February 1, 2005


Raul Godinez II, P.E., Director
Public Works Agency
City of Oakland
Dalziel Building
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 4314
Oakland, CA 94612

Claudia Cappio, Development Director
Community and Economic Development Agency
City of Oakland
Dalziel Building
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 4314
Oakland, CA 94612

Re: Response to City of Oakland’s letter dated January 13, 2005

Dear Directors Godinez and Cappio:

The Millsmont Homeowners Association writes in response to your letter dated January 13, 2005 regarding the Leona Quarry Subdivision. We would like to thank the City for taking the time to review and respond to the concerns and questions we raised in our letters dated October 25 and November 11, 2004. Unfortunately, we did not receive the letter until January 21, 2005, when our clients forwarded us the agenda for the January 25, 2005 Public Works Agency Committee meeting, to which the letter was attached. We intend to complete review and provide a more thorough response to the City no later than February 14, 2005.

Our preliminary review suggest that the City’s response is inadequate in the following respects:

(1) The City has not addressed DeSilva’s failure to comply with the Statewide General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (State Water Resources Control Board Order 99-08-DWQ)(Permit). According to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), “the results appear to suggest that there were discharges from the lower detention pond … and turbidity exceedances, on December 7, 8, 27, 30, 31, and January 3,” and “there remain discharges of turbid water from the site.” Email from Keith Lichten, RWQCB, to Natural Heritage Institute (Jan. 24, 2005).

(2) The City has not consulted with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, RWQCB, or California Department of Fish and Game, which have permitting authority under Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404, CWA section 401, and Fish and Game Code section 1603, respectively, and is instead assuming permits are not necessary.

(3) The City has not addressed the cumulative impacts of development on the channel form and function of Chimes Creek; the City has a duty to address such cumulative impacts.

(4) City has not addressed the problem of the sewer line along Chimes Creek, which is regularly exposed across the creek and fails on a regular basis during storm events.

While we appreciate the City’s response, we respectfully request that City staff continue to work to address the outstanding concerns and questions raised in our letters. As previously mentioned, we have not yet completed our review of the January 13, 2005 letter, and intend to provide a more thorough response in the next week or two. Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns related to this letter.



Richard Roos-Collins
Julie Gantenbein