q
. FRANKS TRACT
WAI[ MCAWl ARA)
v
C eEtrn O I
JERSEY ISLAND
• I
0
o oma.
9 p p
� O i
(B GhSO 00OJrp�d �r,ag Planning Area Wetlands Figure 16
-�5LODc3C0u0C P
® Permanent Wetlands(Riparian,Marsh;Mixed Wetlands)
® Seasonal Wetlands(Perennial Herbs)
JJ A[.
D +oo 1600 2400 3200 4000 Ruderal Wetland/Upland(Mostly Peppergrass Dominated)
LISA KIRK
PO BOX 435
BF_-,T•M I:5I2AN1), CA 94511
925-684-9250
05-23-2206
MEMBERS OFTHE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTR COSTA COUNTY
GRADING PERMIT 348984
I WOULD LIKE•1'O•THANK THE BOARDTODAY FOR THE OPPORTUN1.1'Y TO GIVE PUBLIC
TESTIMONY ON THE DELTA COVES GRADING:PERMIT. I UNDERSTAND THE BECAUSE OF THE 1989
LAWSUIT TLiDG1,.4ENT, THAT IT PROHIBITS THE COUNTY FROM DENYING T11E ISSUANCE OF THE
GRADING PERMIT FOR THE PROJECT. WHICH WOULD EXPLAIN THAT ALTHOUGH I FILED THE
APPEAL ON 10-3I-2005, THE GRADING WAS ALLOWED TO PRECEDE IN MARCH OF 2006 AND THIS
HEARING WAS NOT SCHEDULEIJ UNTIL MAY OF 2006, THE 16 YEAR OLD JUDUMEN•T HAS ALSO
DENIED MY RIGHT ASA CITIZEN, AFFECTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT,TO INCORPORATE MY
CONCERNS REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY.
I AM NOT HERE TODAY TO STOP OR HINDER THE DELTA COVES PROJECT, ACTUALLY I THINK,
NEW RESIDENTS MOVING TO BETHEL ISLAND, WILL BE A GREAT BENEFIT•1'O THE COMMUNITY
IN MANY WAYS. BUT, THE 38 CONDITION THAT FOLLOWED THE LAWSUIT,COULD HAVE NOT
FORSEEN THE CHANGES OCCURRING IN THE DELTA AND TFM PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH ,
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FLOOD PLAIN.
MY CONCERNS ARE
1. THE CHANGE IN THE ARMY CORP POSITION AS IT RELATES TO CONDITION 11.
2. THE COUNTY OVERSIGHT AND PFRAUTTING OF A BREECH STRUCTURE
TI2E
3.. THE LACK OF THE CURRENT APPROVAL,FROM BETHEL ISLAND MUNICIPAL DISTRICT
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AS IT RELATES TO THE COUNTY GRADING ORDINANCE 716-2.606 AND
BIMID'S OWN ORDINANCE 9
4. THE LACK OF STUDIES REGARDING THE USE OF DEEP DYNAMIC COMPACTION IN FLOOD
PLAINS AND THE 1N•7PACT TO ADTOINTING PROPERTIES AND LEVEES.
5. THE BUILDING OF NEW LEVEE OF FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED SAND.
ARMY COE LETTER
PLEASE NOTE A J-UNF 0 1995 TETTER FROM THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, STATING TO
MR WEISENBUR.G,"THAT THE COE WILL NOT EVALUATE OF VALIDATE YOUR LEVEE DESIGN".
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EVALUATION AND DECISION DOCUMENT SIGNED 6-1-1998 PAGE
27 STATE THAT THE COE WILL REVIEW THE PLANS AND DESIGNS TO ENSURE HAVE BEEN
DEVELOPED AND REVIEWED BY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, ONLY. THE 1989
CONDITION 11 STATES THAT GRADING PLANS SHALL INCORPORATE LIQUEFACTION-RESISTANT
DESIGN ACCEPTABLE TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS,YET THE 1995 AND 1998 DOCUMENTS FROM
THE COE STATES NO EVALUATION OF THE DESIGN, ONLY REVIEW IS TO CONFIRM THAT PLANS
AND DESIGN HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED AND REVIEW BY LICENSED ENGINEERS.
page 1
S ee�e
STEEFEL, LEVITT & WEISS
A Professional Corporation
Author's Direct Dial:(415)403-3386
E-Mail: jtruxaw@steefel.com
May 22, 2006
16860
Chair John M. Gioia and Board Members
Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553-1229
Re: May 23, 2006 Board Agenda Item D-4: Lisa Kirk Appeal
Dear Chair Gioia and Members of the Board of Supervisors:
LB/L Duc III Bethel Island LLC ("Duc" herein) respectfully requests that the Board deny
the appeal filed by Lisa Kirk in the matter of the Delta Coves Grading Permit for the reasons
stated herein together with the reasons set forth in the Staff Report prepared for.this matter.
Below we first respond to the appeal as filed by Ms. Kirk on October 31, 2005. Following that,
we respond to issues raised by her attorney, Ellison Folk, in a letter to the Board dated May 8,
2006.
Kirk Appeal
The County issued the grading permit for the Delta Coves project on October 6, 2005.
The permit remains in effect and grading operations have been underway since late March. Ms.
Kirk filed her appeal on October 31, 2005 pursuant to the provisions of sections 14-4.002 and
14-4.004 of the Ordinance Code of Contra Costa County.
Failure to Verify Appeal: Failure to Specify Injury,Not an Aggrieved rieved Person
Sections 14-4-002 and 14-4.004 of the County Code provide that "any person aggrieved
by an administrative action" shall "file with the clerk of the board a verified written notice of
appeal concisely stating the facts of the case and the grounds for his appeal including his special
interest and injury." The code defines verification at section 16-4.004: ""Affidavit," "certificate"
and "verification" include declarations under penalty of perjury." Ms. Kirk's letter of appeal is
not verified and thus is not properly before the Board.
Although the code does not specifically define the term "aggrieved", general use of the
term requires that to be aggrieved, a person must be able to specify an action that has caused
them individual injury. Ms. Kirk makes no attempt in her appeal to explain how she has been
injured by the County's decision to issue a grading permit and she provides no special interest or
One Embarcadero Center,30th Floor,San Francisco,California 94111-3719•Phone:(415)788-0900•Fax:(415)788-2019
San Francisco,CA Los Angeles,CA Stamford,CT www.steefei.com
� f
Chair John M. Gioia and Board Members lU UUIU
May 22, 2006 l� eelG
Page Two STEEF11,EEVITT&WEISS
injury supporting her appeal. As such, she is not a "person aggrieved" by the decision. Because
her letter of appeal does not satisfy the requirements of section 14-4.004, it must be denied.
Vested Right
As noted above, the County issued the grading permit in early October and it has
remained in effect ever since. Although Ms. Kirk filed this appeal in late October, she
apparently made no effort to have the matter heard "at an early regular board meeting" as is
required by the Code. In the meantime, Duc has commenced and continues extensive grading
operations at the site in full conformance with the conditions of the permit. Duc has a vested
right to continue its grading operations.
BIMID Approval
The staff report responds to Ms. Kirk's BIMID related issues and we concur with staff's
responses. The County has issued the grading permit in full compliance with all County
regulations and project specific, court ordered conditions of approval. BIMID agreed to accept
maintenance of the levees and breach structure to be built pursuant to the grading permit at a
pubic meeting held in February 2005. After that meeting, the BIMID Board received and
considered the reports and recommendations of its consulting geotechnical engineer, Kevin
Tillis, and consented to the work being performed under this permit. By letter dated August 9,
2005 to Kevin Emigh of Contra Costa County Public Works, Mr. Tillis confirmed that mass
grading of the site could commence. On August 18, 2005 the BIMID Board accepted a written
and oral status report on the grading plans from Mr. Tillis. In his letter, Mr. Tillis explains that
"The grading plans are essentially complete and Contra Costa County (County) is close to
issuing a pen-nit for grading. ... We conclude that the project plans have sufficient detail for the
contractor to proceed with initial grading." Minutes of the meeting reflect that during Mr. Tillis'
presentation, he informed the BIMID Board that "The County is ready to issue a grading permit
..." Between August and October, Mr. Tillis continued to review submittals made to the County
in furtherance of the grading permit and he consented to its issuance.
Minutes of the October 20, 2005 BIMID meeting reflect that at the meeting Mr. Tillis
informed BIMID that a grading pen-nit had been issued, that initial clearing had begun and that
"The main construction could start in about one month." The minutes reflect that Ms. Kirk was
present during this presentation.
Mr. Tillis and District Manager Paul Harper were present at an on-site preconstruction
meeting held just prior to the commencement of grading operations in mid-March, 2006 and
consented to the commencement of grading. Although, as the staff report notes, BIMID
approval is not required prior to the issuance of the grading permit, nevertheless, BIMID has
been aware of and has reviewed and signed off on the grading plans at all relevant times.
r
f
Chair John M. Gioia and Board Members Lamle
May 22, 2006 l� eelG
Page Three SiEEEEE,EEVIi1&WEISS
Ellison Folk letter
Failure to Verify Appeal; Failure to Specify Injury; Failure to Appeal Within 30 Days
As noted above, an appeal brought pursuant to section 14-4.002must be filed
within 30 days of the action being appealed from and must include "a verified written notice of
appeal concisely stating the facts of the case and the grounds for his appeal including his special
interest and injury." Ms. Folk's letter, to the extent it would amend Ms. Kirk's appeal, is not
verified and fails the first requirement. Similar to Ms. Kirk's letter, it specifies no special injury
suffered by the appellant. Additionally, the 30 day requirement clearly, if implicitly, includes a
requirement that the appellant state his or her grievances within 30 days of the date of the action.
Ms. Folk's letter impermissibly seeks to broaden the appeal beyond the grounds for the appeal
provided during the 30 day period by Ms. Kirk. Because her letter is not verified, specifies no
special interest or injury and because it seeks.to broaden the scope of the appeal beyond the
issues raised within the 30 day post-action period, it should be disregarded by the Board.
