Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.a. Public hearing to certify final EIR, etc. for District Annexation 168C - Alhambra ValleySo. PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR DISTRICT ANNEXATION 168C — ALHAMBRA VALLEY SUGGESTED AGENDA November 15, 2012 Request staff report II. Public hearing on the Final Environmental Impact Report A. Open public hearing. B. Receive public comment. C. Close public hearing. III. Consider certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for District Annexation 168C — Alhambra Valley in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act IV. Consider approving the proposed District Annexation 168C — Alhambra Valley and adopting Findings of Fact V. Consider requesting the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission initiate proceedings for a Change of Organization (District Annexation 168C — Alhambra Valley) Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ' BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: November 15, 2012 subject. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING; CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR DISTRICT ANNEXATION 168C — ALHAMBRA VALEY, APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION, AND REQUESTING THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR A CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION Submitted By. Initiating Dept. /Div.: Russell B. Leavitt, Engineering Assistant III Engineering /Environmental Services REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION: R. Leavitt T. Brightbill J. Mi moto -Mills Kent Alm Ann arrell General Manager ISSUE: In accordance with the District CEQA Guidelines, a Fina as being legally adequate befor e project. RECOMMENDATION: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the I Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be certified the Board of Directors can consider approval of the 1) Conduct a public hearing to receive comments on the Final EIR; and 2) Barring any irresolvable issues to the contrary, adopt the attached resolutions: A) Certifying that the Final EIR is legally adequate in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; B) Approving the proposed annexation and adopting Findings of Fact; and C) Requesting that the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) initiate proceedings for a Change of Organization (District Annexation 168C — Alhambra Valley). FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The District incurs costs to prepare the Final EIR. Annexation costs are recovered as "annexation charges" when property is connected to the public sewer system. WENVRSEC \Position Pape rs\Leavitt\201 2\11-15-12\PP FEIR Certification - Project Approval 11 -15 -12 Final.doc Page 1 of 4 POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: November 15, 2012 subject. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING; CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR DISTRICT ANNEXATION 168C — ALHAMBRA VALEY, APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION, AND REQUESTING THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR A CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: The Board may elect to withhold or defer certification of the Final EIR, which would prevent or delay moving forward with the annexation. If the Board does not certify the Final EIR, it may direct staff to conduct additional analysis and provide further documentation for particular areas of concern. The Board could decline to initiate annexation for some or all of these areas, which would require that the property owners apply directly to LAFCO for annexation to the District. BACKGROUND: The District, as the Lead Agency, has prepared the Final EIR for District Annexation 168C — Alhambra Valley. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 200912011) for District Annexation 168C — Alhambra Valley, comments and responses to comments received on the Draft EIR, errata to the Draft EIR, and supplemental information, including the administrative record of today's relevant agenda items. The Draft EIR for the Project was distributed to potential responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, organizations and individuals. The public review period for the Draft EIR commenced on July 19, 2010 and ended September 3, 2010. After amending the project, the Final EIR was distributed on August 28, 2012. Electronic copies of each document are available on CCCSD's website at http: / /www.centralsan.org /index.cfm ?navld =368. The Project, as amended, currently proposes to annex into the District's service area eight (rather than the original nine) Alhambra Valley parcels totaling approximately 82.1 acres (Figure FINAL1). Annexation to CCCSD would permit sewer installation and connection of individual residences in the project area. All of the parcels are located outside the County's Urban Limit Line (ULL), while most of the bordering parcels are within the ULL. DA 168C is adjacent to the District's existing boundaries, resulting from other recent CCCSD annexations in Alhambra Valley. All of the proposed DA 168C is within CCCSD's Sphere of Influence (SOI), which represents its probable physical boundaries and service area as established by LAFCO. While not required by law or the District's procedures, it has been the District's customary practice to hold a public hearing to receive public comments on the Final EIR during the Board Meeting at which the Final EIR is presented for consideration of approval. In anticipation of the public hearing, two letters commenting on the Final EIR were submitted to the District after distribution of the Final EIR. These letters and staff responses are presented in Attachment 1. After the public hearing, the Board will consider certifying the Final EIR as an adequate evaluation of the project's environmental impacts and adopting_ associated findings as required by CEQA. Following that, the Board may proceed to considering approval of the project or one of N: \ENVRSEC \Position Pape rs \Leavitt\2012 \11- 15 -12 \PP FEIR Certification- Project Approval 11 -15 -12 Final.doc Page 1 of 4 POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: November 15, 2012 subject. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING; CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR DISTRICT ANNEXATION 168C — ALHAMBRA VALEY, APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION, AND REQUESTING THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR A CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION its alternatives. A resolution of certification is attached for the Board's consideration (Attachment 2). Following certification, the Board can consider approving some or all of the proposed annexation. Since the Final EIR found no significant impacts would result from approval of any of the proposed annexation, and proposed annexation is the environmentally superior alternative, the there is no need to select a reduced -scale alternative. A resolution of project approval with Findings of Fact is attached for the Board's consideration (Attachment 3). Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 regarding a mitigation monitoring program is not applicable to this project as there are no potentially significant environmental effects to mitigate. Following project approval, to advance the annexation process, the Board needs to request that the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission initiate proceedings for a Change of Organization (District Annexation 168C — Alhambra Valley). A resolution for that request is attached for the Board's consideration (Attachment 4). RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Conduct a public hearing to receive comments on the Final EIR and barring any irresolvable issues to the contrary, adopt the attached resolutions certifying that the Final EIR is legally adequate in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; approving the proposed annexation and adopting Findings of Fact, and requesting the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission to initiate proceedings for a Change of Organization (District Annexation 168C — Alhambra Valley). N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers \Leavitt\2012 \11- 15 -12 \PP FEIR Certification- Project Approval 11 -15 -12 Final.doc v 0 m i 0 Y os �s c c E, c � � d ' o 0 v / o= o�= w off% 0 o °u E Y Y Y N Refererl2e FRes C i< I 0 ,o E E E L T � 00 c_ o S„ 0 N > u �o � O Y �az v >a� � a v LEGEND: OUTSIDE URBAN LIMIT LINE {ULLI 5555 EXISTING 5" MAIN EXTENSIONS • . . AND DA IIUC (5 TOTAL LOTS) BOUNDARY OF EXISTING DISTRICT PLANNED B' MAIN EXTENSIONS ANNEXATION 7588 ,, PLANNED 4' LATERAL OR 5" MAIN �srorte y <..