HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10242000 - D2 D. 2.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Date: October 24, 2000 Matter of Record
Subject: Reconsideration of Board Decision on October 17, 2040 Item
On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered, pursuant to the
Administrative and Procedural Rules of the board of Supervisors, the request of
Supervisor Gerber to reconsider the action taken by the Board of Supervisors on
October 17, 2000, on the Administrative Appeals of the Mount Diablo Regional
Group, Sierra Club-San Francisco Bay Chapter, and the Blackhawk Homeowners
Association from the decision of the Community Development Director on the
requested comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Camino Tassajara combined General Plan Amendment Study and related actions.
The following persons presented testimony.
Seth Adams, 1196 Boulevard Way #10, Walnut Creek, representing Save Mt.
Diablo,
Debbi Landshoff, 6016 Orchard Avenue, Richmond, representing the Sierra
Club, and
Leslie Stewart, 500 St. Mary's Road #14, Lafayette, representing the League
of Women Voters of Diablo Valley.
Following comments on the reasons for her request, Supervisor Gerber
moved to extend the comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for
three weeks from today.
There was no second to her motion and no action was taken.
THIS IS A MATTER.FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY
NO BOARD ACTION WAS TAKEN
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �'. `:` .
Contra
ry Costa
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ,:;:.t- ..< ` County
DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2000
SUBJECT: APPEALS FILED BY SIERRA CLUB - MT. DIABLO GROUP AND BLACKHAWK
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION RELATING
TO EXTENSION OF THE COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CAMINO TASSAJARA COMBINED GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT STUDY (SCH#99-122013)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
DENY the appeals from the Sierra Club - Mt. Diablo Group and the Blackhawk Homeowners Association
on the administrative decision by the Community Development Director relating to the extension of the
comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Camino Tassajara Combined General
Plan Amendment Study.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): --- ----_
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER_
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT } CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Patrick Roche,CDD-AP(925)335-1242 ATTESTED
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc:Sierra Club-Mt. Diablo Group SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Blackhawk Homeowners Association
Developer/Applicants
CAC) BY ,DEPUTY
County Counsel
Clerk of the Board
October 17, 2000
Board of Supervisors
County File: GP 98-0004 and GP#990002/990003 re: Administrative Appeal On Extending DEIR Comment Period
Page 2
FII CAL IMPACT
Nene,The costs for filing an appeal of administrative decisions are covered by fees paid by the appellant.
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
On Tuesday, August 15, 2000,the Community Development Department issued a Notice of Completion
and Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the Camino Tassajara
Combined General Plan Amendment Study (SCH#99-122013) and submitted the DEIR to the State
Clearinghouse. CEQA requires that when a DEIR is submitted to the State Clearinghouse a minimum
45-day comment period shall be established. Consistent with this CEQA requirement the 45-day
comment period for the subject DEIR was established by setting the close of comment period on
Thursday, September 28, 2000. In response to a number of written requests seeking an extension of the
comment period, the Department agreed to extend the close of comment period on the DEIR an
additional eight days to Friday, October 6, 2000.
The Contra Costa County Ordinance Code provides for a process to appeal an administrative decision
under Section 14-4.006, such as the decision by the Community Development Director to extend the
DEIR comment period to October 6, 2000. Pursuant to this procedure, the Clerk of the Board has
received appeals from the Sierra Club - Mt. Diablo Group and the Blackhawk Homeowners Association
seeking to extend the period for comment on the DEIR. The appeal from the Sierra Club - Mt. Diablo
Group seeks to extend the comment period an additional three weeks to October 27, 2000 (see
attachment marked as Exhibit"A"). The Blackhawk Homeowners Association's appeal seeks to extend
the comment period an additional ninety days into January 2001(see attachment marked as Exhibit"B").