Alleged Violation of County Code section 716-2.608
Ms.,Folk argues that the issuance of the grading permit violates County Code Section
716-2.608. Section 716-2.608 of the County Code provides that "No person shall excavate, or
remove any material from any levee or do any work on levees required for river or local drainage
control without prior approval of the local governmental agency responsible for the maintenance
of the levee." In this instance, "the local governmental agency responsible for the maintenance of
the levee" is BIMID, the Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District.
BIMID Consent
As explained above, BIMID's consulting engineer and its District Manager have
reviewed and signed off on the grading plans. Although Ms. Folk mischaracterizes section 716-
2.608 by stating that the required approval must be in writing, nevertheless the requirement was
satisfied in writing when on February 3, 2005, the BIMID Board adopted its resolution 05-02-03
and agreed to maintain the perimeter levees together with the breach structure. Prior to adopting
that resolution, the BIMID Board received a written report and a lengthy and detailed oral report
from consulting geotechnical engineer Tillis regarding the nature of the levee and breach
improvements to be constructed at Delta Coves.
Additionally, beginning even before the adoption of Resolution 05-02-03 and continuing
up to the day grading operations began at Delta Coves, BIMID, acting variously through its
Board, District Manager Harper and consulting geotechnical engineer Tillis, has reviewed and
= Chair John M. Gioia and Board Members lU UUIU
May 22, 2006 l� eelG
Page Four STEEEEE,EEVITT&WEISS
approved the grading plans, including levee and breach construction details.' By letter dated
August 12, 2005, consulting geotechnical engineer Tillis informed the BIMID Board that "The
County will require that BIMID sign the improvement plans because the plans include
improvements BIMID will operate and maintain. BIMID does not need to sign the grading
plans." Mr. Tillis delivered this letter with additional oral commentary to the BIMID Board at its
meeting held August 18, 2005. On March 23; 2006, prior to the commencement of grading
operations, a preconstruction meeting was held at the project site with both Mr. Tillis.and Mr.
Harper in attendance representing BIMID, as well as appropriate County officials. By their
presence at the pre-construction meeting, BIMID informed the County of its consent to the work
to be undertaken pursuant to the grading permit.
Approval of the Breach.
Regarding the breach structure, as noted above, BIMID agreed to maintain the breach
structure by resolution adopted in February 2005. Mr. Tillis' August 12, 2005 letter to BIMID
states that "We have agreed in concept to the basic elements of the double sheetpile wall breach
structure design, although the current plans do not reflect final changes. Details of the breach
structures and sequence of construction are important to assure that the existing levee is not
damaged during construction. A construction sequence and final plans for the breach structures
and levee breach are needed prior to their construction. The construction sequence should
include an evaluation of deformation that may occur during construction." After the date of that
letter, Mr. Tillis continued to review and approve breach and levee construction details shown on
the grading plans up until the County issued the grading permit in October, 2005.
CEQA
The approval of a grading permit by the County Department of Building Inspection for
the Delta Coves project requires the ministerial application of the County grading ordinance to
the grading plans and is not a project under CEQA; the issuance of the grading permit does not
give rise to any of the CEQA related issues raised.
'Conclusion
In conclusion, Ms. Kirk is not an aggrieved persons, she did not verify her appeal and
she has not raised any issues that would support any action by the Board to affect Due's vested
rights in its grading permit for the Delta Coves project. Ms. Folk seeks improperly to expand the
issues on appeal which she cannot do in view of the limited period of time in which an appeal
can be brought after the date of the action on appeal. Regardless, BIMID has consented to the
Construction of the breach structure and other construction activity that will occur on the levee is detailed in and
approved by the approved grading plans.
r
Chair John M. Gioia and Board Members lU U U l U
May 22, 2006 l� eelG
Page Five STEEEEE,EEVITT&WEISS
grading operations including the construction of the breach.
For these reasons, the Board should deny the appeal.
Very truly yours,
Jo' Tru.xaw
JWT/jcc
cc: Sylvano Marchesi
Carlos Baltodono
16560:6507475.6
RECEIVED
h DUC MAY 1 S 2006
HOUSING
ER
CLK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
PARTNERS,INC. CONTRA COSTA CO.
VIA FACSIMILE& U.S. MAIL
May 11, 2006
Mr. Silvano Marchesi
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, 9th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
RE: DELTA COVES -TRACT 6013 — BETHEL ISLAND, CA
Dear Mr. Marchesi:
As owner of the above referenced property, LBL— Duc III Bethel Island LLC respectfully
requests that the County please forward any correspondence or requests for information
that is received or submitted regarding Tract 6013. We ask that you notify all pertinent
county personnel of this request. Copies of these inquiries should be forwarded to:
Michael Cady
Duc Housing Partners
14107 Winchester Blvd., Suite H
Los Gatos, CA 95032
(408) 866-5511
FAX (408) 866-5501
John Truxaw
Steefel Levitt &Weiss
One Embarcadero Center, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 788-0900
FAX (415) 788-2019
Please call me at (408) 866-5511 x.211 if you have any questions or require-additional
information.
Sincerely,
DUC HOUSING PARTNERS, INC.
AS MANAGER OF L�B�L —/CDUC III BETHEL ISLAND LLC
Michael B. Cady
c: County Clerk
Carlos Baltodano, CCC Building Inspection
Dennis Barry, CCC Community Development
14107 Winchester Blvd.,Suite H ■ Los Gatos,CA 95032 ■ (408)866-5511 Fax(408)866-5501 www.duchousing.com
mG �N
N
� �r L13
F,Qy �
ti e d o
U.
ccN II.I
431INO o o �=
r
Q"
cr
... r R
----- —=_= d,
Ln
n.�
o
la'
Itl
t7'
M
O
LA
Q
u
N
O
Y
ro
t�
S CG ?Q
Li
�n V.) Lei NN
V U-IWO
x `°
a Gr Q �O"
Q
=
c,
f o
V
U V
r.
D U C
HOUSING RECEIVED
PARTNERS,INC
M AY 11 2006
VIA FA SIMILE& U.5, MAIL CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRACOSTA CO.
May 11, 2006
Mr. Silvano Marchesi
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, 9th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
RE: DELTA COVES -TRACT 6013 — BETHEL ISLAND, CA
Dear Mr. Marchesi:
As owner of the above referenced property, LBL — Duc III Bethel Island LLC respectfully
requests that the County please forward any correspondence or requests for information
that is received or submitted regarding Tract 6013. We ask that you notify all pertinent
county personnel of this request. Copies of these inquiries should be forwarded to:
Michael Cady
Duc Housing Partners
14107 Winchester Blvd., Suite H
Los Gatos, CA 95032
(408) 866-5511
FAX(408) 866-5501
John Truxaw
SLeefel Levitt& Weiss
One Embarcadero Center, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 788-0900
FAX (415) 788-2019
Please call me at (408) 866-5511 x,211 if you have any questions or require additional
information.
Sincerely,
DUC HOUSING PARTNERS, INC.
AS MANAGER OF LBL— DUC III BETHEL ISLAND LLC
Michael B. Cady
C: County Clerk
Carlos Saltodano, CCC Building Inspection
Dennis Barry, CCC Community Development
14107 Winchester Blvd.,Suite H ■ L05 Gatos,CA 95032 ■ (408)866-5511 ■ Fax(408) 866-5501 ■ www.duchousIng.corn
N
D�JC L'OUQj�j1C, A
14107 Winchester Blvd., Suite H
DUC Los Gatos, CA 95032
-5511
HousING PH : 408 / 866
PARTNE'FtS, INC. FX: 408 / 866-5501
Fax Coversheet
To: Silvano Marchesi From: Michael Cady
County Clerk
Carlos Baltodano
Dennis Barry
Company: Contra Costa County Date & Time: 5/11/06 1:20 PM
Fax: (925) 646-1078 Pages: 2 (including cover page)
(925) 335-1913
(925) 646-1219
(925) 335-1299
cc: John Truxaw Re: Delta Coves - Tract 6013
(415) 788-2019
El Urgent 0 For Your 0 Per Your 0 Please Reply 0 Please
Review Request Recycle
Comments:
Building InspectionCOntra CarlosBaltodano
Department . ' Director of Building Inspection
Costa
County Administration Building County
651 Pine Street, 3rd Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553-1295
(925) 646-4108 FFAC\,
FAX (925)646-1219 z/" RECEIVED
� �•�"yam`-`�z;
MAY t ]. 2006
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
May 9, 2006
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, LLP
Attn: Ellison Folk
Attorneys at Law
396 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Appeal of Grading Permit No. 348984
Dear Ms. Folk:
This letter is to confirm that the Board of Supervisors continued the hearing
on the above referenced appeal to May 23, 2006 at 1:30 p.m.
Sincerely,
Carlos Baltodano
Director
CB:nr
cc: Silvano B.Marchesi,Esq.,County Counsel
Lisa Kirk,P.O.Box 435,Bethel Island,CA 94511
John Truxaw,Attomey at Law,One Embarcadero Center,30th Floor,San Francisco 94111-3719
Jane Pennington,Clerk of the Board
[cb:\grading.kirk2]
Postal
(Domesticn CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT
n
=or deliver-y-1-nformation visit our website at nj --
Postage $
Certified Fee
Return Reciept Fee Postmark
(Endorsement Required) Here
ZI Restricted Delivery Fee
a (Endorsement Required)
X
Total Postage&Fwec.
� Sent To Ellison Fork
street, dpt No:;" SHUTE,MIHALY&WEINBERGER LLP
or Po Box No. 396 Hayes Street
City,State,ZIP+�
San Francisco, CA 94102
:rr
I.S. Postal Service,.
