HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.a.1) Review status of District Annexation, DA 168C - Alhambra Valley outside urban limit line annexationw*'. t? - )
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
October 13, 2011
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA: JAMES M. KELL
ANN FARRELL
JARRED MIYAMOTO - MILLS U"
FROM: RUSSELL B. LEAVITT F,�
SUBJECT: DISTRICT ANNEXATION (DA) 168C - ALHAMBRA VALLEY OUTSIDE
URBAN LIMIT LINE ANNEXATION
SUMMARY: Before issuing the Final EIR for DA 168C, which addressed annexing nine
properties in the Alhambra Valley which are outside the County's Urban Limit Line,
CCCSD should consider whether to modify the project description to exclude: 1)
undeveloped properties with owners who are unsupportive of annexation, and; 2)
undeveloped properties whose inclusion is contentious among neighboring property
owners and other public agencies. The properties under consideration are described
below.
TABLE 1. CCCSD DA 168C PROPERTIES EVALUATED IN THE DRAFT EIR
FIGURE 1
NUMBER
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
ACRES
EXISTING
IMPROVEMENTS
1
365- 120 -004
Hempfling
1170 Briones Rd
2.1
1 house (a)
2
365- 120 -003
Hempfling
1150 Briones Rd
1.7
1 house (a)
3
367- 080 -001
Hein
5050 Alhambra
Valley Road
44.4
No
4
367- 090 -014
Andronis
Gordon Way
5
No
5
367- 090 -015
Andronis
148 Gordon Way
11.2
No
6
367- 090 -017
Ritchie
Millican Ct.
5.1
No
7
367- 090 -016
Hall
3 Millican Ct
3.9
1 house
8
367- 130 -013
Sharman
295 Millthwait Dr
8.7
2 houses (a)
9
367- 150 -031
Rolandelli
Oakbridge Ln.
10.5
No
TOTALS
92.6
(a) LAFCO has approved sewer service under CCCSD Out of Agency Service Agreement 168. D.1
WENVRSRV\Annexations\Annex 168 Alhambra Valley \168C \CEQA \Reports \FEIR \Pre -FEIR memo.doc Page 1 of 8
BACKGROUND: In early 2008, CCCSD completed construction of a trunk sewer to
serve as the backbone of a neighborhood sanitary sewer collection system in
unincorporated Alhambra Valley, south of the City of Martinez. The need for a gravity
trunk sewer extension into Alhambra Valley was identified by CCCSD in its 2003
"Facilities Plan for Wastewater Utility Services to Alhambra Valley."
Over the past several years, CCCSD has annexed 243 parcels totaling 298 acres in
Alhambra Valley (DA 168A and 168B). CCCSD now proposes District Annexation 168C
(DA 168C) to annex into its service area 9 Alhambra Valley parcels totaling
approximately 92.6 acres. Annexation to CCCSD would permit sewer installation and
connection of individual residences in the project area.
Unlike the first 243 parcels, the proposed annexation comprises parcels located outside
the County's Urban Limit Line (ULL). County policy is to discourage provision of urban
services, such as sewer collection, to parcels that are outside of the ULL. DA 168C is
adjacent to CCCSD's existing boundaries resulting from other recent CCCSD
annexations in Alhambra Valley. Proposed DA 168C is within CCCSD's Sphere of
Influence (SOI) updated June 2008 by the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation
Commission ( LAFCO). The SOI represents CCCSD's probable physical boundaries
and service area as established by LAFCO.
In November, 2008, LAFCO approved three of the nine parcels for an "Out -of- Agency
Service Agreement (OASA)" (Properties #1, #2 and #8). This approval was granted due
to the fact that the septic systems on each of these properties were 40 to 50 years old
and reaching the end of their useful lives. Two of the parcels are on Briones Road and
had only electric service. The -third parcel on Millthwait Drive had other traditional urban
services (City of Martinez water, gas, electric, etc.). Providing sewer service to these
properties did not allow service to be provided to adjoining properties, since only single -
residence- serving laterals would be constructed to connect the existing structures to
already- approved, minimum -sized (8 -inch diameter) public main sewers. LAFCO
required submittal of an application for annexation within one year as a condition of its
approval of an "Out -of- Agency Service Agreement" for these three properties.
An annexation application entitled DA 168C.1 was submitted to LAFCO in early April
2009. In addition to the three developed properties within the OASA, DA 168C.1
included one other developed property (Property #7) and five undeveloped properties
that had subsequently requested service. The nine properties would be serviced off
existing mains constructed in DA 168A and 1688.