Each appeal letter asserts that more time is needed to review and prepare comments on the DEIR.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15105 (a) states ...... '"The public review period for a draft EIR should not be
less than 30 days nor longer than 60 days except in unusual circumstances". The requests from both
the Sierra Club - Mt. Diablo Group and the Blackhawk Homeowners Association would have extended
the DEIR comment`period well beyond the 60-day time allowed under the CEQA Guidelines. In
requesting the extension, they did not provide sufficient evidence that "unusual circumstances"
necessitate an extension of the comment period beyond the 60-day limit referenced in the guidelines.
Although the proposed project is certainly of significant size and the issues associated with the project
are complex, staff does not believe that the public was inhibited from reviewing and submitting comments
on the DEIR within the alloted 53-days. This is supported by the significant number and length of
comment letters submitted on October 6th.The comment letters range from highly detailed multiple page
letters with attachments raising very specific environmental issues and concems to the simpler and more
direct one page letter expressing concerns with the project. Included among the comment letters
received on October 6, 2000 was an 11-page letter from the Sierra Club - Mt. Diablo Group, The
Blackhawk Homeowners Association submitted a letter on September 5, 2000 that included specific
comments on the DEIR and requested an extension of the comment period another 90 days.
Review of AoDeal Paints
The following is a summary and response to the relevant points raised by the appellants in their letters
concerning the need to extend the comment period longer than the 53-days set by the Community
Development Director:
1. inconvenient Day and Time of the Zoning Administrator Hearing
The appellants assert that the,Zoning Administrator hearing was scheduled at a time and piece that
was inconvenient for the public.
October 17, 2000
Board of Supervisors
County File: GP 98-0004 and GP#990002/990003 re: Administrative Appeal On Extending DEIR Comment Period
Page 3
Staff Response: The hearing was conducted on a regular day, time, and location for the Zoning
Administrator meeting. The Zoning Administrator's hearing is not required under CEQA Guidelines.
It is noted that the purpose of the Zoning Administrator's hearing is to provide an additional
opportunity for the public and interested parties to comment on the adequacy of the DEIR, in addition
to submitting written comments.
2. DEIR Not Available When Notice of Completion and Availability Was Issued
The appellants assert that the DEIR was not available when the Notice of Completion and Availability
was issued.
Staff Response:As was noted in the Notice of Completion and Availability,the DEIR document and
appendices with supplemental information were immediately made available upon issuance.These
documents were placed for public review at three convenient locations in the vicinity of the project
site: Danville Branch Public Library, San Ramon Branch Public Library, and 3"' Supervisorial District
Offices. In addition, the DEIR and appendices were also immediately available at the offices of the
Community Development Department. Upon receipt of the Notice of Completion and Availability,
many interested persons made requests for the DEIR document via telephone, e-mail, or in writing.
The Department mailed a copy of the document within 1-2 days to those making such a request for
a copy of the document(approx. 80 copies of the DEIR were distributed in this manner to the public).
Those desiring immediate access to the DEIR were directed to the public review locations, libraries
or County offices.
Staff recommends the Board deny the appeals from the Sierra Club - Mt. Diablo Chapter and the
Blackhawk Homeowners Association on the administrative decision by the Community Development
Director relating to the extension of the comment period on the DEIR for the Camino Tassajara
Combined General Plan Amendment Study.
If the Board believes that unusual circumstances warrant an extension of the DEIR comment period
beyond the CEQA Guidelines prescribed 60 day time limit,the alternative course of action is to grant the
appeal of the administrative decision that extended the close of comment date on the DEIR to October
6, 2000.The Board could then re-establish a new and extended comment period on the DEIR to October
27, 2000, as requested by the Sierra Club - Mt.Diablo Group, or even longer into January 2001, as
requested by the Blackhawk Homeowners Association.
Attachments
Exhibit"A": Appeal Letter from the Sierra Club- Mt. Diablo Group, dated 10/3/200
Exhibit "B":Appeal Letter from the Blackhawk Homeowners Association,dated 10/3/2000
EXHIBIT "A"
.Mount Diablo Regional Group
Sierra Club - San F�ancisco Bay Chapter
P.O. Box 4457, Walnut Creels, CA 94596.