(DomesticCERTIFIED MAILT. RECEIPT
-n For delivery Information visit our website at www.usps.como
0 Postage $
-r Certified Fee
O
E:3 Postmark
Return Reciept Fee Here
M (Endorsement Required)
C3 Restricted Delivery Fee
o3 (Endorsement Required)
—0
ra Total Postage&Fees_
C3 Sent To
______ Lisa Kirk
orPOox P.O. Box 435
city,§iaie,"zrP+: Bethel Island, CA 94511
9191 :r.
J
CL
= 0 o —
Co
U- c7 '03 VIS03 VHIN03
6 SUOSIAU3dne go auvos mum
Z
E
OU)1 90 01 8
1 �vw
E a.D no
(13AI333H
N
cc
us
kD
C)
r-4
as 0 E
E 0
0 Ln
ce-, Ln
0
w CL U (v rn
J4> U C- V) V)
cr 4- 0
w CL
CO 0 u
ru C:
0 CLfd
CLis 0 0 Ln
u
to
(3)
U)
W
Z
t
SO
p�Z L t O\A
�w o 9
N 06
N '=
co p �
0 O M 1
O �f�
/ �c6 i
of
N 0 U vo
Ck-
W
r� N
Y •
N _
2
7
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
IN THE MATTER OF
Grading Permit Appeal Hearing for: Lisa Kirk
P.O. Box 435
Bethel Island, CA 94511
Notice of hearing for Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 1:30 p.m., was mailed this day, Wednesday, May
10, 2006.
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a
citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited Certified Mail with Contra
Costa County Central Service for mailing by the United States Postal Service in Martinez,
California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice, on the above entitled
matter to the following:
Lisa Kirk
P.O. Box 435
Bethel Island, CA 94511
Ellison Fork
SHUTE, MIHALY &WEINBERGER LLP
396 Hayes St.
i San Francisco, CA 94102
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, at Martinez, California.
Dated: May 10, 2006
Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Contra Johil 0111en
('Jerk,of the Board
Costa and
COUIlLy Administration Boddin- Counn,Adnifilisnaint
651 Pine Street. Room 106 County (92' ;;;_Dion
Martinez, California 945,53-4068
S-E
.John Gioia.District I
Gavle 11.llilkerna.District 11
Mary N.Piepho,District III V
Mark DeSaidnier. District IV
Federal 1).Glover, District V 'N!
SQA'coiiri'�'i
May 10, 2006
Lisa Kirk
P.O. Box 435
Bethel Island, CA 94511
RE: CONTINUATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF A
GRADING PERMIT FOR DELTA COVES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
You are hereby notified that Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. is the date and time set for the
hearing of your appeal from the decision of the Building Inspection Department, Contra Costa County,
Martinez, California. The hearing will be held in the Board of Supervisors Chambers, Room 107, 651
Pine Street, (comer of Pine and Escobar Streets) Martinez, California.
If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at,
or prior to,the public hearing.
Very truly yours,
John Cullen, County Administrator.
and Clerk of the Board
By
Brine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk
K
Attachment
cc: County Counsel
Carlos Baltodano, B.I.
Dennis Barry, CDD
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Contra .1(11111('1111en
Clerk(1i'llic Board
and
Countv Administration BuildinL, Costa Cnunty Admmianiloi
651 Pine Strect. Room 106 - County (925)3'15-1900
Martinez, California 94553-4068
John Gioia.District I
.0- 0,'
Mary N.Piepho,District flI -P.
Mark DeSafflnier,NM-ici IV
Federal 1).Glover, Distrid V
Sra cou
May 10, 2006
Lisa Kirk
P.O. Box 435
Bethel Island, CA 94511
RE: CONTINUATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF A
GRADING PERMIT FOR DELTA COVES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
You are hereby notified that Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 1:30 p.m, is the date and time set for the
hearing of your appeal from the decision of the Building Inspection Department, Contra Costa County,
Martinez, California. The hearing will be held in the Board of Supervisors Chambers, Room 107, 651
Pine Street, (comer of Pine and Escobar Streets)-Martinez, California.
If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at,
or prior to,the public hearing.
Very truly yours,
John Cullen., County Administrator
and Clerk of the Board
By !�nLck h__
Kai herine Sinclair,Deputy Clerk-
Attachment
cc: County Counsel
Carlos Baltodano, B.I.
Dennis Barry, CDD
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
1N THE MATTER OF
Grading Permit Appeal Hearing for: Lisa Kirk
P.O. Box 435
Bethel Island, CA 94511
Notice of hearing for Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 1:30 p.m., was mailed this day, Wednesday, May
10, 2006.
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a
citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today 1 deposited Certified Mail with Contra
Costa County Central Service for mailing by the United States Postal Service in Martinez,
California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice, on the above entitled
matter to the following:
Lisa Kirk
P.O. Box 435
Bethel Island, CA 94511
Ellison Fork
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
396 Hayes St.
San Francisco, CA 94102
I declare under pe lty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, at Martinez, California.
Dated: April , 2006
Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Contra John Cullen
Clerk of the Board
Costaand
County Administration Building County Administrator
651 Pine Street,Room 106 County (925)335-1900
Martinez, California 94553-4068
s
John Gioia,District I
Gayle R.I.lilkema,District II 1
Mary N.Piepho,District III
Mark DeSaulnier,District IV
Federal D.Glover, District V
Spq.couTl'>K
April 28,2006
Lisa Kirk
P.O. Box 435
Bethel Island, CA 94511
RE: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT FOR
DELTA COVES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
You are hereby notified that Tuesday,May 9, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. is the date and time set for the hearing
of your appeal from the decision of the Building Inspection Department, Contra Costa County,
Martinez, California. The hearing will be held in the Board of Supervisors Chambers, Room 107, 651
Pine Street, (corner of Pine and Escobar Streets) Martinez, California.
If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at,
or prior to,the public hearing.
Very truly yours,
John Cullen, County Administrator
and Clerk of the Board
By �h
Katheriri�inclair,Deputy Clerk
Attachment
m County Counsel
Carlos Baltodano, B.I.
Dennis Barry, CDD
1
Postal
r CERTIFIED MAILT. RECEIPT
I (Domestic Mail Only;
-n For delivery information visit our website at wNw.usps.corrho
Postage $
Certified Fee '
Return Reciept Fee Postmark
=1 (Endorsement Required) Here
=1 Restricted Delivery Fee ,
:13 (End orsement Requ ad)
-q Total Postaae.&Fees
Sent Ti
Lisa Kirk
ti
Street,.
orPOf P.O. Box 435
°iry"S` Bethel Island, CA 94511
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
IN THE MATTER OF
Grading Permit Appeal Hearing for: Lisa Kirk
P.O. Box 435
Bethel Island, CA 94511
Notice of hearing for Tuesday, May 9, 2006 at 1:30 p.m., was mailed this day, Friday, April 28,
2006.
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a
citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited Certified Mail with Contra
Costa County Central Service for mailing by the United States Postal Service in Martinez,
California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice, on the above entitled
matter to the following:
Lisa Kirk
P.O. Box 435
Bethel Island, CA 94511
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, at Martinez,
California.
Dated: April 28, 2006
Kathenne Sinclair, Deputy Clerk
t
.TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS � Contra
t s.
Costa
FROM: CARLOS BALTODANO, BUILDING INSPECTION .. ;s County
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ^'
c'ouii'�'
DATE: May 9, 2006
SUBJECT: HEARING ON AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO ISSUE A
GRADING PERMIT FOR THE DELTA COVES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. LISA
KIRK (APPELLANT) (DISTRICT V).
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)& BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony, CLOSE the hearing.
B. Deny the appeal by Lisa Kirk of the administrative decision to issue a grading permit for
the Delta Coves project.
C. Sustain the issuance of the grading permit.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RE-COMMENDATIO19 OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Carlos Baltodano(925)335-1107
ATTESTED
JOHN CULLEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Orig: Building Inspection Department(BID)
cc: Lisa Kirk(Appellant)
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department
Ruben Hernandez,Community Development Department
County Counsel BY DEPUTY
May 9, 2006
Board of Supervisors
Permit#348984
Page 3
agreement to accept and maintain the levee and lagoon. This requirement was met when
BIMID passed Resolution No. 05-02-03 on February 3, 2005, which. indicated BIMID's
acceptance of maintenance responsibility of the Delta Coves perimeter levee and lagoon.
Appeal Point #2: Is the use.of deep dynamic soil compaction technique allowed under the
grading permit?
Staff Response #2: The judgment in the above-referenced case required the conditions
contained in the judgment to be imposed on the project. Condition No. 14, which is
contained in the judgment, requires the developer to perform geotechnical work.
Condition No. 14 states as follows:
"Geotechnical work shall include levee breaching, soil and excavation,
dewatering, removal, replacement and compaction of soil, on-site water
development, erosion control measures, and design and installation of
subsidence measurement."
Deep Dynamic Compaction (DDC) is one of the compacting methods to be utilized by the
developer and is recognized by. the County as an acceptable method for compacting
liquefiable soils (sandy soils). Utilizing DDC was recommended by the project soils
engineer and was determined to be consistent with the approved development permit by
the Building Inspection Department.
_Appeal Point #3: This appeal point is divided into eight separate items (a-h) relating to an
August 12, 2005, letter prepared by Hultgren-Tillis Engineers, who are in contract with the
County as the geotechnical consultant for the project. A contract with Hultgren-Tillis was
approved and executed by the Board of Supervisors on October 26, 2004, as required by
condition of approval #13 of the Delta Coves project.
Appeal Point #3a: Who is permitting the levee construction and oversight — Contra Costa
County?
Staff Response #3a: The Building Inspection Department grading permit covers the
activities associated with the excavation for the lagoon and the fill placement for the
construction of the project levees under the recommendations from the project soils
engineer. The oversight of the levees while being built will be observed and monitored by
the soils engineer of record, and inspected by the Building Inspections Department. The
Army Corps of Engineers and other appropriate agencies and jurisdictions may also have
an interest during this project. It is the owners' responsibility to obtain those approvals.
