The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07.b. Consider properties to include in the final EIR for DA 168Central Contra Costa Sanitary District .b. BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: December 8, 2011 subject: CONSIDER REVISING THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR DISTRICT ANNEXATION 168C - ALHAMBRA VALLEY PRIOR TO PREPARING THE FINAL EIR Submitted By: Initiating Dept /Div.: Russell Leavitt, Engineering Assistant III Engineering /Environmental Services REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION. .Leavitt T. Godsey J. Miy moto -Mills A K. Alm ((�� Ja s M. Kelly general Manager ISSUE: Before preparing the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for District Annexation (DA) 168C, which will address annexation of properties in the Alhambra Valley that are outside the County's Urban Limit Line, staff requests that the Board consider revising 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. RECOMMENDATION: Select one of the options presented under the "Alternatives/ Considerations" section below. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Staff time and expenses for outside consultants and legal review could be saved if the more controversial properties are removed from the project description prior to preparation of the Final EIR. If litigation were to ensue, additional legal costs would be incurred. ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: See the attached Table 1 and Figure 1 for property information and location. While the whole DA 168C proposal has been opposed by various parties, many of the comments received on the Draft EIR focused on two properties, that is, Property #9 (formerly Rolandelli) and Property #3 (Hein). The Board may consider revising the DA 168C project description in response to these comments. Several options for such a revision are presented below, including the first four which staff has previously presented to the Board and a fifth option suggested in recent letters to District Counsel: 1. Proceed with all the properties included in the Draft EIR for DA 168C. 2. Remove only Property #9 (formerly Rolandelli) from DA 168C, per the request of the new property owners. 3. Remove Property #9 (formerly Rolandelli), per the request of the new property owners, and Property #3 (Hein), in consideration of the letters of opposition received. N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers \LeavM2011\12- 8 -11 \PP DA 168C Final EIR Project Description Final Rev 12- 8- 11.doc Pagel of 5 POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: December 8, 2011 subject- CONSIDER REVISING THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR DISTRICT ANNEXATION 168C - ALHAMBRA VALLEY PRIOR TO PREPARING THE FINAL EIR 4. Remove all currently undeveloped properties (that is, Properties #3, #4, #5, #6 and #9), so that development approvals occur prior to annexation. 5. Remove all properties other than those with Out of Agency Service Agreements approved by LAFCO, leaving only Properties #1, #2, and #8 in DA 168C. BACKGROUND: At the October 20, 2011 Board meeting, a General Manager's Report summarized an October 13, 2011 memo, which offered four options for revision of the DA 168C project description prior to preparation of the project's Final EIR. During that meeting, Board members expressed interest in reading the comment letters that were critical of the Draft EIR and proposed annexation. Subsequently, staff delivered to Board members an October 27, 2011 memo with copies of all of the Draft EIR comment letters received. Recent discussions with some of the commenters have revealed they have not changed their positions on the Draft EIR and proposed annexation. A County planner has confirmed the Conservation and Development Department's position that the annexation proposal represents "a fundamental conflict with the General Plan." Although, there may be differing views among the commenters as to which of the options listed above may be appropriate, one or more commenters are considering legal action to oppose the annexation should the project description remain unchanged. Options 1 through 4 that were presented in staff's October 13, 2011 memo (and as listed above) are still before the Board. A fifth option (Option 