News
Email this story |
Print this story
 |
| PAUL JONES/ADVANCE Residents who live alongside the city-owned levee in Hamilton Field want the trail moved away from their homes to the bay side of the levee – but other Hamilton residents near Todd Road oppose the construction traffic that the trail project would create. |
Previous News Stories
June 24th, 2009
Hamilton levee trail still in limbo
No decision yet on where to site Bay Trail
By Paul Jones
News Editor
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 2:00 PM PDT
Many Hamilton residents whose homes face the southern end of the community’s levee have taken to growing dense, tall trees. You can see them if you walk on the elevated levee trail — which looks straight down into their backyards. For these Hamiltans, trees are still the surest bet for privacy, because neither the city nor the State Coastal Conservancy are sure whether that trail will remain on top of the levee, or out of sight on the opposite side when the Hamilton wetlands project is finished.
In 2005, it was decided by the city and the state agency that the Hamilton section of the Bay Trail, a project of the coastal conservancy, would run on the other side of the levee when the wetlands restoration was complete. But recently, the city has expressed concerns the project’s environmental impact studies didn’t take into account the effects of the trail’s construction on the levee’s wetland side. Additionally, other Hamilton residents complained the project would further increase truck traffic along Todd Road, where equipment and materials for the wetlands project is ferried to and fro. The State Coastal Conservancy maintains the environmental studies are adequate, but if an agreement between the two sides isn’t reached, the trail could still end up on top of the levee, providing a view of other people’s private lives in perpetuity.
“(The city) owns this portion of the levee at Hamilton, and the conservancy needs easements … for the Bay Trail,” said Amy Hutzel, Program Manager with the State Coastal Conservancy.
Tom Gandesbery, Project Manager for the agency, said the original plans had been challenged by the city some months ago.
“(We originally planned that there) would be a new trial that would separate the public from the homes that are out there,” he said. “City staff and council have had concerns about the trail construction, and the number of truck trips required … We say it’s a teaspoon’s worth of (additional environmental) impact, and they say that it’s still new (impact, that hasn’t been factored into the original EIRE).
“It’s technically on city property because it’s on the edge of the levee. And the city has said maybe we could live with people walking on top (instead of on the other side).”
Hamilton resident and active community member David Brewer said the concern about traffic might have been a major motivator for the resumption of the previously decided question of the trail’s location.
“The city made a decision about three months ago to (reconsider) the original decision, and … that stirred up discussion,” he said. “(I believe) it was based on the complaints about the truck traffic necessary to construct that part of the Bay Trail.”
Whether trucks or legalities, however, Hutzel said the city’s concerns about environmental impact weren’t called for.
“In terms of CEQA, the number of trips are certainly within the larger analyzed (impact),” she said. “The trail was mentioned in the CEQA document as part of the (project).”
However, interim city manager Patricia Thompson said the city still wanted to make sure that the trail’s construction on the wetland’s side was in keeping with the scope of the original environmental documents.
“The city and the conservancy both prefer, as do the residents, the location (for the trail) on the side of the levee,” Thompson said. “The concern was that the construction in the vicinity (exceeded the impact predicted by the environmental studies) and we wanted to go over the EIRE to make sure it covered the construction required.”
Thompson said the city’s efforts were intended to facilitate the 2005 plan, not block it.
“That’s what I believe. Both parties are working to avoid a trail on the top of the levee,” she said.
Brewer said that the current 2005 plan was still generally the most popular.
“I think (the debate has) improved, people have reconsidered and the city has reconsidered, and it appears that the original decision will go forward,” he said.
According to Gandesbery, the conservancy wanted to hold to the 2005 plan to protect residents’ privacy and hold to the original work permit it applied for.
“(If the city doesn’t relinquish the easement) we (will have) spent a fair amount of time in 2005 to come up with a proposed trail plan we won’t be able to follow through with,” he said. “We heard concerns from Hamilton residents, and one of the main reasons we moved the trail off of the top of the levee is to prevent people from looking into their windows … by going back … people aren’t going to be happy.
Another ongoing issue in the complicated project involves the conservancy’s work with the Army Corps of Engineers to reshape the wetland area, which requires strengthening the levees and bringing in soil and sediment to raise the area above sea level. The same section along the levee where the Bay Trail’s future location is disputed is also the one place the conservancy doesn’t have easements to lay sediment against the existing levee. Without it, Gandesbery and Hutzel said the project would have to go through a costly and potentially time-consuming redesign.
“Hamilton is below sea level, so we’re bringing the bottom up to where it should be to allow the plants to grow,” said Gandesbery. “We (have) permission to pile up (sediment) against the levee everywhere except that stretch … at the very southern end of the levee the city owns.”
According to Hutzel, “without the easement, we can’t pile it up against the levee, and that wouldn’t be consistent with the design … The Corps would have to build a second levee to hold that material back.”
The matter is also under negotiation, but this issue is more time-sensitive, according to the conservancy. Thompson said the agency had been seeking to acquire the easement for the work by January. But the city wants the conservancy to focus on other work while an independent company probes into why water has been seeping from portions of the levee where sediment has been packed.
“We told the Corps we’d be willing to consider other plans about doing interim work while this process goes forward,” said Thompson. “We want to make sure the water isn’t making the levee go soft and collapse.”
In the meantime, the conservancy is submitting more information to the city to convince councilmembers and staff the engineering behind the process is sound.
“The city council did give us a direction, I’d say it was conditional approval, at a meeting we had in September,” said Gandesbery. “(It was) a simple condition about how high that material could be placed. It seems like we’ll be able to comply with that … We’ll probably have a proposal for the city for the next couple of weeks.”
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of NovatoAdvance.com.
Submit a Comment
We encourage your feedback and dialog; all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site. Any material that is contrary to good taste, contains objectionable material, is not in compliance with community standards or does not meet the standards of the Advance, will not be posted to the Web site.