Appeal Point #3b: Once mass grading starts under permit 348984, what is the amount of
soil to be removed?
May 9, 2006
Board of Supervisors
Permit#348984
Page 5
activities permitted under the Freedom of Information Act. I only received a date issued
statement and no copies of activities permitted under 348984. 1 received this information
on 10/31/05. 1 request again a list of activities to be permitted under permit 348984 along
with this appeal. l request the right to amend this appeal when the information is
forthcoming under the act.
Staff Response #3h: The appellant is protesting the issuance of the grading permit based
on a BIMID document. The grading permit was issued to the applicant based on a number
of documents and submittals including geotechnical reports, grading plans and numerous
other related documents all of which are public record. Copies of the grading permit, plans,
geotechnical reports and other documents were provided to Ms. Kirk on 10/31/2005.
CONCLUSION
The County Building Inspection department issued the grading permit only after confirming
with the Community Development Department and Public Works Department that the
proposed grading plan is consistent with the approved tentative map and development plan
and that the grading plan has complied with all relevant conditions of approval, zoning
codes and building codes. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors uphold the
issuance of the grading permit and deny the request to amend the appeal.
The judgment in the above-referenced case prohibits the County from denying the issuance
of the grading permit for this project.
1
f3
DATE: April 12, 2006
TO: Building Inspection
Attn: Pam Christian
FROM: Kathy Sinclair - 335' 1902-
.Deputy Clerk
SUBJECT: THREE(3)HEARINGS: LISA KIRK, GRADING PERMIT APPEAL
BOTTOMS-ARNHART,COST CONFIRMATION
J.HIGGENBOTHAM,ABATEMENT APPEAL
Mr. Mike Silva confirmed the hearings scheduled for Tuesday May 9, 2006 (hearing times listed
LelovO ft;,il'c Viowino persons:
9.30 a,ri.: COSI' CONFIRMATION Bearing: Kurt Bottoms & Suzanne Arnhart,
. (5 min. estimated time) 104 Willard Avenue
(Fiat Art Projector Required) P.ichmond, CA
9:30 a.m.: ABATEMENT APPEAL Hearing: Jack.Higgenbotham
(5 min. estimated time) 46 Bayview Avenue
Bay Point, CA
1:36 p.m.: GRADING PERMIT APPEAL Hearing: Lisa Kirk—Delta Caves-Bethel Island
(30 min. estimated time) P.O. Box 435
Bethel Island,CA
Please notify this office in writing whether the Board of Supervisors should hear this appeal on
the calendared date. If the appeal is timely and should be heard, please include the names,
addresses and zip codes of all parties to be notified in addition to the Appellant.
If the appeals are to be heard Tuesday,May 9, 2006 as scheduled, please submit the appropriate
material for Board consideration to this office not later than Thursday, April 27, 2006.
Thank you,
Attachment-Appeal
Ce: County Counsel
Carlos Baltodano/BI/CCC To Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC@CCC
03/06/2006 04:38 PM cc Gary Faria
bcc
Subject Re: Lisa Kirk Appeal HearingEl
Thank you Kathy: We'll have to re-schedule this meeting a little later. We will give you another date this
week. Carlos.
Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC
Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC
�.`'� To Carlos Baltodano/BI/CCC
03/01/2006 09:18 AM CCC
@°
a. a, cc
Subject Lisa Kirk Appeal Hearing
Hi Carlos,
Reminding you of the scheduled hearing for March 21, 2006 at 1:00 pm. Hard copy memo to follow via
inter-office mail.
Thank you, - — - -- - -- — ----- -- --— --- —
`Z42,/C)�I'
Kathy Sinclair
Clerk of the Board of SuK.1 hh Jam,
335-1902 Gir(,us
i
I'z", 0(0
1 a--C�— �
.. ...: ...... .. .:,.. ..............x ....... _ ':fin' _
._. .}......... .............$ ... ....... x ... .. ...... .!. _ �X -
W.
t..
?- r
.....�. _...... rK61
4:,_ _.. .. .. .. a . . ........ .., ,`l::a -
p- •:.r. V¢
_.. . ._. :::_'....... A _ .
,tt
-._r9
04 a
.n.. .... mai
... .. .. .. ... ..:::.. .. :a9 ^ Vwn
8..
4z"Ou'-di
_.
Nr.
k..
R-:
n'
-s
DATE: March 1. 2006
TO: Building Inspection
Attn: Carlos Baltodano
FROM: Kathy Sinclair)k-�-
Deputy Clerk
SUBJECT: LISA KIRK—GRADING PERMI APPEAL
This office is in receipt of the attached Appeal frr Lisa Kirk appealing a Grading Permit
No. 348984 for the proposed "Delta Coves" in •he Bethel Island area.
The Board of Supervisors has scheduled this appeal hearing on March 21, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. in
the Board Chambers.
Please notify this office in writing whether the Board of Supervisors should hear this appeal on
the calendared date. If the appeal is timely and should be heard, please include the names,
addresses and zip codes of all parties to/��e notified in addition to the Appellant.
If the appeal is to be heard March 21, 006, as scheduled, please submit the appropriate material
for Board consideration to this offic not later than Thursday, March 9, 2006.
Thank you,
Attachment-Appeal
Cc: Coun ounsel
1� S �:�1C�.c.L � �•
y � �'`c��- `S V✓-ems-�� } 'L..--_.___.____...�__ � _..______. �._�__-.__
i
oj,.-O�? AU-00 4-M
o-,—L�LCL��tvjs;f3 �-6-
-R&4n 4frn.an
car VA A/err i tea- ----- � ------— - ---- -
J _
_Co u �-_--_-- - _ --
1`��(o�� --
cta5 GY4- 4asv
��"����5\�� •C 915\� If�f.4 'tr'- l'r'i L':U
1-0—C
I � 1 1005
c fl CLEWi_:I : ,F:v fii , i�'I`OFi$
w�t"Va CJii.A:;C'. :t
CoSv
vr�wA-", Y\e--:? .
a
o
a -r e-'C:>DV �`� c� �,^cr f 01 b C
4j .n ,p v�`c c'� (J cc7 J
CA.�c
s .r CANS
Lo --z'vv� w
eYA
cr
`J.ter\C, (,.
�� o � mss. - _ 3�� 9 16- "� ,N, ; 31I �5gy
� 0- C�-
Ct`0 Lt r -ci
0--C�Z\
`jam �'sty.r.:k `yet} V7\\ J\
t� �.
Ll
sGl ` S c,� Cyd v 2
�.�. � � �,� a �.�.�,�.� ��. �•,�,,,_`�-may �•``� � � `S .r �
e� � 0. .
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR.• 395 HAYES STREET MADELINE O. STONE
MARK I. WEINBERGER (19462005) GABRIEL M.B. ROSS
FRAN M. LAYTON SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94 1 02 DEBORAH L. KEETH
RACHEL B. HOOPER TELEPHONE: (4 1 5) 552-7272 WINTER KING
ELLEN J. GARBER FACSIMILE: (4 15) 552-58 16 KEVIN P. BUNDY
TAMARA S. GALANTER ANDREA RUIZ-ESOUIDE
ELLISON FOLK WWW.SMWLAW.COM
SHERIDAN J. PAUKER
RICHARD S. TAYLOR
WILLIAM J. WHITE
ROBERT S. PERLMUTTER LAUREL L. IMPETT, AICP
OSA L. WOLFF CARMEN J. BORG, AICP
JANETTE E. SCHUE URBAN PLANNERS
MATTHEW D. ZINN
CATHERINE C. ENGBERG DAVID NAWI
AMY J. BRICKER ANDREW W. SCHWARTZ
JENNY K. HARBINE OF COUNSEL
'SENIOR COUNSEL
November 17, 2005
LIC:;•r;, _:�
Carlos Baltodano, Director
Contra Costa County Department of Building Inspection
651 Pine St.
p
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Appeal of Grading Permit No. 348984 --
Dear Mr. Baltodano:
This firm has been retained by Ms. Lisa Kirk, a resident of Bethel Island, with
regard to an appeal that she filed on October 6, 2005 from County staff's approval of grading
permit application number 348984 ("application"). The application is for the proposed"Delta
Coves" development project on Bethel Island. A copy of Ms. Kirk's appeal letter is attached as
Exhibit A, and a copy of the permit application is attached as Exhibit B.
I write to request that the County copy me on all written communications with Ms.
Kirk regarding her appeal or the Delta Coves project. I understand from Ms. Kirk that the
County has not yet set a public hearing for her appeal. Please inform me at your earliest
convenience about when the County intends to hold a public hearing on the appeal.
Finally, I further request that the County provide me with a copy of any future
public notice regarding the Delta Coves project.
Very truly yours,
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
MATTHEW D. ZINN RECEIVED
cc: Silvano B. Marchesi, Esq.
Lisa Kirk fuc°d- AA-0m DEC 1 9 2005
[P:\LKIRK'\MDZ001 (Appeal Letter 1).wpd]
CLERK BOARD GF SUPERVISORS
L.CONTRA COSTA CO.
Richard F.Carlile, P.E.
aggeri — Project Manager
ensen — Building In Department
zar Associates 651 Pine Street
_.;Z` loor, North Wing
ka ez, CA 94553-1295
C 4 °. ,� o ": 27 (925) 646-2300
4690 Chabot Drive,Suite 200 • Pleasanton,CA 94588 ;ontra Costa Count
Phone(925)227-9100 FAX(925)227-9300 y
email rcarliie®rja-gps.com CATION FOR PERMIT" `
O
U,
n _
PERMIT CODE/NO.: TYPE
CONST.: NEW ADD'N. ALT. MOVE
' PCL. NO.D31-01p—XZ-GOIaTRACT: 60/3
030 - 1 0 012--013 GRADING ✓ PLUMB ELEC =' MECH
OT MPR
- 030-010-013*OT MPR FEE FEE F€E
031-021-DO I LOT MPR -VALUATION
LOT MPR
LOT MPR TERMITE..................