In October, 2009, CCCSD distributed a Notice of Preparation for this EIR and included
an Initial Study, CCCSD "District Annexation 168C— Alhambra Valley." The Initial
Study concluded that an Environmental Impact Report was required to further address
land use impacts, as the proposed annexation is located outside the Urban Limit Line.
The Notice of Preparation expressed that CCCSD proposed to annex 19 parcels
N: \ENVRSRV\Annexations\Annex 168 Alhambra Valley \168C \CEQA \Reports \FEIR \Pre -FEIR memo.doc Page 2 of 8
totaling approximately 121 acres into its service area, the nine described in the DA
168C.1 application and ten others to the west, primarily along Oakbridge Lane, that
were similarly located outside the Urban Limit Line.
The public's response to the Notice of Preparation indicated a lack of interest in
receiving sewer services among many of the property owners of the additional ten
parcels. CCCSD is no longer considering annexation of these ten additional parcels, for
the reasonably foreseeable future, so now DA 168C.1 no longer exists and DA 168C
involves the proposed annexation of only the original nine parcels. Future wastewater
service to, and development of, the other ten parcels, however, are discussed further in
this EIR in Chapter 6D, Growth Inducement. The Board agreed to include the nine
parcels in the proposed annexation because each of the property owners had requested
to be included.
Figure 1 presents the nine Alhambra Valley residential parcels that are outside the
County's Urban Limit Line proposed for annexation in DA 168C.
A Draft EIR for this project was released on July 19, 2010 and the public review period
ended September 3, 2010. During that time, staff held a community meeting about the
project and Draft EIR on August 18, 2010. As of the close of the public comment
period, CCCSD had received nine letters commenting on the Draft EIR for DA 168C —
Alhambra Valley. Five of the letters came from public agencies and four from local
property owners.
Of the five public agency (PA) letters:
PA1. The Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development
questions the need for sewer service and the report's interpretation of County
land use policies.
PA2. LAFCO sought additional information on the project description, needed sewer
infrastructure, water service, agricultural lands, greenhouse gases, forest
resources, and transportation.
PA3. The National Park Service asserts that more analysis is needed on the impact
of possible future housing developments on the adjacent lands of the Mt.
Wanda portion of the John Muir National Historic Site (particularly the adjoining
44+ acres Property #3).
PA4. The Contra Costa Water District concurs with the report's contents regarding
water service.
PA5. The State Clearinghouse acknowledges that no State agencies have submitted
comments on the document.
N: \ENVRSRV\Annexations\Hnnex 168 Alhambra Valley \168C \CEQA \Reports \FEIR \Pre -FEIR memo.doc Page 3 of 8
FIGURE 1
AERIAL OF PROPOSED DISTRICT ANNEXATION 168C - ALHAMBRA VALLEY
. 4
. T_: l
G. F .F ' �CLHAMBRA
`+
- - VALLEY
r' � '. � _ _ _�' .� .� ; - •. ROAD �E1.• �,� ' „' :>
'' Y : tom'• • +r'.
. {° �F1,. 4 , 'r QUAIL LANE
* Y
� � •�. 1. ` N �-" � F f V ♦ � ' ' � 711
i If re
0 Proposed DA 168C boundary
N: \ENVRSRV\Annexations\Annex 168 Alhambra Valley \168C \CEQA \Reports \FEIR \Pre -FEIR memo.doc Page 4 of 8
Of the four property owner (PO) letters:
PO1 Two are from Oakbridge Lane (outside the project area) objecting to the
and annexation of the nine, nearby properties, particularly one that has access on
PO2. Oakbridge Lane and was projected to be developed with two residences
(Property #9).
PO3. A Gordon Way property owner /attorney who claims inadequacies concerning
the project description, the John National Historic Site, the impact analysis,
consistency with County land use policies, the Initial Study, and the alternatives
analysis. Many comments are particularly focused on Property #3.
PO4. The owner of the largest parcel in the project area (Property #3) supports the
Draft EIR's conclusions and the project.
The Board of Directors was briefed on the receipt of these letters at its September 16,
2010 meeting.
NEW INFORMATION SINCE CLOSE OF THE DRAFT EIR COMMENT PERIOD:
While some agencies and property owners opposed the proposed annexation in
general, there are two properties which have been the focus of specific controversy:
Property #9 (Rolandelli) and Property #3 (Hein).
In a follow -up discussion with the then -owner of Property #9 (Rolandelli), staff learned
that the owner intended to discontinue processing of a two -lot subdivision there due to
financial difficulties. Some time later, staff heard that a change of ownership was
underway and, in fact, on March 16, 2011, received a letter from the new owners
(Bhachu and Scheuber) requesting removal of the property from DA 168C (see
Figure 2). The new owners are neighbors of the subject property and do not intend on
developing it.