October 3rd, 2k
REGF'T"'��
Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
Att: Clerk of the Board OC f - 1 1000
651 Pine St.
Martinez, CA 94553 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CC.
Re: Appeal-to postpone "Alamo Creek"D.E.I.R. Comment Period
deadline of October 6th.
Dear Supervisors/Clerk of the Board,
On behalf of the Sierra Club's Mount Diablo Croup, I would respectfully request the time frame for
comments on the C.T.C.G.P.A.S.("Alamo Creek"Plan)D.E.I.R. be extended at least three weeks, or
until October 27th, 2000.
I cite the following points in support of this request.
The comment period began during the summer vacation season.This deprived all those in the local
community affected by the project, and still on vacation, from availing themselves of this significant
portion of a rather limited time frame opportunity. I, myself,was on vacation during the latter part of
August.
• The project is very large and will have profound and long term, irreversible, impacts on the local
community. It's effects, for example,will most likely be four times those envisioned for the controver-
sial Wendt Project. Consequently,great care needs to be taken to assure that the environmental
impacts are completely and thoroughly understood, and so, properly mitigated.The extra time will
help achieve this.
• To this point, only one public hearing has been scheduled for comments on the proposal. And, that
was scheduled in such a way - 1:30 pm,in Martinez, on a work day - as to be virtually irrelevant for
purposes of verbal input from local (to the project) impacted residents.The three week extension
would help rectify this by allowing at least one (hopefully two) hearings), October 12th, at a time
and place hugely more convenient for the locals to add needed comments to the D.E.I.R.
• Federal Agencies have moved in a significant way toward enacting Critical Habitat Status for dozens
of threatened and endangered species in the region which includes the Alamo Creek site.The
D.E.I.R. has made no allowance for evaluation of impacts and mitigation in the content of these new
standards. Especially so, as pertains to infrastructures and the financing of infrastructures serving the
project,where there may be a component of Federal tax money involved.This obviously needs more
time to be fully explored and understood within this new environmental content.
• Since I am the lead contact person for the Sierra Club for the region in question, I can attest to
delays in receiving the D.E.I.R. Not just from the time frame starting during vacation time but also
in actually receiving the document, after personally requesting it, nearly three weeks into the process.
Evelyn Stivers, of greenbelt Alliance also has stated there were delays in receipt of D.E.I.R. for their
purposes as well.
This project will have major impacts on the local community and the environment for decades to
come.A relatively very small increase in the time allotted to expand and strengthen the environmen-
tal review process seems a very small price to pay in order to make sure we get it right.
Sincerely,
Jim BlickentMt.
iablo g
Sierra Club, r p
2410 Talavera Dr.
San Ramon, CA 94553
(925) 530-1929
(925) 830-8546 - Fax
Strtc' � rr 'ci'
cc. Interested Parties
'+err
Evelyn Stivers, of Greenbelt Alliance also has stated there were delays in receipt of D.E.I.R. for their
purposes as well.
This project will have major impacts on the local community and the environment for decades to
come. A relatively very small increase in the time allotted to expand and strengthen the environmen-
tal review process seems a very small price to pay in order to make sure we get it right.
Sincerely,
Jim Blickenstaff
Sierra Club,Mt. Diablo Gr p
2410 Talavera Dr.
San Ramon, CA 94553
(925) 530-1929
(925) 830-8546 - Fax
.r�'rt'c'r iZ r'�"- �'s?'c'r e'�^ ,�+�;"tr fT y� ®'�I -G7 � '"� ���r�t �"z�'r'C�t✓r'✓
ao
0000
r
cc.Interested Parties "` s cc
.................._....