�, „• -� - BOUNDARY OF ^1618A, STING DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. EXTENSIONS - - CREEKS , OUTBID! URBAN LIMIT LINE •- S r D DEVELOPED PROPERTIES .. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. S NUMBER REFERENCES PARCELS / CCCSD SPHERE OF INFLUENCE SHOWN ON TABLE 2 / POTENTIAL GROWTH INDUCEMENT / EXISTING TRUNK SEWER - STUDY AREA. • • • / EXISTING SEWER A LETER REFERENCES PARCELS t SHOWN ON TABLE 7 - �� CCCSD BOUNDARY 1 -- 1• _ �r �srorte D TR CT NO. •- S r DA • 168C• = 3 . uCAN . A7 L all, Aw r / 11P �Q A / p ; r �►P D D- a , I% \ LAMB V,g� i t \ a' RD DA 168C r , 0 , 0 �\Ni D DA 168B ' f' I \R =6 i N / �b Central Contra Costa MARTINEZ - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Sanitary District .•a e� ' CCCSD BOUNDARIES AND PROPOSED FEES DISTRICT ANNEXATION 168C FIGURE FINAL 1 ATTACHMENT 1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE FINAL EIR FOR DISTRICT ANNEXATION 168C — ALHAMBRA VALLEY Two comment letters were received following distribution of the Final EIR. The comment letters follow, along with the responses from CCCSD staff. The responses are keyed to each alpha numerically coded comment. None of these comments required changes to the conclusions of the Final EIR. LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS 1. Ted C. Radosevich, project area property owner, 135 Gordon Way, Martinez 2. Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development, Catherine O. Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director, October 1, 2012 1 . Ted C. Radosevich, project area property owner, 135 Gordon Way, Martinez Ted C. Radosevich Attorney at Law (SBN 84692) 135 Gordon Way Martinez, CA 94553 510-658-1150 September 27, 2012 Mr. Russell Leavitt Environmental Coordinator Contra Costa County Central Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Draft EIRYIS Proposed Annexation 168C Alhambra Valley Dear Mr. Leavitt: I am writing to express my concerns with respect to the very limited focus of the Final EIR on the above mentioned project — the proposed annexation of 8 parcels into the Contra Costa County Central Sanitary District ("Central San") service area. What has become clear from review of the Final EIR is that staff of Central San is taking a very, very limited and narrow view of the CEQA law as it applies to this project. It is apparent that you are purposely not analyzing a range of arguably potential impacts and disclaiming any responsibility to address any potential impacts beyond those very limited impacts from the construction and installation of 4-inch diameter lateral sewer lines and 8 inch sewer mains at 8 parcels. (Master Comment No. 6). As such, it appears that the project you are analyzing is only the very narrow and limited sewer related work, and are stating that the potential impacts that might follow from construction of new housing or other development on the subject properties is wholly, and solely, within the future jurisdiction of other public agencies. Such a narrow analysis of the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts violates both the letter and spirit of CEQA. In addition, by approving an extension to these parcels, Central San is violating Contra Costa County voter approved Measure C as well as the Contra Costa County General Plan. The comment letter filed by the County confirms this view. Since the EIR specifically refused to consider and indeed rejected all requests, demands and efforts to have Central San to consider the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of the development of these parcels, any future development for any of these parcels will not be able to rely upon this truncated EIR and will need to analyze the then-current environmental impacts of development under CEQX As you have stated in the Master Comments (including, but not limited to) Nos. 3 and 4 the various potential impacts raised by various commenters, including myself in my letter of September 2, 20l 0, are the appropriate purview of,, and will be reviewed by Contra Costa County or other appropriate agencies, when and if parcels that are currently undeveloped are submitted for review and full CEQA analysis, This relates as well to the letter from the National Park Service, my own letter and comments at the public hearing on December 8, 2011 that potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that would or might arise on the John Muir National Historic Site from any development on the currently uninhabited Parcel 3. Central San asserts that any and all impacts from actual future on site work will be subject to CEQA analysis when and if changes in the current status of that parcel are proposed before the appropriate local governmental body. It should be clear that any efforts to develop Parcel 3, which this and other commentators reasonably suggested Central San remove from this Project, will be subject to significant community, County, National Park and legal challenges. From the written record, it is apparent that Central San has put very clear limitations on the scope, purpose and nature of the CEQA review of Annexation 1680, and what this CEQA document does, or does not, put-port to address. In determining what future action to take with respect to the Final EIR, I will certainly act with this written record in mind. Very Truly Yours, Ted C. Radosevich cc: Kent Alm, Esq. Contra Costa County National Park Service Honorable George Miller RESPONSE TO TED RADOSEVICH 1A. CCCSD concurs that the scope of this project is narrower than the commenter may have originally assumed. The Final EIR is not intended to be used as a CEQA document to address development of any of the undeveloped properties in the proposed annexation area. 2. Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development, Catherine O. Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director, October 1, 2012 Depart man t c f - S ant ?, t i 0!, RZ Deveiopm era t (925) 674-7205 October 1,,2012 Mr, Russell Leavitt Environmental Coordinator Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Yinal E Report (SCHU0091201 1) District Annexafion 1680-Alhambra Vallee Dear Mr. Leavitt: Contra Costa County is in receipt of the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for proposed annexation of eight parcels, totaling 82,1 acres. in the Alhambra Valley itito the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's service area (District Amtexation 1680 ), In our September 3., 2010, conutient letter on the Draft ,knvironniental Inqmet Report prepared for District Annexation 168C-Albambra Valley, we identified a nuiriber of concerns wrth the environmental analysis and hoNv the pro po.,",ed annexation -would cilabic the extensioll of seNver lines to agricultural zoned parce.1s outside ofthe County's voter established I-Jroan Liniit Line in conflict with County General Plan policies. The District in response to one of the key points in our 91312010, coniment letter has r,ow provided sorne explanation for the ratiotiale in cxtcn&ng sewer lines to flic eight ngricul[ural parcels outside the Urbari Limit Line, Specifically, by incorporating into the bnvironmenial Impact Report a letter from then Count-,, Environmental Health Director, Ken Stuart, dated August 27, 2004, supporting the process to extend public sewer to the Alhambra Valley. Tbe District believes this letter provides sufficient reason to extend sewer lines across the ["I•ban Limit Line, flowever, ptittilig t1lis letter in its proper