LOT MPR REROOF..................
SOLAR.....................
JOB LOCATION: FIRE R
STREET ADDRESS �i���, I2p O ;7;
CROSS STREETCITY/AREA !+s► is �• ZONE GRADING YD /D ead 000
SET BKSIDE YD AGG REAR YD SUPERVIS D
NO.STORIES HEIGHT
PARK DED. SCHOOL.DIST. ENERGY PK .
SEISMIC ZONE FLOOD ZONE
INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE ON FILE
OWNER 40 ZZ),r— !� /3t�/+<a/ Is�.�o LLC, 1. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE ON FILE.
ADDRESS Z.s �er.2. WORKERS COMP. INSURANCE ON FILE.
PHONE NUMBER 40Sr-8GG - 5'S // 3. CALIF. CONTRACTORS LIC. CURRENT.
'1♦: CONTRACTOR Vlyvvs� c P,QmxrtxK t+•+c. DOCUMENTATION
LICENSE CLASS 1. THREE COPIES OF PLOT PLANS.
2. THREE SETS OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
PHONE NO. 3. ENERGY COMPL. DATA ON EACH LOT.
4. HEALTH DEPT. WOR SANITARY CLRNC.
ENGINEER 5. DRAINAGE FEE AREA.
LICENSE 6. GRADING PAD CERT./SOIL REPORT.
7.
LENDER ��� =TTT�M)
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF JOB: i NOV ® 7 2005
FOR INTERNAL USE:
_ DESCRIPTION `- 3 Z4
OCCUPANCY SQ.FT.
10410 6s P14" 6 da ssti-e
ED "r- + C�-�, �v� r �a r��
RECEIV CI 900 bo
11 '111TURE (OWN APPLICANT) DEC 1 g 2005 P NNING DEPT. SIGNATURE
DATE: D TE:
1SORS
CLERKCBONTRA COSTA CO
. . ................... ..................... ...............
.:..--_
�.Type.,..B.I�IC,.Vers. 9�02,.B
uildin .Combo Su T e. GS Active
b
s
Permit34$984 ;�,:.::.
A dr. ss�1999999 GATEWAY ROAD BI
ISSUED I:, ,��-�
;OVJNEFi LB/L DUC III BETHEL ISLAND LLC
escrip
-:::...,...Dat1512 04on or �.
e.' f
F .
Screen n<le Fe'e`s •GRADING FOR DELTA COVE!!THIS GRADING PERMIT INCLUDES
:;.. .'......._.fr:.:::.•:..,..:..:: 30140 0121-77
030-010-013/031 021-0011 << ` '
,n
0
e=. j
R�f, }':•.�y"bib''xp I�'K "a�6��vE. I
•*
h
tl .
v.�
... .. .. t � ...ToolBar..f]
r
rkim
.. e,.. !'d .. ..... � ..... .. .. -- ... .x..�c..,-„s').:. :.•eta a'�Jsc".a�.
-
r r”xxx M xx'x ��:+�• � .':.;;.:' `''` �'.:e�....,: i.
H xxai ...�J':.,-._...n.�':..,,.:u....YP,t'.✓v�•' .1 � I li Q{ ' .
' •.i:.x�t� r �S'�IYi�. ..
r,„tit •;:� V. 4.6.2U
r.•t t•,' rSa
>b
,
,<Mt
.:.. ... .. .: ..... (Vis;,..
i^t:
x.x.x.xxxxxxXxxxxxxxxrKrr.%%x.<:t;txx%xxxxxxxxr.a:yrrr»%%xxx.xxxxxx%x%xKx%%Kr%r.%- xx%xxx '.�.<.'.. x».xxxxxxxxxxrxxxv%>:r.
xxx%xxva:rr.%rxxx.•txXx%kxxxxxxxxxr.x%::r�� .rx%%xxxxxxxxx%x%rx%%r. x»%%%Xxx'xxxxxvxvv/rrrr.�....
X''<x):>:%r.rr.%xnx»».xx%xxx%xxx'<x%x%rr.KK%r,%%x;t%xxxxxxxxxxxvv.rrrsx%x.%xxkxxxxxxxxxr.%%rv,r,»-rx.r.•t%Xxxxxxxxxxxv..>:>.-ri..Kxx%xxkkxxxxxxxxxx%>:vrr.�%:.:.x%-x xxxxxxxxxxxxv,%r r, N.i%»kkxxxxxxxxxxx%rrrr.::r.%:.Xxx xxxxxxxxxxxx,:
%X%%YX%%%%X%%%%%X%XKY.Y.%'!.%%»»XX%%%X%XX%X%X%Y.%KX1.'l.%%Y;:%%k%%%%XXXXX%X:LY.Y.Y.1,::%t::;::XXX%X%%%XX%%XXY.Y.K%Y.Y,.”.%%%%%xk X%X%%X XY.X%'/..:/.::T.
x%%%XxX%KK %X%X%%%%%%Y.KY.>:1:>:::;:!:;<!t;<k%%%%%%XxX%%%a:%1:1:>::: :::.:.:.x%xxxxxxxx%%Y.KY.,:Y.>:)::^.Y.;<:t%MMM%%k%%%K%%xY.xa:,:a:`;::%:,»%%%x%x%%%x%%%rxr.,:rr:::;>;x;t;t%xxx%%%%%%X%%r.Kra;
xxxxxxxxx Kxx f: xxX XXX,%Kr
%K x%% Ka:>:>:^:isY.;t:t:t%%%%%%xxxY.Y.xY.K>—,:::Y.;t:1:K<X%%x%%XXx%%%x a:Y.rrrr::r:t:t:,XXX%%x%%%%x%Y.Y.Y.>:Y.Y.:::;:t:<:t:<%%%%%kXX%%%xra:%>;rr>;%::xx::XxX%%xX%%%x%a:xK):>:»::i:rx;ex%'%%%%%%%%%%%+.a:•:,:>:
..X..x..X..%..\......F,.A..%..%..%..x..X..%.% x::%::%::K::'J.:::;::'1.::%::%::%::%::X::X::%::%::X::1::«::x::x::Y.::%::%::%::%::K::>.'::1:;.:::%::
......................................................................................................................................................................................t..........................,...,...,.,.........................................................................................,...............................................,..................................:.:::::
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
............:.................:.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:.:..:..
::isi:;:u,:,....r....,...w.,,,.,,,.,.---...._....�wu>u,rruw�..w�.w.yr..•••:w:u.uuuuru.uuu••..�u,>wuurrru, ::........ ................................. ............................................................ .............. ................................................................................................
,.,,, w;.;... ".s:•>��... •,...,..:An�T�^Sv�s�... .q.�� .a.....;�; ..�..�
� �' ........c., c" ry° 1'"":- r•Fy, .,rr �'re.,r Nit
_t E IT s ~ eats srl t Y :i
r l r � M
S ck- V,-, "'r V1,
Yb 6
Y:� RBCEIVED
c O'st- c o VA"k
V-V-� Cl Llaa s
(A� O
ct
if Q.
lt-4 9 11 1p 17 -r
-z>o-A Li o - ol Z) 0 1 0
.3
.. .......... ..................................................................................................... ............................................... ...........................................
9902�B
n�.
e BLIP �
, � • ::. .. ...��. _....,mob.. .. ,:w,..:. .. ,.: �:..
. . Addt s : 999999 GATEWAY ROAD BI ::;�
.Permit,#; 348984 µ, Q _
.w.. . .............�.....:..................., — ---— _
,.. ... .i;.it<. • ,
4;Il
' ce0E:R LB/L DUC III BETHEL ISLAND LLC
ISSUED
nom : A.� ---- - ---- --- - - - _, �r;,i
3:
1'
01/15/2004BLDG- Gene" Infonnation NEW,
•
,. 'i.
»>:Coritta Costa Count
B.LD.G...R ne I.In atfon
ra farm
...- � i. .. .....R�,: �•. ••..:;;,.�. :U d`aie:� �.� SEsir••:`.Back=
J.:. ..:�:� ... .. ..S.katus.................... r ......_:;.`;'. .:.:IrlizedB� D.FERNANDE�,':':',� .
c Pa 1
® �
Sere a Fa�:..w.,�,a< ..'. .. <,. '�..—_..._.__......._....•. .;:_�:�.. �.....,:: �„�
D_esc. en
i
.. ..:.. . ,....:.., .... .:... e.......'..:.::;<:✓,m.... DIN !
. ...,�.. �,3 �. .. GS.w:.. GR .G S E .... E �:.
_.... . .... ... .... W
, .. .. .... ........ �:_...... dal:ted B BMA �..�q':''li d:�:rt:.:: 115''�~ 0.4..'`'`<::�:
'Y.
.�. �:. ,...,,..:.:•.. .. ` "°•"'-'' yip .
�. 12Q,.
_- ��` - `�` -' =''" �•� �'•=:.:Plans:Check= ox#..:: .:.,.Office::•'APC ':Iris�ection Area'r�:.''G ;� f?la'-Ck.In::::�.;;;�01/15/2004
JG 4l;
19
Woik•D;edriptidri :`''': GRADIN.G.:FORDELiACO.V,EIITHIS':GFii4..I RLRMI.TIN;CLU.:`'„',:;` Rene:ivdEsip: `.
n � w aa,.
i k SAusA dr g�, 999999 GATEWAY ROAD BI _ _ 'a
e / 1
C�•
::.
r
rc I Nu bar:.....•:...., : :.; Y`3ot . 1..
:., , ��r�x 4•rti . Pa,..e m .. :. .:..,..Q31 013 0,O02x,,�,
,t••
0/06/2005
Zonrn .Co.de..........�.
fs,1,. . _
9. _.... . .. . ....,..:..� „yam. xpir
�. �1... . 1.0!06/2006.............:�:
•
e:... . . . ... . .... ... �...:.: ... Panel#.'...,... . � .�
na .. � ... . a....,. .. ., . •.,. . ........ y....�. Fina d:o�:•:;
w
o r IIB a 'a.,
,
LBIL.DUC I' E�.EL:ISL4ND LLC,, �� _ •.,•
__.._.......
„ ... . ........ ..