EXHIBIT "B"
4125 Blackhawk Plaza Circle,Suite 230,Danville,Calflornia 94506
Telephone:(925)736-5440;Fax(925)736-0426
E-mail Address:bhhoa4125@ao1.com
Linda Appleton President Mark A Goldberg CPM( ,PCAMO,Community Manager
October 2, 2000
EKBOAROOFsUPER
ED
Board of Supervisors OCT2000
County of Contra Costa
c/o Clerk of the Board lSORS
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Notice of Appeal from Administrative Action
and Request for Stay of Hearings and Other Actions Pending Determination
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This appeal by the Blackhawk Homeowners Association("Association")on its behalf and on behalf
of its approximate 5000 members, who are owners of the 1991 homes within the Blackhawk
Community, is pursuant to Chapter 14-4 of the Contra Costa Code,which provides in part:
...any person aggrieved by an administrative action taken by any officer of the this
county under this code may appeal from the action to the board of supervisors...
The Association and its members have a special interest in the proposed subdivisions and General
Plan Amendments that are the subject of the DEIR. They are aggrieved and will suffer special injury
by reason of the administrative actions because of their close proximity to the subdivision sites and
the inevitable impact of the subdivisions on area traffic,air quality,schools,utilities,public services,
parks and visual resources, etc.
The Association and many of its individual members requested in writing that the comment period
be extended, most asking for a period of ninety (90)days.
The administrative actions being appealed are the September 14, 2000,decision of Dennis Barry,
Community Development Director,and Patrick Roche,Director of Advance Planning,Community
Development Department, and the September 25, 2000, decision of the Zoning Administrator, to
close the period of time for public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, Camino
Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment Study and Related Actions("DEW)on October 6,
2000, and to deny the Association's request, and the requests of various individuals and
organizations,that the comment period be extended for a longer period of time than the mere one
week that has been granted.
Substantially more than fifty two(52)days should have been allowed for public comment because
of the complexity of the projects. It is our understanding that forty five (45) days is the absolute
minimum period allowed by the state.
E:IGENERAL CORRESPONDENCE\Tassajam Development\Written Appeal For Extension.apd
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
October 2, 2000
Page 2
• This is a large project,involving nearly 1,200 homes. It includes the re-planning ofnearly two
separate proposed subdivisions and the replanning of a third (Wendt Ranch).
• The DEIN is large and confusing to laymen.
• The volumes of appendices are six inches thick.
• Copies of the DEIR were not ready when the Notice of Completion and Availability said they
would be.
• Copies that were left at the libraries could not be found by the staff.
• Planning Commission hearings which were held in the area were not widely publicized and
subsequently not highly attended.
In the "Guide to CEQA"pages 298 and 299 we note two important comments which I will quote
here. They are:
• "The purpose of requiring public review is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that
the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implication of its action. "
• "The Authors of this book believe,however,that an agency's decision to grant a longer public
review period than minimally required lies within the agency's discretion."
Therefore we respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors grant an additional 90 days forpublic
review of the DEIR and submission of comments, and that all hearings and other actions on the
subject applications be suspended, and that no Final Environmental Impact Report be issued until
after expiration of that 90 day period.
Thant: you for your consideration of this matter.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: October 2. 2000. at Danville. Califo_Mia
Mark erg
Community Manager
For the Blackhawk Homeowners Association
E ZENERAL COPMSPONDENCE\Tass;irn DewJoprnent\Written Appal For Extensionmpd
SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MEETING IN ALL ITS CAPACITIES
PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE CODE SECTION 24-2.402
TUESDAY October 17,2000
CALLED TO ORDER and OPENING CEREMONIES
CLOSED SESSION: There were no Closed Session announcements.
CONSENT ITEMS: Approved as listed except as noted below:
C.6 DELETED from consideration: ACCEPT the petition and ADOPT the
resolution setting the hearing for the formation of the Wendt Ranch
Geologic Hazard Abatement District(GHAD),Subdivision 8002,Danville
area.
C.9 CORRECTED TO READ: DENIED claims of A. Eskandarzadeh;
S. Johnston; T.Lahey;L. Torres;C. Turci;and DENIED Application to file
late claim of S. Lo.
