Thank you for making the record available for our review. As you may have seen, we included a response you provided City staff as Attachment 4 to our April 15, 2005 letter to the City requesting that they defer approval of the final maps. The response you sent the City was dated February 8, 2005. At last night's City Council meeting, City staff represented that the concerns raised in your February 8th response had since been resolved. City staff stated that your concerns were based on erroneous assumptions, which the City had since clarified. Please confirm whether the concerns raised in your February 8, 2005 response to the City have been resolved to your satisfaction. Thanks. Julie
________________________________Julie Gantenbein, Staff Attorney
From: Keith Lichten [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Thanks for your email. Our concerns were addressed by the City.
Our primary concern was regarding the volume of the large detention basin at the bottom of the Project, and whether it was sufficient to treat the area of catchment draining into it. This was a concern because we had difficulty identifying the area of catchment tributary to the basin, and various documents submitted by the Discharger had different numbers for that area.
I would have to go back to the file to double-check, but my recollection is that ultimately, we were able to get the catchment area clarified and to discuss the basin sizing with Balance Hydrologics staff. Based on those clarifications, it does appear appropriately sized for the water quality storm that would drain to it.
A separate issue is the level of the City's review of incorporating stormwater treatment controls into the quarry project's development area, other than the pond. I understand that this review was the requirement of a CEQA mitigation condition, a COA, or maybe both. It appears that City staff did not make much effort to do this, as they did not provide to us a written analysis of how they decided not to put any controls into the development area and did not substantively discuss with us their process on that issue. However, because the basin meets their basic stormwater permit requirements for treatment, we have not pursued that matter further.
Finally, I understand you had inquired regarding the City's determination of turbidity levels discharged from the site and whether to implement City enforcement, including fines, based on COAs or realated conditions. This issue is one within the City's purview.
I would be happy to discuss this matter further with you, but will be out of the office from 4/27 through 5/6. We could certainly discuss it further after that. During that time, please contact Dale Bowyer at (510) 622-2323, or via email to email@example.com for more information.
Regards,-Keith H. Lichten, P.E.