context, wc believe Mr. Stu art Nvas in general supporting the extension of public sewers to the already built tip or iii-Imulizing, areas g within Mhambra Valle-,v, and the letter did not identil,'v the cight par,;els proposed for amemalion as needing sanitary sewer service. -3- U October 1,,2012 Mr, Russell Leavitt Environmental Coordinator Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Yinal E Report (SCHU0091201 1) District Annexafion 1680-Alhambra Vallee Dear Mr. Leavitt: Contra Costa County is in receipt of the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for proposed annexation of eight parcels, totaling 82,1 acres. in the Alhambra Valley itito the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's service area (District Amtexation 1680 ), In our September 3., 2010, conutient letter on the Draft ,knvironniental Inqmet Report prepared for District Annexation 168C-Albambra Valley, we identified a nuiriber of concerns wrth the environmental analysis and hoNv the pro po.,",ed annexation -would cilabic the extensioll of seNver lines to agricultural zoned parce.1s outside ofthe County's voter established I-Jroan Liniit Line in conflict with County General Plan policies. The District in response to one of the key points in our 91312010, coniment letter has r,ow provided sorne explanation for the ratiotiale in cxtcn&ng sewer lines to flic eight ngricul[ural parcels outside the Urbari Limit Line, Specifically, by incorporating into the bnvironmenial Impact Report a letter from then Count-,, Environmental Health Director, Ken Stuart, dated August 27, 2004, supporting the process to extend public sewer to the Alhambra Valley. Tbe District believes this letter provides sufficient reason to extend sewer lines across the ["I•ban Limit Line, flowever, ptittilig t1lis letter in its proper context, wc believe Mr. Stu art Nvas in general supporting the extension of public sewers to the already built tip or iii-Imulizing, areas g within Mhambra Valle-,v, and the letter did not identil,'v the cight par,;els proposed for amemalion as needing sanitary sewer service. Tarr, to R, Levitt„ CCCSD DA 168C Page Two We believe the District should distinguish between the urban and non-urban areas of the Alhambra Valley in considering the extension of sewer lines consistent with pleasure C: 65/35 ,arid Preservation Plan Ordinance, approved by voters in November 1990. When the voters approved Measure C- =1990, they established that the land area located inside the Urban. Limit Line within the unincorporated area would be considered for urban uses, which included all of the residential, commercial, and industrial use categories under the County General flan. Measure C -1990 also provided that land area not designated for urban use, but inside the Urban Limit Line would have the potential for conversion to urban use. Such land area might be categorized as urbanizing. As mandated by the voters under Measure C- 1990, the land area of Alhambra Valley lactated outside the Urban Limit Line is specifically designated for a iron - urban use 'under the County General plan (e.g, agriculture). The night parcels in question have never been considered by the County to be a part of the urbanized for urbanizing) area of the Alhambra Valley, as they are designated for agricultural use under the County General Plan and the Alhambra Valley Specific plan, zoned under the A-2., Oeneral Agricultural District, and, since the passage of Measure C -1990 these parcels have been located outside the Urban Limit Lire. Most recently, Contra Costa County voters re- affirmed the non - urbanized status of these eight parcels in the Alhambra Valley when they passed, pleasure L in November 2006, by approving and extending, the tern) of the Urban Limit Line reap froth. 2010 to 2026) NVihile there was an Urban. Limit Line boundary change within the Alhambra galley approved under- Measure lam, the eight parcels in question remained outside the Urban Limit Line. The Final Environmental Impact Report should. properly acknowledge that. the District`s ZA proposal to annex and extend sewer service to the eight (non- urban) agricultural parcels in the Alhambra Valley, located outside the County's voter - approved t roan Limit Line, conflict with the voter - approved 1990 and ` 006 Urban Limit Line ordinances and associated General Plan policies. Consistent with the provisions of Measure C- 19901, at Section 4, Im leinentathm ot1he 65135 Leine Preservation Ilan f` i inn, xxgtions and In_q , we ask that the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District respect the voter- approved Urban Limit Line and reconsider the proposed an nexation until such time as when the County determines to bring, these parcels inside the Urban Limit Line and consider them for urban use at which point sanitary sewer service would clearly be required, Sincerely, Catherine 0. Kutsuris Conservation and Development Director C: Members, Board of Supervisors T7. ` wa, County Administrator N4. Underwood, Envirort mental Health Director, Contra Costa Health Services Department L -Iexeira, Executive Officer, Contra Costa LAFC€J RESPONSE TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT 2A. The commenter agrees that the Final EIR "provided some explanation" for the extension of sanitary sewer systems to the Project Parcels and acknowledged that the County would support extending sewer lines across the Urban Limit Line ( "ULL ") in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, the commenter was concerned that the extension of sewer lines across the ULL in this instance may be in conflict with the ULL and County General Plan policies associated with the ULL. Specifically, the commenter notes that the parcels here are designated for agricultural use under the County General Plan and the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan and are zoned A -2: General Agricultural District. Furthermore, the commenter asserts that the 2006 Measure L vote re- affirmed the non - urbanized status of the parcels because they remained outside the Urban Limit Line. The commenter concludes by requesting that CCCSD delay the proposed annexation until the County decides to bring the parcels inside the ULL "and consider them for urban use at which point sanitary sewer service would clearly be required." As explained in detail in the Final EIR, CCCSD is not proposing to urbanize any parcels, nor does CCCSD have the authority to approve any development on the Project parcels. Of the eight parcels proposed for annexation, four already contain houses, with Parcel #8 (APN 367- 130 -013) containing two houses. Moreover, CCCSD already provides sewer service to Parcels #1, #2, and #8 through a LAFCO- approved Out of Agency Service Area Agreement. Nothing about the proposed annexation will change the County's General Plan designation or policies for the parcels, nor the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan, nor the zoning designation. Likewise, nothing in the proposed annexation would allow development of the four lots currently without houses, nor would removing a constraint to sewer service to these parcels through annexation somehow restrict the County's ability to regulate development on these parcels. To the extent providing sewer service to these parcels would result in growth - inducing impacts under CEQA, these impacts have been studied in the EIR. Furthermore, it could be argued that the Measure L vote did not re -affirm the non - urbanized status of the parcels, because voters were never given the option of moving the ULL to include these parcels. Had voters been given the choice, they may have supported including these parcels inside the ULL, so as to avoid the creation of an island of "outside -ULL" parcels surrounded by parcels within the ULL. In sum, while CCCSD appreciates the County's zealous defense of the ULL, CCCSD does not believe that the proposed annexation of these eight parcels, half of which are already developed, in anyway violates the ULL or would cause any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than have already been examined in the EIR. ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-051 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR CCCSD DISTRICT ANNEXATION 168C — ALHAMBRA VALLEY WHEREAS, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (District) has received requests for annexation from property owners the area of unincorporated Martinez, CA, known as Alhambra Valley; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (CEQA) and District CEQA Guidelines, the District has prepared and distributed a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to the appropriate federal, state, and local government agencies for review, and made all of the reports listed above available for public review; and WHEREAS, the District distributed a Notice of Preparation of EIR, dated October 30, 2009, to affected federal, state, regional, and local government agencies, and to interested community groups and citizens; and WHEREAS, the District conducted a public meeting for local government officials and the general public on September 2, 2010 for the purpose of receiving comments on the specific impacts of the project that should be analyzed in the EIR; and WHEREAS, written comments about the Draft EIR were received by the District during the public review period; and WHEREAS, the District conducted a public meeting on December 8, 2011 for the purpose of updating the public on the status of the project, the comments received on the Draft EIR to and answering questions from the public; and WHEREAS, at its December 8, 2011 meeting, the Board of Directors amended the project to remove one parcel whose latest owners were not interested in being annexed to the District; and WHEREAS, the District Board of Directors has reviewed the Draft EIR, all comments about this report, and responses to these comments that are included as part of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the District conducted a public hearing on November 15, 2012 for the purpose of receiving public comments on the Final EIR; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District does hereby find and certify that the Final EIR for the District's Effluent Discharge Limit Increase Project is legally adequate. THAT adoption of this resolution will establish the Board of Directors' independent finding that the environmental effects of annexing the proposed District Annexation 168C — Alhambra Valley have been adequately addressed in compliance with CEQA. The Secretary of the District will be custodian of the document and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings for the certification of this EIR. The record of proceedings will be maintained at the District's offices, 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, California. Staff is directed to file any necessary CEQA notices and /or documents with Contra Costa County. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of November 2012 by the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the following votes: AYES: Members: NOES: Members: ABSENT: Members: James A. Nejedly President of the Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County of Contra Costa, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: Elaine R. Boehme, CMC Secretary of the District Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County of Contra Costa, State of California Approved as to form: Kenton L. Alm, Esq. Counsel for the District ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -)- A RESOLUTION APPROVING CCCSD DISTRICT ANNEXATION 168C - ALHAMBRA VALLEY WHEREAS, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (District) Board of Directors, on November 15, 2012, has certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the District Annexation 168C - Alhambra Valley as being legally adequate; and WHEREAS, the District Board has considered all available information regarding District Annexation 168C - Alhambra Valley, including information contained in the project's Draft EIR and Final EIR and the results of the public meetings conducted on September 2, 2010 and December 8, 2011; and WHEREAS, the District Board has reviewed and considered the proposed Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for District Annexation 168C - Alhambra Valley; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District does hereby approve District Annexation 168C - Alhambra Valley (shown in Exhibit A) and adopts the attached Findings of Fact for District Annexation 168C - Alhambra Valley (Exhibit B). FURTHERMORE, the District Board directs the General Manager to prepare a Notice of Determination for the project and submit the notice to appropriate government agencies. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of November 2012, by the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the following vote: AYES: Members: NOES: Members: ABSENT: Members: James A. Nejedly President of the Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County of Contra Costa, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: Elaine R. Boehme, CIVIC Secretary of the District Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County of Contra Costa, State of California Approved as to form: Kenton L. Alm, Esq. Counsel for the District EXHIBIT A 1200 a 600 FEET LEGEND: Yc�CCSD ANNEXATION AREA C CCCSD BOUNDARY INSIDE URBAN LIMIT LINE EXH]Brr Central Contra Cott LOCATION OF DISTRICT Sanitary Distri A mmissmEmmmummmmmmmmmodi ANNEXATION 168C ALHAMBRA VALLEY EXHIBIT B FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DISTRICT ANNEXATION 168C — ALHAMBRA VALLEY L Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. ( "CEQA "), states that if a project would result in significant environmental impacts, it may be approved if feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives are proposed which avoid or substantially lessen the impact or if there are specific economic, social, or other considerations that justify approval notwithstanding unmitigated impacts. Therefore, when an environmental impact report ( "EIR ") has been completed which identifies one or more potentially significant or significant environmental impacts, the approving agency must make one or more of the following findings for each identified significant impact: Changes or alternatives which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR have been required or incorporated into the project; or 2. Such changes or alternatives are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or 3. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081). As "lead agency" under California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15367, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (the "District" or "CCCSD ") hereby adopts the following CEQA findings relating to the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated July 2010 ( "Draft EIR ") for the District's proposal to annex into its service area eight Alhambra Valley parcels comprising approximately 82.1 acres (known as DA 168C) and the Final Environmental Impact Report ( "Final EIR ") certified by the District on November 15, 2012. The Draft EIR and the Final EIR are collectively referred to herein as the "EIR." IL Purpose and Background A. The Project The District proposes to annex into its service area eight Alhambra Valley parcels comprising approximately 82.1 acres (known as DA 168C) ("Project"), The District originally proposed to annex 19 parcels totaling nearly 121 acres, but this was reduced through the course of the CEQA process to 9 parcels totaling 92.6 acres, and then again to the current eight - parcel annexation. All eight of the parcels are within the District's Sphere of Influence, but are outside of the County's Urban Limit Line ( "ULL "). Annexation will allow for the following associated indirect and secondary activities: sanitary sewer extensions into residential neighborhoods, abandonment of septic systems, and the connection of existing and future residences to the public sewer system. B. Purpose of the Project The Project objectives are as follows: To allow further extension of reliable sanitary sewer service in Alhambra Valley; • To replace