C.13 CORRECTED TO READ: REAPPOINTED Margaret Brisco-Blake,
Deborah Card, Muriel Clausen,Margaret Dowling,Rudy Fernandez,
Werner Gumpert,Ora Jackson,Beverly Kalmbach,Arnie Kasendorf,Robert
Krall,Alberto Lemos,Ilene Lubkin,Leon Morphew,E.R.Riggall,Phil
Saxton,Beverly Wallace,Patricia Welty,Gerald Witucki and Eugene Wolfe
to the Advisory Council on Aging for terms expiring on September 30,
2002, as recommended by the Advisory Council on Aging.
C.17 DELETED from consideration: ACCEPT the resignation of Barbara Stout
from the In-Home Supportive Services(IHSS)Public Authority Advisory
Committee,DECLARE the seat vacant and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board
to apply the Board's policy for filling the vacancy,as recommended by the
Executive Director of the IHSS Authority.
C.18 CORRECTED to read: DECLARED vacant the seat on the In-Home
Supportive Services(IHSS)Public Authority Advisory Committee held by
Benjamin Conchas who is deceased,and DIRECTED the Clerk of the Board
to apply the Board's policy for filling the vacancy,as recommended by the
Executive Director of the IHSS Authority.
C.78 CORRECTED to read: APPROVED and AUTHORIZED the Health
Services Director,or designee,to execute a contract amendment with
Crestwood Behavioral Health,Inc.,to expand the scope to include
neurobehavioral treatment services for Contra Costa County geriatric clients
at Crestwood Geriatric Center in Fremont through June 30,2001.
C.86 DELETED from consideration: AUTHORIZE a General Plan Amendment
and Rezoning Study for several parcels located along the east side of the
4600 block of Pacheco Boulevard,Pacheco area.
1 (10-17-2000 Sum)
C.87 CORRECTED TO READ: AUTHORIZED payment in the amount of
$34,847.88 to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District as
reimbursement for enhancements made to the Emergency Medical Services
System.
HOUSING AUTHORITY ITEMS: Approved as listed.
PRESENTATION ITEMS: Approved as listed.
SHORT DISCUSSION ITEMS: Approved as listed except as noted below:
SD.2 ACCEPTED the status report on the Iron Horse Corridor Management
Program;ADOPTED the Landscape Element;DIRECTED the Public
Works Department,Community Development Department and the
Redevelopment Agency to continue to work with the Iron Horse Corridor
Advisory Committee to implement and monitor the Landscape Element and
to complete the Joint Use Criteria and Standards,Public Information and
Finance Elements of the Management Program; and REQUESTED staff
return to the Board in 6 months with a report on the implementation of the
Program.
DELIBERATION ITEMS: Approved as listed except as noted below:
D.1 CLOSED the public hearing;ADOPTED Resolution No.2000/487,
approving the issuance of not to exceed$25 million in lease revenue bonds
by the Contra Costa County Public Financing Authority for various capital
projects(the 2001 Series A Project),by the Board of Supervisors;
AUTHORIZED the necessary actions and documents connected therewith;
ADOPTED Resolution No. 2000/488,approving the issuance of not to
exceed$25 million in lease revenue bonds by the Contra Costa County
Public Financing Authority for various capital projects,by the Governing
Board; and AUTHORIZED taking the necessary actions and executing
necessary documents in connection therewith.
D.2 PUBLIC COMMENT: No one appeared to speak during Public Comment.
DA CONTINUED to October 24, 2000,at 1:00 p.m.,the hearing to determine if
cause exists to revoke Land Use Permit#LP 95-2061 at 3212 Danville
Blvd.,Alamo,Dale Bridges(Applicant)and Peter Ostrosky(Owner). The
permit prohibited the sale of Christmas trees without an approved land use
permit and the display of inflatable figures. The subject site in on the east
side of Danville Blvd.,approximately 290 feet south of Alamo Square,
Alamo area.