..:
��. .. .
• A . lica�wrt�......:...... ,...,...,'..'...,... ....... .;... School. '6401 O'afile Elemental'
., Conkractor.,............ _,- .....,,�. , .: . :'..,;.�• ' ” Fire. �2003 el Island Fire _
..., ,�.�.. .,. Nuc .. ...... .........._..... �a��; �� f3:eEf
�•'..�, .• .: Architect............... at r 2003;" ..
W e.
��' xr... 7,7•..,.,: -.'. s
En i ear... .. ,._.. :,„�.w,� .3411'
.. .. �. ... .. .. .... ..... gra ...dr.r. ,. .. �..... ,'. .fi`...
6.
S snit
C404Census.Re rt#Dat ;�.• .'#B1d s: 0 I? r
P: a.. g ub O.wned� Census T act: rc`;<;
��...,.<.. x =w..,. ,�>......, .. .. #Units. 1 :�::'::• : s ' 0 C....s.;s...l.;n.
y�, >...-y,.....'.. 4 'ata+•. � 7. a.,.
y... ., f .. .. .. ..
�ki.,
. ,...... .ter.. . . ..,...... ...
Y^
W.
.....4 ..............< .<. _ .fir..
x 3,........::: .r }...
xx z
, tom°.. . ......... � , l
.>,....r.,.........,.:.<.:...xxxx,<r.,>...•.rx., .... ...-�_.->...,. .,,.w:..a.. ...«.;..•:.;... ...�'.•:: .x':.:' .:;ax ': sz:..,:.,
><><>>..................<.,..,:,�>.><><><><.>,,,><a.•�..a.,>........,.<.«>,><><><,<x><,<.x>.>!:.,.,,.........:.,><>.,,..><><><><><><><r>�,...>........,.<.,x><:,><><><»<x><><x,.,...,.,.,.......•.,.,><>,..><..><><x><><.a.>!,.,.:......,..<.,x><.><.><><><><x><><r.,>.,.:...:.....,:=.xY><..><.><.><.a:.,:a:::a::::::::<::::�>,><�>xx><x.>x.r,::.:::
...,..>,..><... ... ><.><.><.><.....>< ><::;<::><::.::.::,:::><::�•::a:::_::::::,::>,::.::><::x::x::<::><::><::.::::.:::.::><::.::><::Y:::::x::,<::><::a;::.:::;::F::x::,:::.::x::><::><::><::a:::.:::::>:::.: ><::x::x::.�::,:
x::.'::.:::,.::a:::,::r:: ::,:: .: :: :::.,:..::::::::: :.::.::.::„:::: :. :.>:..•:..•::>::.::.::, r::„::x::x:: ::.A ::a:;:.:: x:: ,::::x::.::::,:::::::::;::,::
.....................................
.....,..»,.w '
............:.:.:.:..
...... .....
., ...h., ME E.,
� �n` .i< Mr
° -.,.. .:�.T .... .i
i. �•�.. .: lam,"•.,< T -
•�$�v{.,,.,,�. r;*. t:.'.�,c,' .�:�j ` S';�y�r ""�;... ,. ... .;.� �.S;tar:•.t.'r 7 ''+ r.`<lt6.d.ring :;';: W .�r7.:.�:: JKl `:r'
, �.
HAUL 02
A Coltfomla Corporation
Speolallzing In Geotechnical En8lneering
...ii:,'r��;�.•''_ ;:'S'':'`iti' ':-;,:;.,;„ .,...,,.::r"t•,rr-:_�.;7;;f•r,:.�;..r';irr'; ''"•"•
� 1. ',r�
[fJr,,-.•;;d:-1�.'T'��`+•�•'':
I .'a,,'•..:.:;.,;v..,;. r;.:.:{':.:/i.
'•Y::��, ,;i{ �,r::. ':s�i�•.�.J,: :�iv::i�ru'..s{';;..in;r:�<a�r.�:�.'r;:.�':•i,:�fS:�}:
August 12, 2005 LC'
File 156,12 "
Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District
3085 Stone Road
Bethel Island, California 94511
Attention: Mr.Paul Harper
Status Report
Delta Coves Subdivision
Bethel Island, Callfomia
Dear Mr. Harper:
INTRODUCTION
This letter presents our status report on the Delta Coves project on Bethel Island, California,
The project consists of constructing approximately 3 miles of perimeter levee, several miles of
peninsulas and placing homes, roadways and other Improvements on the levees and
peninsulas. The new levees will be connected to existing levees with double sheetpile wall
levee breach structures. After completing the new levees, peninsulas and breach structures,
the existing levee will be breached between the two sheetpile structures and the interior of-the
site will become tidal. The grading plans dated June 24, 2005 cover mass grading and levee
construction, liquefaction remediation, breach structures, slurry wall, residential docks and slope
protection. The improvement plans dated June 24, 2005 cover utilities, roadways, drainage,
seepage control system, lagoon circulation system and tide gauge.
The intent of this letter is to provide BIMID with an overview of the project status and our
comments on some of the elements of the project.
The grading plans are essentially complete and Contra Costa County(County) is close to
issuing a permit for grading. The improvement plans have some elements that need completion
including the perimeter storm drain and pump stations but overall the plans are nearly complete.
A permit for the improvement plans could be issued by the County within the next couple of
months. We will continue to review submittals as they are provided to the County and us.
Duc Housing Partners (Duc) Is planning to use Granite Construction Company(Granite)for
grading and improvements. We understand that a contact is not yet in-place for Granite to
begin work on the project. Granite has provided a schedule for the project The schedule
provides for a 2.5-year construction period to build the levee, install Wities and pave the
roadways.
2221 Commerce Avenue,Suite A-1 - Concord,California 94520-4987
Phone(925)685-6300 - Fax(925)685-6768
bti/11/'lF7b� 0y'48 9256856768
HULTGREN-TILLIS ENG PAGE 03
Mr. Paul Harper 2
August 12, 2005
COMMENTS
For the various elements of the grading and Improvement plans, we have the following
comments.
1, Levee Fill and Mass Grading
The reports by the designers for the project include recommendations that the peat and organic
soil be removed below the footprint of levee. Sand will then be placed and compacted to
construct the levees. We have no comments or exceptions for mass grading.
2. Liquefaction
The designers have evaluated the potential for liquefaction and developed recommendations for
remediation of areas with the potential for liquefaction. We have reviewed the analysis and the
plans for remediation. The remediation plan includes removal and compaction of some of the
shallow sand deposits. For the thicker deposits, the plan is to•use deep dynamic compaction
(DDC) except within 200 feet of existing residences. Within the 200 feet zone, stone columns
are planned. We conclude that the remediation plan is a reasonable approach to address
liquefaction and reduce the risk of damage to the levees and improvements from earthquake
shaking. The specifications on DDC and stone columns have not been provided. We expect
that the contractor will provide the specifications and construction sequencing including size and
spacing of the stone columns. The contractor should provide the information to the County and
for our review prior to proceeding.
DDC and other construction activities will cause ground.vibration. We understand that the
contractor will monitor vibration during construction. The contractor also plans to perform a
survey of existing conditions on adjacent properties prior to construction. The preconstruction
survey should include documenting the crest elevations of the BIMID levee along Stone Road.
Vibration could cause some settlement of the existing levee. The contractor should submit a
vibration-monitoring plan to the County and for our review before starting DDC.
3. Slurry Wall and Dewatering
One of the issues for this project is the potential to alter groundwater levels on adjacent
properties. The potential impact of seepage Is considerably greater than most other grading
projects. During construction, the contractor plans to lower groundwater levels within the project
area to allow removal of borrow material and installation of utilities. After the existing levee is
breached,the groundwater levels beneath the property will be raised well above existing levels
to delta tidal levels. Peat and other marsh deposits underlie some of the adjacent properties.
The peat is highly compressible and lowering the groundwater below adjacent properties will
increase the.stress in the peat and cause ground settlement and settlement of structures
founded on grade. Obviously, this is undesirable.
The project will construct a slurry wall to a depth of about 40 feet. The lower portion of the
slurry wall will be constructed by slurry trench methods. It will extend through the underlying
sand aquifer that starts at existing grade and penetrates into an underlying clay layer. The
upper portion of the slung wall will be constructed with low permeability compacted fill.. The
slurry wall serves two functions. During site grading the slurry wall will allow dewatering within
the site interior without lowering groundwater levels on the opposite side of the wall. Once the
Ji.VVVJUf GO
HULIUKEN-TILLIS ENG PAGE 04
Mr. Paul Harper 3
August 12, 2005
project is complete and the new lagoon is filled with tidal water, the slurry wall is intended to limit
seepage from the site to surrounding properties.
We conclude that the planned slurry wall is an acceptable solution to reduce seepage from the
development.
4. Seepage Collection System
A seepage collection system is planned on the south side of the development along Stone
Road. The seepage collection system is intended to collect seepage coming from Taylor
Slough that will be cut-off from its historic flow path by the slurry trench. The seepage collection
system is intended to maintain groundwater levels near their current levels on adjacent
properties.
The elements of the seepage control system including a subdrain pipe surrounded with filter
gravel, weirs to control groundwater levels within the subdrain pipes and monitoring wells. Data
from the monitoring wells will be used to adjust the weirs and monitor the Impacts of the slurry
wall on groundwater levels. BIMID has committed to assume maintenance and operation of the
system after it is installed and functioning properly. The developer has committed to installing
five monitoring wells on adjacent properties as outlined in a letter dated July 28, 2005 (attached)
and two wells on SIMID property.
The basic elements of the seepage collection system are acceptable to us.