Over this time, staff has also been contacted by neighborhood representatives, the
National Park Service staff and the Gordon Way property owner /attorney. While the
neighborhood representatives expressed their general opposition to the annexation, the
owners of properties closest to the large Property #3 focused their dissatisfaction
specifically on that property.
While the other properties proposed for annexation are already developed or could be
developed with only one or two units, Property #3 is much larger and was projected for
4 -8 future units. Staff has tried to assert that a detailed assessment of the secondary
impacts of sewer service (namely, development) is premature. A detailed assessment
is difficult and unwarranted, considering the level of specificity of impact analysis the
neighbors would like to see and that the County would provide additional environmental
analysis and condition development based on review of an actual subdivision map.
This response has not be satisfactory to the commenters; however, they have given an
impression that their involvement in opposing DA 168C could diminish significantly if
N: \ENVRSRV\Annexations\Annex 168 Alhambra Valley \168C \CEQA \Reports \FEIR \Pre -FEIR memo.doc Page 5 of 8
FIGURE 2
LETTER FROM NEW OWNERS OF PROPERTY #9
�!•• .fit " _ �/
N: \ENVRSRV\Annexations\Annex 168 Alhambra Valley \168C \CEQA \Reports \FEIR \Pre -FEIR memo.doc Page 6 of 8
RECENEC
vo, � %� r S'�d�,5 Ova
MAR 16 2011
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ova k�c�Iti�noH ! V'�i�Ur�w�(
`r 0 K
W e rk
r� ..Ur
(� 4—v Cc vc.
I�QLe
2�
ke-
c lev
iticl�r� �l• mac.- �G�.'Jr�,,a��r... �(?�r2c��.�.
�!•• .fit " _ �/
N: \ENVRSRV\Annexations\Annex 168 Alhambra Valley \168C \CEQA \Reports \FEIR \Pre -FEIR memo.doc Page 6 of 8
Property #3 was to be removed from the annexation. The owner of Property #3 is
aware of this opposition. The County development approval process will require
preparation of a future, project- specific CEQA document that could address annexation
to CCCSD, if the Board were to remove this property from the proposed annexation.
OPTIONS
Do not change the properties included in DA 168C.
2. Board removes Property #9 from DA 168C, per the request of the new property
owners.
3. Board removes Properties #9, per request of the new property owners, and #3
due to the letters of opposition received.
4. Board removes all undeveloped properties ( #3, #4, #5, #6 and #9) in order to
allow development approvals to occur prior to annexation.
Removal of properties in advance of Final EIR preparation would save staff time and
legal resources from having to respond to comments in opposition to providing service
to undeveloped properties. The action would preemptively reduce or eliminate some
objections to the project and allow expedient annexation of the developed parcels.
Annexation could then be considered for the undeveloped parcels in the future after the
property owners have completed the County development review and CEQA process.
NEXT STEPS FOR CCCSD
If the Board wants to eliminate one or more property from the proposed DA 168C, here
are the subsequent process steps:
Staff will prepare a position paper for the November 17 Board meeting noting
which properties are to be removed from the proposed annexation and notify
interested parties, so that the item will be on the agenda and public comments
can be considered. This position paper will also request the setting of a January
5, 2012 as the date for a public hearing on the Final EIR, and Board
consideration of the adequacy of the Final EIR and project approval.
2. Staff will complete preparation of the Final EIR, containing responses to the
submitted comments and any other information needed to make for an adequate
analysis, and distribute it to commenters and other interested parties ahead of
the January 5, 2012 Board meeting.
3. If the Final EIR is certified adequate and the project is approved, a Notice of
Determination will be filed with the County Clerk. This will start a 30 -day statute
of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA. If there are no
challenges, staff will update the DA 168C LAFCO application, if necessary, and
proceed with the annexation process.
N: \ENVRSRV\Annexations\Annex 168 Alhambra Valley \168C \CEQA \Reports \FEIR \Pre -FEIR memo.doc Page 7 of 8
If the Board does not want to remove any properties from the proposed DA 168C
annexation, staff will proceed with addressing the comments received. The level of
effort to respond to these comments will require that issuing the Final EIR be deferred
into early 2012. After issuance, we will follow a similar process to that described above.
N: \ENVRSRV\Annexations\Annex 168 Alhambra Valley \168C \CEQA \Reports \FEIR \Pre -FEIR memo.doc Page 8 of 8