existing septic systems; and To remove the chance of septic system failure and resultant sewage seepage from project area septic systems by connecting properties to existing CCCSD facilities. The District has also identified the following reasons for the annexation: • All of the properties are within the CCCSD Sphere of Influence (SOI), as previously approved by the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission ( "LAFCO "); • The proximity of these parcels to Alhambra Creek, in the long term, will necessitate sewer service as septic systems fail over time; • CCCSD has sufficient collection; treatment, and disposal capacity; • CCCSD has the nearest existing collection facilities; • Wastewater from Alhambra Valley can flow by gravity to CCCSD's existing collection system; + CCCSD will assume responsibility, upon annexation, for the continued maintenance and operation of the public sewage facilities; CCCSD requires that all served properties annex to the CCCSD (CCCSD Standard Specifications, Section 3 -07); • Annexation would provide owners of undeveloped parcels more certainty regarding the availability of sanitary sewer service, rather than having to solely rely on septic systems to meet the wastewater disposal needs of their future residential unit(s); and + LAFCO made submittal of an application for annexation within one year a requirement of its approval of an "Out -of- Agency Service Agreement" for three of the properties (APNs 365- 120 -003, 365 - 120 -004, and 367 -130- 013; LAFCO 08 -26, November 21, 2008). (Draft EIR, pp. 3 -1 — 3 -3.) C. Purpose of the EIR The EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 - 21178, and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 15000- 15387, to address the environmental impacts associated with the Project. As required by Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR assesses the potential environmental impacts resulting from approval of the Project and identifies feasible means of minimizing potential adverse environmental impacts. The District is the lead agency for the environmental review of the Project and the EIR was prepared under the direction and supervision of the District. (Draft EIR, pp. 1 -1 — 1 -2, and 3 -1.) D. Procedural Background The following is an overview of the environmental review process for the Project that has led to the preparation of the EIR. 1. In accordance with Sections 15063 and 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the District prepared and distributed an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of an Environmental Impact Report in October 2009. The Initial Study and NOP were circulated to the public, local and state agencies, and other interested parties to solicit comments on the Project. Through this process, the project was narrowed from the originally proposed nineteen parcels to nine. The District also determined through the Initial Study and the comments received on the NOP that the EIR would only need to study land use impacts and growth - inducing impacts. 2. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review on July 19, 2010. Copies of the Draft EIR were available at the District offices. In addition, the Draft EIR was made available on the District's website and Project information was made available in PDF format or on CD by request. 3. The public comment period for the Draft EIR was July 19, 2010 through September 3, 2010. 4. In response to comments received, the District decided to remove the 10.5 acre "Parcel 9" (APN 367- 150 -031) from further consideration for annexation at this time. This reduced the total number of parcels considered for annexation from nine to eight and the total acreage from 92.6 to 82.1 acres. 5. In response to comments received concerning the Draft EIR, the Final EIR was issued on September 28, 2012 at least 10 days prior to certification by the District's Board of Directors ( "Board "). The Final EIR contains copies of all comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments. The Final EIR also contains errata revisions to the Draft EIR and supplemental information deemed necessary in response to comments on the Draft EIR. 6. All commenters received a copy of the Final EIR. All other known interested parties received notice of the Final EIR's availability. The Final EIR was also made available at the District offices. In addition, the Final EIR was made available on the District's website. 7. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the District provided a written response in the form of the Final EIR to all public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, at least 10 days prior to certifying the EIR. 8. Though not required by CEQA, the District allowed an additional comment period on the Final EIR from August 28, 2012 to September 28, 2012. The two comment letters received during this period were reprinted in the EIR certification staff report, along with responses to those comments. 9. On November 15, 2012, the Board certified the Final EIR and passed a resolution approving the Project. III. Description of the Record The record of proceedings for the Board's decision on the Project includes, but is not limited to, the following documents: • The Initial Study; • The NOP and all other public notices issued by the District in conjunction with the Project; • The Draft EIR for the Project (July 19, 2010) and all appendices; • All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public comment period on the Draft EIR; • The Final EIR for the Project, including comments received on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, and the Draft EIR and technical appendices (dated August 28, 2012); + Additional comments received as a result of distributing the Final EIR, along with responses to those comments; • All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents related to the Project prepared by the District, or consultants to the District with respect to the District's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the District's action on the Project; • All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents related to the Project cited or referenced in the preparation of the Draft EIR or Final EIR; • All documents submitted to the District by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the Project, up through the certification of the EIR and approval of the Project on November 15, 2012; • Any minutes and /or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the District in connection with the Project; and • Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The District has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the Project, even if not every document was formally presented to the District or District staff as part of the District files generated in connection with the Project. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in the Project files fall into one of two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions of which the District was aware in approving the Project. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391 -392; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6.) Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to District staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the Board. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the Board's decisions relating to the adoption of the Project. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browning- Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.AppAth 144, 153, 155.) IV. Discretionary Actions The Project involves the following actions and approvals by the District: 1 Certification of the Environmental Impact Report. 2. Approval of the annexation of the eight Project parcels into the District. 