The final details and specifications of the slurry wall and seepage collection system need to be
submitted to the County and for our review. The construction methods for constructing the
slurry wall are important to achieving an adequate barrier to seepage. The operation of the
seepage collection system is important to limit impacts to neighboring facilities and properties.
5. Breach Structures
We have agreed in concept to the basic elements of the double sheetpife wall breach structure
design, although the current plans do not reflect the final changes. Details of the breach
structures and sequence of construction are important to assure that the existing levee is not
damaged during construction. A construction sequence and final plans for the breach structures
and levee breach are needed prior to their construction. The construction sequence should
include an evaluation of deformation that may occur during construction.
6. Slope Protectlon
We have reviewed the geotechnical engineering aspects of the slope protection.plans and have
no comments or exceptions.
7. Residential Docks
We have reviewed the geotechnical engineering aspects of the residential docks and have no
comments or exceptions.
I
HULTGREN-TILLIS ENG PAGE 05
Mr. Paul Harper 4
August 12, 2005
8. Perimeter Storm Drain and Pump Stations
BIMID has committed to accept operation and maintenance of the perimeter portion of the storm
drain system and the 4 (four) pump stations. The County is reviewing the plans on behalf of
BIMID. The County will also provide construction oversight of these facilities on behalf of
BIMID. The County is reviewing the current plans and will provide comments and/or meet with
the designers to discuss the plans.
9. Lagoon Circulation System
The lagoon circulation system will be operated and maintained by the homeowners association.
We have not reviewed the system on behalf of BIMID.
FUTURE BIMID MILESTONES
BIMID has a few tasks to complete for the project. Some of the tasks include:
1. Sign Improvement Plans
The County will require that BIMID sign the improvement plans because the plans include
improvements that BIMID will operate and maintain. BIMID does not need to sign the grading
plans.
2. Assessment District
BIMID and Duc need to set up an assessment district to address maintenance and funding for
the levee, storm drain, pump station and seepage control system.
3. Timing of Acceptance of Maintenance
BIMID needs to determine when they will assume maintenance for the various operations they
have agreed to maintain. The operation of the seepage control system and pump stations will
include the potential for impacts to adjacent properties and present some potential liability for
BIMID. The timing for taking on maintenance should include a consideration of this liability.
CLOSURE
We conclude that the project plans have sufficient detail for the contractor to proceed with initial
grading. The project will need submittals from the contractor for some elements of grading.
Mass grading Including removal of the peat and organic soil can begin without the submittals
although no dewatering should occur. Submittals on DDC, stone columns, slurry wall, and the
sequence of construction for the breach structures and levee breach, the seepage collection
system and slurry wall will be needed.
We can provide BIMID with a final letter with our comments on the final improvement plans after
the plans are completed.
vol Lzltnn= ey:4N 13156856768
HULTGREN-TILLIS ENG PAGE 06
Mr,,Paul Harper 5
August 12, 2005
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
Hultgren-Tillis Engineers QRoFEss a
VN Tj N
Iqt�
�' a No.0�216O m
R. Kevin Tillis .313110� rn
Geotechnical Engineer * q
RKT:EMH:la FOP ceUVOPa
Attached: July 28, 2005 letter
10 copies submitted
File No. 15612L16.doc
order of 10, 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 am break evaluation; and f oo rou In is were a dam
rattrnT --7Tan a levee project, all but the last step would be
required by state engineers_ Atiparently such evaluations have
not been made for this project. Levee projects that do not have
con rol structures are ub ' ec o the same review as dams
b cause of a loophole in the regulations, u is oes not
relieve other reviewers and parties from responsibility for
in a s a e-of-the-art techniques a used to allow 'the
impact of the project to be properly understood by the people
who wi be affected by it.
The Krone December 28 , 1987 and Jones April 14 , 1988 letters
dismiss the flood hazard on the basis of misleading and
meaningless a,iecdotes 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
BROOKSIE C. LA`VSO.N 528
LISA K. KIRK 90-2566n211
P.O. BOX 435 h
BETHEL ISLAND,CA 94511 DATE _ l-' f.
PAY TOT
ORDER DFS �1; `� �yC�JG�LCi\ LLARS
I.
BAC Brentwood 800-944-8782
Bank.of Agriculture &Commerce
4-
b
MEMO M'
,:.12 1 1 2.S660i:0 20 1 S 3 1 1011' 0 S 28
v PROFESS:ONA CHECK SYSTEMS
:
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA GENERAL RECEIPT
,DEPT:. l�V A RECEIPT;
l.O. S'COPY G 1 '[�9:0.,
L:...
� 3�.:'�: . .: ...�:�3gg6- ',': ,...:;::NOT
IS
l:
:
.. :. .. :. .. ....
-
DOLLARS$ ,
r
:...FOR.
L.
. CASH::. BA
RECEIVED FROM : : ,::: '.'- ......
,. :.. ... .. ' ,: . . .::...,• . .. : I � . '.'. • . .:...'� .'::` � ';:AMT., . ..
'
•'.�.;.: •::.'... . ... :GREG
.'.. �.� 'Gr � ...',:-. •.:.�': �: . . ' .. :.: .•.. .::'. - ..PAID
ONEY
QE44 1
R:
•
Bbl.
D57 .... �' ...:..
... ,REV.7/89)
( :. ..,...
41-,
05. zz 20 0 .14: 2 8 1'A X 415 7 88'2 0.19 230-3 s,i -]
] : x
i-i- i,rr 00(11. oo('
'
SIG lul
STEEFEi-, LEVITT&WEISS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORA.TION
One Embarcadero Center.Thirtieth Floor.San Francisco, California 94111-3719. (415)788-0900.Fax: (415)788-2019
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
May 22. 2006
FILE 4: 10860
PLEASE DELIVER 1"HE FOLLOWING PAGES TO:
FAX: PHONE:
I Clerk of the Board 925.335.1913
Contra Costa Board of Supei-visors ,
I SvIvano Marchesi
925.646.1078
County Counsel - Conti-a Cosu. RECEIVED
3. CarlosBalto.dollo 925.646.1219 MAY 2 2 20061
CLERK BOARD OFSUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
6 page(s) Including cover
FROM: John W. Truxaw-
Message:
Originals 0 xill Lx-J will not be se t.
Ll vp—K
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL JODIE CHODAR AT(415)788-0900, EXT.4366
THANK YOU.
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE 'IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY ALSO CONTAIN PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT
INFORIVIATION OR WORK PRODUCT, I HE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT
1 P
3 ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE m-TENULD RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE
INTENDED RLC ENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUT1014 OR C('-NPYlNG OF THIS
COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE FACSIMILE IN ERROR,PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US By
L TELEPHONE,AND RETU N THE OR!GINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ADDRESS A130VF VIA THE U.S.POSTAL SERVICE. THANK You.
O:: _22. : 006 1. 1: 28 I _1\ 4157882019 1:30:3 .STI .A.I.J. f.1.:1 Oil 0i)fi
51,EEEEL, L[VITT &
A Professional Corporation
Author's Direct Dial: (415)403.3386
E-Mail: jtruxawCstee`el.com
May 22, 2006
16860
Chair Jolui Nf. Gioia and Board Members
Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
651 rine Street
Martinez, CA 94553-1229
Re: 1`-lav 23, 2006 Board Agenda Item D-4: Lisa Kirk Appeal
Dear Chair Gioia and Nlembers of the Board of Supervisors:
LB!L. Duc ill Bethel Island LLC ("Due" herein) respectfully requests that the Board deny
the appeal tiled by Lisa Kirk in the matter of the Delta Coves `radiing Pel'llllt tc?1'the 1t aS0I15
stated herein together with the reasons set forth its the Staff Report prepared foi this matter.
Below we first respond to the appeal as filed by Nis. Kirk on October 31, 2005. Following that,
we respond to issues raised by her attorney, Ellison folk, in a letter to the Board dated May S,
2006.
Itiirk Appeal
The County issued the grading permit for the Delta Coves project on October 67 -2005.
The permit remains in effect and grading operations have been underway sitice late March. Ms.
Kirk filed her appeal on October 3 1, 2005 pursuant to the provisions of sections 14-4.002 and
14-4.004 of the Ordinance Code of Contra Costa County.
Failure to Verify Appeal: Failure to Specif3, Iniury: Not an Nt;gri( t cd I' rson
Sections 14-4-(i02 and 14-4.004 of the County Code provide that "aui}` person aggricved
by an administrative action' shall "file with the clerk of the board a verified N�Titleti notice of
appeal concisely stating the facts of the case and the grounds "or his appeal including his Special
interest and injury." The code defines verification at section ?6-4.004: ""Affidavit," "certificate"
and "verification" include declarations under penalty of perjury." N.1s. Kirk's letter of appeal is
not verified aid thus is not properly before the Board.
Althoughthe code does not specifically define the terin "aggrieved", general use of the
terra requires that to be aggrieved, a person must be able to specify an action that has caused
them individual iniurv. Ms. Kirk makes no attempt in her appeal to explain how she has been
injured by the County's decision to issue a grading peri Lit and she provides no special interest or
One Embarcadero Center,30th Flow,San Francisco,California 94111-3719•Phare:(415?7188-0900•Fru:015)"1,88-2019
San Francisco,CA los Angeles,CA Stamford,CT ,%r-vm.stertel.cc.-m
.14.:28 FAX 41.57.88201.9 2:30:3 S'TT'I'1.'I. 1.1-W1'IT 00:1..006
n
Chair,John 1.1. Gioia and Board Nlembers
May 22, 2006
Page TwoSi[EfEl,If9lil?�tfflss
injury supporting her appeal. As such, she is not a `person aggrieved" by the. decision. Because
her letter ofappeal does not satisfy, the requirelnelits:of section 14-4.004, it must be denied.
Vested lll�li[
As noted above, the County issued (}ie grading pem)it in early October and.it has
remained in effect ever since. Aithough Ms. Kirk filed this appeal in late October, she
apparently made. no effort to have the matter heard "at an early regular board meeting" as is
required by the Code. In the meantime, Due has commenced and continues extensive grading
operations at the site in full conformance with the conditions of the permit. D,uc has a vested
right to continue its grading operations.