5 in the list above) has been requested in recent comment letters and is also included for the Board's consideration. Option 5 is similar to Option 4, except that it also would exclude one developed property that now seeks service (Property #7). A Board decision or direction is needed to facilitate the completion of the EIR process. Removal of properties in advance of Final EIR preparation could save staff time and legal resources required to address the comments that oppose providing future sewer service to one or more of the undeveloped properties without further environmental and legal review. Revising the project description to eliminate certain properties may preemptively reduce or eliminate some objections to the current project's scope and allow expedient annexation of the remaining developed parcels. Annexation would remain an option for the removed parcels in the future after the property owners have completed the County development review and related CEQA process. Some Alhambra Valley residents, including some who commented on the Draft EIR for DA 168C, oppose a concurrent proposal by City of Martinez to annex a portion of the Valley and may believe that the two proposals are somehow connected. The proposals are completely unrelated. N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers \Leavitt\2011 \12- 8 -11 \PP DA 168C Final EIR Project Description Final Rev 12- 8- 11.doc Page 2 of 5 POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: December 8, 2011 subject. CONSIDER REVISING THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR DISTRICT ANNEXATION 168C - ALHAMBRA VALLEY PRIOR TO PREPARING THE FINAL EIR Interested members of the public have been informed of this agenda item and it is anticipated that several may comment on the options under consideration during the Board meeting. Staff will be present to further address the options and other issues which may be raised. A closed session has also been scheduled to address the District's legal position and exposure. Once a decision is reached on this matter,- staff will proceed with completing the Final EIR, presenting it to the Board for certification and project approval, and submitting the annexation to LAFCO for its consideration. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Consider revising the project description for District Annexation 168C to eliminate one or more properties evaluated in the Draft EIR and, if appropriate, provide direction as to the properties that should be included for consideration in the Final EIR. N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers \Leavitt\2011 \12- 8 -11 \PP DA 168C Final EIR Project Description Final Rev 12- 8- 11.doc Page 3 of 5 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 N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers \Leavitt\2011 \12- 8 -11 \PP DA 168C Final EIR Project Description Final Rev 12 -8 -1 i.doc Page 4 of 5 FIGURE 1 AERIAL OF PROPOSED DISTRICT ANNEXATION 168C - ALHAMBRA VALLEY err_'!, .v. 1•wr�r�yi'>li � Z :i �" �� .i � F� r .lt� r`� h• r � L � �'t'• 1 L .a... � , ,•r - r •� F�'� h < 'r' `� h r�wy� ` - �'r%F ��ti� +�')' iq�l r', ^}`.' - Jet � ''•d, .,�,- ��\�, -� r , ��, �V�/ ,�-e�,,,.+ .��i� �r `J ' rr ' 'R � . r-a . i _i F � "' .. ^"^• rr . � � �'1� r i' : Y f"' �: ' P ,�' T �¢ . PT•�I �� `I r wR• p `er' 1'r, y lrjl� ALHAMBRA t •�' �, w._ p vf. +VALLEY "S!r, VLOOD ^,ri `er -^+F I, aI� .i �.i ��• s -^'q} ...dam .t n _ ..-� ,+(y -� :i i� /• / _ -`_s" r �� -^ 'r• .,d1Tfi`�� ,.r.� - Fir. " • �S r j/f jn.' ` �..ii�V3 err_'!, .v. 1•wr�r�yi'>li � Z :i �" �� .i � F� r .lt� r`� h• r � L � �'t'• 1 L .a... � , ,•r - r •� F�'� h < 'r' `� h r�wy� ` - �'r%F ��ti� +�')' iq�l r', ^}`.' - Jet � ''•d, .,�,- ��\�, -� r , ��, �V�/ ,�-e�,,,.+ .��i� �r `J ' rr ' 'R � . r-a . i _i F � "' .. ^"^• rr . � � �'1� r i' : Y f"' �: ' P ,�' T �¢ . PT•�I �� `I r wR• p `er' 1'r, y lrjl� ALHAMBRA t •�' �, w._ p vf. +VALLEY "S!r, VLOOD ^,ri `er -^+F I, aI� .i �.i ��• s -^'q} ...dam .t n _ ..-� ,+(y -� :i i� /• / _ -`_s" r �� -^ 'r• .,d1Tfi`�� ,.r.� -tai' �,j�. fir`••' .+ ` �..ii�V3 0 Proposed DA 168C boundary i or �, - qw, vv � A •. � n .. r 1 N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers\Leavitt\2011\12- 8 -11\PP DA 168C Final EIR Project Description Final Rev 12- 8- 11.doc Page 5 of 5