3. Approval of a request for the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission to initiate proceedings for a change of organization (District Annexation 168C — Alhambra Valley). The following findings have been prepared to comply with the requirements of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.). V. General Findings A. Terminology of Findings Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which an environmental impact report is required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an environmental impact report for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1).) The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential conclusion is that "[ s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 565 (Goleta II).) The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.) "` [F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The agency must therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such Projects." (Pub. Res. Code, § 21002.) For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less- than - significant level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less - than - significant level. Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less- than - significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant. Moreover, although Section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the EIR. CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b).) These findings constitute the Board members' best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. B. Certification of Final EIR The Final EIR for the Project is hereby certified pursuant to CEQA (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.). (CEQA Guidelines, § 15090.) The Board hereby certifies that the EIR has been completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. The Board further certifies that the EIR was presented to it and that it considered the information contained in the EIR prior to approving the Project. Finally, the Board certifies that the EIR reflects the Board's independent judgment and analysis. C. Changes to the Draft EIR CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an environmental impact report for further review and comment when significant new information is added to the environmental impact report after public notice is given of the availability of the draft environmental impact report but before certification of the environmental impact report. New information added to an environmental impact report is not "significant" unless the environmental impact report is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project proponent declines to implement. The CEQA Guidelines provide the following examples of significant new information under this standard: • A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. • A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. • A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. • The draft environmental impact report was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043.) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. The Board recognizes that the Final EIR incorporates information obtained by the District since the Draft EIR was completed, and contains additions, clarifications, modifications, and other changes. These changes are set forth in section 3.0 of the Final EIR. This information was incorporated into the Final EIR to clarify and further refine the environmental analysis. This is not significant new information that would trigger recirculation. Notably, CEQA case law emphasizes that `" [t]he CEQA reporting process is not designed to freeze the ultimate proposal in the precise mold of the initial project; indeed, new and unforeseen insights may emerge during investigation, evoking revision of the original proposal. "' (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736- 737; see also River Valley Preservation Project v. Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. (1995) 37 Cal.AppAth 154, 168, fn. 11.) "`CEQA compels an interactive process of assessment of environmental impacts and responsive project modification which must be genuine. It must be open to the public, premised upon a full and meaningful disclosure of the scope, purposes, and effect of a consistently described project, with flexibility to respond to unforeseen insights that emerge from the process.' [Citation.] In short, a project must be open for public discussion and subject to agency modification during the CEQA process." (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 33rd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 936.) In sum, the information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies the prior information, or makes insignificant modifications; therefore, the Draft EIR does not need to be recirculated. D. Evidentiary Basis for Findings The findings and determinations contained herein are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project and the EIR. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations by this Board in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. The Board agrees with, and thus incorporates by reference and adopts as its own, the reasoning set forth in the environmental documents, and thus relies on that reasoning, even where not specifically mentioned or cited below, in reaching the conclusions set forth below, except where additional evidence is specifically mentioned. This is especially true with respect to the Board's approval of all mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR, and the reasoning set forth in responses to comments in the Final EIR. The Board further intends that if these findings fail to cross - reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, any finding required or permitted to be made by this Board with respect to any particular subject matter of the Project must be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these findings or findings elsewhere in the record. E. Location and Custodian of Records Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15091, the District is the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the District's decision is based, and such documents and other materials are located at: 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, CA, 94553. VI. Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures A. Effects Not Found to Require Further Environmental Review Based on the analysis in the Initial Study, and other supporting information in the record, the District found that the Project would have no impact to the following areas, which were not carried through for further review in the EIR: aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology an water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. B. Effects Not Found to Be Significant Based on the discussion in the EIR, and other supporting information in the record, the Board finds that the Project would have no impact or a less than significant impact associated with the specific issues identified below: 1. Land Use, Population, and Housing The Project would have no impact related to the division of an established community. Nor does the Project conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect or with the adopted ULL. (Draft EIR, pp. 4 -13 — 4 -21; see also Final EIR, pp. 2 -2 — 2 -4.) 2. Cumulative Land Use, Population, and Housing The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to the division of an established community. Nor does the Project result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to conflicts with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect or with the adopted ULL. (Draft EIR, pp. 6 -1; see also Final EIR, pp. 2 -2 — 2 -4.) 3. Growth Inducing Impacts CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(d) requires the District to consider the growth - inducing impacts of the Project. As set forth in the EIR, the Project has the potential to facilitate growth within the Project parcels, but that growth would ultimately require approval of the appropriate local government with the ability to approve development in the area (currently Contra Costa County). The ULL and County policies require the Project parcels to be zoned for agricultural use and greatly restrict the opportunity for development of these parcels. Thus the Project's growth- inducing impacts would not be significant. (Draft EIR pp. 6 -2 — 6 -4; Final EIR, pp. 2 -2 — 2 -4.) 