BIMID Ai�proval
The staff report responds to INTs. Kink's BIMID related issues and rve concur with staff's
responses. 'Fhe County has issued the grading permit in full compliance with all County
regulations and project specific. court ordered conditions of approval. BIMID agreed to accept
maintenance of the levees and breach structure to be built pursuant.to the grading permit.at a.
pubic meeting held in February 2005. After that meeting, the: BIIvIID Board received and
considered the reports and recommendations of its consulting geotechnical. engineer, Kevin
Tillis, and consented to the work being performed under this permit. By letter dated August.9,
2005 to Kevin Emigh of Contra Costa County Public Works. Mr. Tillis confirmed that mass
grading of the site could commence. On August 18. 2005 the BIMID Board accepted a written
and oral status report on the grading plans from Mr. Tillis. In his letter, Mr. Tillis explains that
"The grading plans are essentially complete and Contra Costa County (County) is close to
issuing a permit for grading. ... We conclude that the project plans have sufficient detail for the
contractor to proceed with initial grading." Minutes of the meeting reflect that during Mr. Millis'
presentation, lie informed the B3iM1D Board that "The County- is ready to tSSUe a gradtng permit
" Between August and October, Mr. Tillis coatirued to review sul:nnittals niade to the County
in furtherance of the grading permit and he consented to its issuance.
Minutes of the October-20, 2005 BIMID meeting reflect that at the meeting Mr. Tillis
informed BIMID that a grading permit had been issued, that initial clearing had begun and that
"The main construction could start in about one month." The minutes reflect that Ms. Kirk was
present during this presentation.
Mr. Tillis and District Manwzer Paul Harper wcrc• present at an on-site pr(tconstmcti(itl
meeting Heid dust prior to the commencement of grading operat.i�nis in tnid-iMac 2006 and
consented :o the commen.ceinent of grading. Although. as the staff report notes, 13IMID
approval is not required prior to the issuance of the grading permit, nevertheless. BIMID has
been aware of and has reviewed. and signed off on the gradin;; plans at all relevant tiniel.
05;22/2006 14: 29 FAX 4.1 5 7 8820 19 2:30:3 s'I'h:l•:FI-L 1.1:1 1.1-1' �004,'006
a r
Chair John M. Gioia and Board Members �����
May 22, 2006
Page Three SitEEEI.,lEVlli&1"SEISS
Ellison Folk letter
Failure to Verify AlWal: Failure to Specify° Injury: Failure to appeal \kj1hin 30 navy
As noted above, an appeal brought pursuant to section 14-4.002 must be filed
ti�vithin 30 days of the action being appealed frorn and must include "a verified:NvT1t1en notice of
appeal concisely stating the facts of the case; and the grounds for his appeal including his special
interest and injury." Nits. Folk's letter, to the extent it «could amend Pvts. .Kirk's appeal, is not
verified a.nd fails the first requirement. Similar to Itis. Kirk's letter; it specifies 110 special injury
suffered by the appellant. Additionally, the 30 day requirement clearly, if implicitly, includes a
requirement that the appellant state his or her grievances vti-ithin 30 days ofthe date of the action.
Ms. Folk"s letter imperniissibly seeks to broaden the appeal h gond the grounds for the appeal
provided during the 30 day period by Ms. Kirk. Because her letter is not verified, specifies no
special interest or injury and because it seeks to broaden the scope of the appeal beyond the
issues raised within the 30 day post-action period, it should be disregarded by.the Board.
Alleged Violation of County Code section 716-2.608
Ms. Folk argues di rt the issuance of the grading permit violates County CoJe Scction
716-?.608. Section 716-2.608 ol'the County Code provides that "No person shall cxcavake. or
remove anv material from any levee or do any work on levees required for river or local drainage
control without prior approval of the local. governmental agency responsible for the maintenance
of the levee." In this instance, `'the local governmental agency responsible for the maintenance of
the levee" is BIMID, the Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District.
B11t1ID Consent
As explained above. i IMID's consulting engineer and its District VILanage;r have
reviewed and signed off on the grading plans. Although Ms. Folk rnischaracterizes section 716-
2.608 by stating that the required approval must be in writing:, nevertheless the requirement was
satisfied in writing when on February 3, 2005, the BIN1ID Board adopted its resolution 05-02-03
and agreed to maintain the perimeter levees together with the breach stricture. Prior to adopting
that resolution, the BIM iD Board received a written report and a lengthy and detailed oral report
from consulting geotechnical engineer Tillis regarding the nature of the levee and breach
improvements to be constructed at Delta Coves.
Additionally, beginning even before t}mc adoption ot�Resolution 05�-02-03 and continuing
Lip to the day grading operations began at Delta Coves. BMW[), acting variously through its
Board, District. Manager Harper and consulting; geotechnical engineer Tillis, has reviewed and
0 5,1_2 2/2 0(I 6 I.4 2 5) FAX 4 15 7 8,S 210 15) 2:303 STI-1:11:1. LFIVIVI'
Q005,:006
Chair John IVI. Gioia and Board.Members
May 22, 2006
Page Four
Plif U. 111.1111 kVISS
approved the grading plans, including 16vee and breach construction details.' By Jet ler dated
August 12. 2005, consulting geotechnical engineer-Tillis informed the BIMID board that "The
County will require that. BIMID sign the improvement plans because the plans include
improvements BIMID will operate and maintain. BIMID does not need to sign the gnading
plans." Mr. Tillis delivered this letter with additional or,-] commentary to the BINIID Board at its
meeting held August 18. 2005. On March 23, 2006, prior to the commencement of grading,
operations. a preconstruction, mecting was held at the pro.iect site with both N\4r. Lillis and _Mr.
Hai-per in attendance representing BIMID, as well as appropriate County officials. By their
presence at the pre-construction meeting, BIMID informed tree County of its consent to the work
to be Undertaken pursuant to the grading permit.
A )roval of the Breach.
Regarding the breach structure, as noted above, BIMID agreed to maintain the breach
structure by resolution adopted in February 2005. Mr. Tillis' August 12, 2005 letter to 13INIlD
states that "We have agreed in concept to the basic elements of the double sheelpile NNall breach
structure design., although the current plans do not reflect final changes. Details of the breach
structures and sequence of construction are important to assure that the existing levee is not
damaged during construction. A construction sequence and final plaits for the breach structures
and levee breach are needed prior to their construction. The Const.niction seqiience should
include an evaluation of deformation that may occur during construction." After the date of that
letter, Mr. 'rinis continued to review and approve breach and-levee construction details shown on
the grading plans up until the County issued the grading pemiit in October, 2005.
The approval of a grading permit by the County Department of Building.inspection for
the Delta Coves project requires the ministerial application of'LlIe County grading ordinance to
the grading plans and is not a project under CEQA; the issuance ofthe grading permit does not
give rise to any of the CEQA related issues raised.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Ms. Kirk is not an aggrieved persons, she did not verify her appeal and
she has not raised any issues that Nvould support any action by the Board to affect Duc's vested
rights in its grading permit for the Delta Coves project. IN- Is. Yolk seeks iniproperiV LO expand the
issues on appeal which. she ewinot do in view- of the limited period of time in which an appeal
can be brought after the date of the action on appeal. Regardless, BINED has consented to the
Construction oft lie breach structure and other construction activity that wi I I occur on the levee is detailed in and
approved by the approved grading
plans.
05/72:'2006 1.4 30 FAX 41578-90.1.51 82:503 ST11"l-J"E'l, LEN.
.1 Fl 006/006
Chair John M. Gioia and Board
May 2' 2006
Page Five Uhrff[l.11111111?4 MISS
grading operations including the construction of the breach.
For tlic,,,e reasons.. the Board should deny, the appeal.
' ,rcry Iruly yours,
.1�dtln- Truxaw
JWTjCC
cc: SN' vatio Marchesi
Carlos Bahodono
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMI T)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: — ;'?�C`U � ti �. L(.�1�"�-�U _ Phony:: L
Address: ] Z-O City:
(Address and phone number are optional; please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
am speaking for myself or organization: }Yl" — (' � ld _.
CHECK ONE: 5
LbJ I wish to speak on Agenda item # Date:
My comments will be: WfGeneral ❑ For ❑ Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
o rr l �c w . S- e. �, L Ju `.pec s s
Name: h Phone: `t t S - `l
Address: O^e �7---. crc c Lt- G,�U, 3 Ot F(Lmr City:
(Address and phone number are optional; please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organizatiorF:
CHECK ONE:
[ , 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date:
My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For )6 Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) 3 '
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Bo rd.
Name: Phone: �a
Address: �t—� I S �� �'th� 1!X r' P� •( cl��r City: � t � ch1
(Address and phone number are optional; please note that thrscard will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in assoc tion with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization:
CHECK ONE: L
❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item #� : ate:
My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: v q
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consi,;.l.
Please see reverse for instruction" and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the sp_akers' rostrum before addresI ng the Board.
Name: t �Q I 9_1� _ Phone: Gj 6
Address: _C). qgffN1 City: E4I
(Address and phone number are optional; please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization:
CHECK ONE:
❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date:,,
My commen'is will be: General ❑ For ❑ Against
I wish to speak on the subject of: 00-
El
Q❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comment; for the Board to consi,.,-.r
Kt=UUtb I !V arr-lkm rumivi
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the spe;Akers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: q t�1 La _ Phone: _
Address: _ City:
(Address and phone number are optional; please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization: r uy eCk"( IA(1S(U
CHECK ONE:
❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # ./, _ Date: a2c,�i
My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For YAgainst
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do.not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
P�^ �•^ . -.. <:; :=.:. -nt information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
C.o 0
Name: Phone:
r
Address: City:
(Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization: PkA4,A��-5-
CHECK ONE: l '
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # q Date:
My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ,Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ 1 do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information