4. Greenhouse Gas Impacts After the release of the NOP and the Initial Study, but before the completion of the Draft EIR, the CEQA Guidelines were amended to require consideration of greenhouse gas impacts in CEQA analyses. The District performed this analysis as a part of the Draft EIR and concluded that the Project would have less than significant impacts related to the release of greenhouse gases. (Draft EIR, p. 6- 5, Appendix C.) C. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 regarding a mitigation monitoring program is not applicable to this project as there are no potentially significant environmental effects to mitigate. VII. Findings Regarding Alternatives Public Resources Code section 21002, a key provision of CEQA, provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. Although an EIR must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an alternative may ultimately be deemed by the lead agency to be "infeasible" if it fails to fully promote the lead agency's underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project. (City of Del Mar. v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.) `'[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) Thus, even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project, the decision - makers may reject the alternative if they determine that specific considerations make the alternative infeasible. Section 5 of the Draft EIR discussed several alternatives to the Project in order to present a reasonable range of options. The alternatives evaluated included: Alternative 1: No project (CCCSD annexation) alternative Alternative 2: Annex only parcels that have been granted out -of- agency service agreements Alternative 3: Annex only those parcels that have been previously developed Alternative 4: Annex only 8 parcels in DA 168C, excluding the 44.4 acre, Parcel 3. The Board finds that a good faith effort was made to evaluate all feasible alternatives in the EIR that are reasonable alternatives to the Project and could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, even when the alternatives might impede the attainment of the Project objectives and might be more costly. As a result, the scope of alternatives analyzed in the EIR is not unduly limited or narrow. The Board also finds that all reasonable alternatives were reviewed, analyzed and discussed in the review process of the EIR and the ultimate decision on the Project. (See, e.g., Draft EIR, pp. 5 -1 - 5 -4.) A. Analysis of Alternatives 1. The "No Project" Alternative a. Description of the Alternative The No Project Alternative was analyzed in Section 5 of the Draft EIR. The No Project Alternative would allow the Project site to be outside of the District's service area. (Draft EIR, p. 5.0 -4.) b. Comparison to the Project The No Project Alternative would result in the eight properties not being annexed into the District at this time. No new sewer main would be constructed. One existing residence would remain on a septic system and three other properties would continue to be permitted to receive sanitary sewer service through an out -of- agency service agreement. Failing septic systems would be replaced with conventional septic systems, if unconstrained by soil conditions, topography, wells, and other limiting factors, or by more expensive, advanced engineered systems, if necessary. Neither the Project nor this alternative would change the ability of the owners of the Project parcels to develop their properties in accordance with the law. Current zoning allows one residence per five -acre minimum parcel. However, any such development in the absence of the Project would require new development to rely on septic systems rather than a sanitary sewer and could increase impacts when compared with the Project. (Draft EIR, pp. 5 — 2 - 5 -4.) C. Finding The District rejects this alternative for the following reasons (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3)): Alternative 1 fails to meet the District's objectives, including annexation of properties within the District's SOI and providing property owners the opportunity to convert from septic systems to sanitary sewer service in order to avoid degradation of Alhambra Creek and its tributaries. In addition, the alternative may increase environmental impacts compared to the Project to the extent that any new development relies on septic systems instead of the District's sanitary sewer. 2. Annex only parcels that have been granted out -of- agency service agreements. a. Description of the Alternative LAFCO allowed three of the proposed annexation parcels to receive sanitary sewer service from the District, prior to annexation, through an out -of- agency agreement (CCCSD Agreement No. 168D.1). Two of the three parcels are located at the end of Briones Road, APNs 365- 120 -003 and 365 -120 -004. The third parcel is on Millthwait Drive, APN 367 -130 -013. Records indicate that the septic systems on these properties are 40 to 50 years old, have reached the end of their useful lives and new septic systems cannot be accommodated on these parcels. (Draft EIR, p. 5. -3.) b. Comparison to the Project Alternative 2 would result in five properties not being annexed to CCCSD at this titre. No new sewer mains would be constructed. One existing residence would remain on a septic system. Failing septic systems would be replaced with conventional septic systems, if unconstrained by soil conditions, topography, wells, and other limiting factors, or by more expensive, advanced engineered systems, if necessary, Neither the Project nor this alternative would change the ability of the owners of the Project parcels to develop their properties in accordance with the law. Current zoning allows one residence per five -acre minimum parcel. However, any such development in the absence of the Project would require new development to rely on septic systems rather than a sanitary sewer and could increase impacts when compared with the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 5 -3.) C. Finding The District rejects this alternative for the following reasons (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3)) Alternative 2 fails to meet the District's objectives, including the annexation of properties within its SOI and providing property owners with the opportunity to avoid using septic systems in order to prevent degradation of Alhambra Creek and its tributaries. In addition, the alternative may increase environmental impacts compared to the Project to the extent that any new or existing development relies on septic systems instead of the District's sanitary sewer. 3. Annex only those parcels have been previously developed. a. Description of the Alternative This alternative is similar to Alternative 2, with the addition of one more developed parcel of Millican Ct., APN 367- 090 -016 ( "Parcel 7 ". This parcel was not considered for an out - of- agency agreement with the District at the time the others were, but the property owner is now interested in receiving sanitary sewer service. (Draft EIR, pp. 5 -3 to 5 -4.) b. Comparison to the Project Alternative 3 would result in four undeveloped properties not being annexed to the District at this time. No new sewer mains would be constructed. One existing residence would remain on a septic system. Failing septic systems would be replaced with conventional septic systems, if unconstrained by soil conditions, topography, wells, and other limiting factors, or by more expensive, advanced engineered systems, if necessary. Neither the Project nor this alternative would change the ability of the owners of the Project parcels to develop their properties in accordance with the law. Current zoning allows one residence per five -acre minimum parcel. However, any such development in the absence of the Project would require new development to rely on septic systems rather than a sanitary sewer and could increase impacts when compared with the Project. (Draft EIR, pp. 5 -4.) C. Finding The District rejects this alternative for the following reasons (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3)): Alternative 3 fails to meet the District's objectives, including the annexation of properties within its SOI and providing property owners with the opportunity to avoid using septic systems in order to prevent degradation of Alhambra Creek and its tributaries. In addition, the alternative may increase environmental impacts compared to the Project to the extent that any new or existing development relies on septic systems instead of the District's sanitary sewer. 4. Annex only 8 parcels in 168C, excluding the 44.4 -acre Parcel 3. a. Description of the Alternative As described in the Draft EIR, this alternative would allow for annexation of 4 developed parcels, (with 5 existing houses), and four undeveloped parcels with the potential of 6 additional residential units. Alternative 4 would exclude the 44.4 acre Parcel 3 from annexation at this time. In addition, this alternative would include Parcel 9, which has currently been eliminated from consideration for annexation. (Draft EIR, p. 5 -4.) b. Comparison to the Project Neither the Project nor this alternative would change the ability of the owners of the Project parcels to develop their properties in accordance with the law. Current zoning allows one residence per five -acre minimum parcel. However, any such development in the absence of the Project would require new development to rely on septic systems rather than a sanitary sewer and could increase impacts when compared with the Project. Here, the alternative would remove 44.4 acres from consideration and add back 10.5 acres, for a net reduction of annexation area of 33.9 acres. While it is speculative to predict the actual ability of each parcel to be developed, using only the minimum lot size of 5 acres, this could potentially result in up to six homes (net) being constructed without access to the sanitary sewer system. (Draft EIR, p.. 5 -4.) C. Finding The District rejects this alternative for the following reasons (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3)): There are no impacts from the Project and no additional impacts are reduced or eliminated by restricting the annexation of Parcel 3 at this time. Parcel 3 is within the District's SOI and this alternative would likely serve only to postpone the annexation of Parcel 3 into the District. Alternative 4 fails to meet the District's objectives, including the annexation of properties within the District's SOI and providing property owners with the opportunity to avoid using septic systems in order to prevent degradation of Alhambra Creek and its tributaries. In addition, the alternative may increase environmental impacts compared to the Project to the extent that any new development relies on septic systems instead of the District's sanitary sewer. 5. Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative in the EIR. The proposed Project is the environmentally superior alternative. The proposed Project results in no significant environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed Project would annex properties that are within the District's SOI and that are serviceable by existing sewer mains or limited, short extensions. In addition, providing septic sewer service to the Project parcels would provide property owners with the opportunity to avoid using septic systems in order to prevent degradation of Alhambra Creek and its tributaries. ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. 2012 - Dq 3 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR A CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION (CCCSD DISTRICT ANNEXATION 168C — ALHAMBRA VALLEY) WHEREAS, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) wishes to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese- Knox - Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 for a change of organization; and WHEREAS, the change of organization is proposed for the following reasons: Eight (8) properties have been included in the areas proposed to be annexed. 2. Three (3) of the properties within the areas proposed for annexation are connected to the CCCSD public sewer system under an Out of Agency Service Agreement; 3. All eight (8) properties are within the CCCSD Sphere of Influence, as previously approved by the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission. No other sewering agency can reasonably serve these areas; 4. All of the properties are outside of the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line; 5. The area has been planned for residential use by Contra Costa County; 6. The location of the properties within the Alhambra Creek watershed makes annexation to CCCSD and sewer service prudent to avoid despoiling the creeks with septic system effluent; 7. CCCSD already has collection facilities in Alhambra Valley; 8. Wastewater from Alhambra Valley can flow by gravity or individual residential pumping systems to CCCSD's existing collection system; 9. CCCSD will assume responsibility, upon annexation, for maintenance and operation of public sewer facilities required to provide service to the areas proposed to be annexed; and 10. CCCSD requires that all served properties annex to the District (CCCSD Standard Specifications Section 3 -04). WHEREAS, the proposed change in organization consists of two (2) "single areas" (as defined by the State Board of Equalization) generally adjacent to the existing CCCSD boundary, as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and designated thereon as proposed Annexation Areas 168C -1 and 168C -2; said Exhibit incorporated herein by reference, comprising a total of approximately 82.1 acres; and WHEREAS, the only affected county is Contra Costa and no other sanitary districts are involved; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed to CCCSD is uninhabited (fewer than 12 registered voters); and WHEREAS, the proposed annexation is subject to the provisions of the CCCSD Code, and if the annexation were approved, all of the provisions of said Code would become applicable to the properties annexed, including the requirement that annexation charges be collected at the time of connection to the public sewer system; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2012, the CCCSD Board of Directors found that the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared CCCSD District Annexation 168C — Alhambra Valley is legally adequate and approved the proposed annexation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the CCCSD Board of Directors as follows: THAT CCCSD staff is directed to submit this Resolution of Application requesting that the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission initiate annexation proceedings for the two (2) areas shown and described in Exhibit A for proposed annexation areas 168C -1 and 168C -2, as authorized and in the manner required under the Cortese- Knox - Hertzberg Reorganization Act of 2000, together with a complete application package including all other required information, geographical descriptions, maps, forms, questionnaires, indemnification agreement, fees, and a mailing list of affected property owners, and of all other property owners and registered voters who reside within 300 feet of each of the proposed annexation areas. THAT it is not the current practice of CCCSD to use its power under Health and Safety Code Section 6520 to compel property owners to connect their properties to the public sewer system involuntarily. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of November 2012, by the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the following vote: AYES: Members: NOES: Members: ABSENT: Members: James A. Nejedly President of the Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County of Contra Costa, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: Elaine R. Boehme, CIVIC Secretary of the District Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County of Contra Costa, State of California Approved as to form: Kenton L. Alm, Esq. Counsel for the District EXHIBIT A 0 800 1200 :FEET. LEGEND: CCCSD ANNEXATION AREA D CCCSD BOUNDARY INSIDE URBAN LIMIT LINE LOCATION OF DISTRICT I A ANNEXATION 168C ALHAMBRA VALLEY