D.5 CLOSED the public hearing;DENIED the Administrative Appeals of the
Mt.Diablo Regional Group,Sierra Club-San Francisco Bay Chapter and the
Blackhawk Homeowner's Association relating to the extension of the
comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Camino
Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment Study;REQUESTED that
the Contra Costa County Planning Commission and the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission schedule additional hearings within District
III;DIRECTED staff to report back to the Board on November 14,2000,
2 (10-17-2000 Sum)
on the feasibility and advisability of considering this proposal in its entirety,
and should time permit,the two aforementioned Planning Commissions
discuss this issue and provide the Board with a recommendation from their
October 26,2000 meeting.
URGENCY ITEM: The following item was brought to the attention of the Board
after the agenda was posted,the Board unanimously agreed on the need to take
action:
U.l APPROVED designating the Glassy-winged Sharpshooter as a public
nuisance and immediate threat to the public safety;AUTHORIZED the
Agricultural Commissioner to hold a series of public meetings and to
receive input from members of the community; APPROVED the
Emergency Response Plan developed by the County Agriculture
Department;AUTHORIZED the Agricultural Commissioner to enter into a
contract with a licensed Pest Control Company in an amount not to exceed
$80,000 to treat the infested area,and to waive the normal bid process;
AUTHORIZED the Agricultural Commissioner to sign an amendment to
Standard Agreement 90-0787 with the California Department of Food and
Agriculture to reimburse all costs associated with the detection survey and
control program; and AUTHORIZED the Agricultural Commissioner to
take action to abate this nuisance pursuant to County Ordinance Code
Section 14-6.406 and Government Code Section 8558.
ADJ.1 ADJOURNED today's meeting in honor of the memory of Moraga
Councilman,John Connors. Mr. Connors was prominent in leading the
successful campaign for Moraga growth controls.
ADJ2 ADJOURNED today's meeting in honor of the memory of Edith
Lowenstein,M.D.,an 84 year old Walnut Creek resident,who provided
extensive services for indigent health care.
ADJ.3 ADJOURNED today's meeting in honor of the memory of San Joaquin
County Supervisor,Robert J.Cabral, Mr. Cabral was an advocate for a
regional perspective on County issues.
3 (10-17-2000 Sum)
RECEIVED
OCTOBER 16, 2000 OCT 1 7 2000
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
MR, PATRICK ROCHE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
651 PINE STREET, 2"" FLOOR NORTH WING
MARTINEZ, CA. 94553
DEAR MR. ROACH,
THIS LETTER IS IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSED CAMINO TASSAJARA COMBINED GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY,
MY WIFE AND I LIVE IN BLACKHAWK AND HAVE OWNED OUR HOUSE SINCE 1983. WE ALSO
WERE VISITORS TO THIS AREA FOR 20 PLUS YEARS PRIOR TO PURCHASING OUR CURRENT
HOME, THAT TOTALS ALMOST 35 YEARS OF ENJOYING LIFE HERE WHILE OBSERVING CHANGES
TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INCLUDING THE DANVILLE AREA.
WITH OUR COMMITMENT TO THIS AREA I AM SURE YOU UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD HAVE
SOME CONCERN OVER PLANS FOR A DEVELOPMENT THE SIZE OF THE ONE PROPOSED, WE
ARE CONCERNED PRIMARILY BECAUSE WE RESIDE IN THE PROJECT'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
AND WERE MORE CONCERNED AFTER READING THE TOWN OF DANVILLE'S LETTER TO THE
COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OBTAINED AT THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING
ON 10/12/00,
AS YOU MAY KNOW THE TOWN'S LETTER POINTS OUT MANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, IT STARTS BY STATING THAT"THE EIR SHOULD BE OF THE
HIGHEST QUALITY", AND GIVE AMPLE TIME TO THE PUBLIC AND THE DECISION MAKERS FOR A
FULL OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THE PROJECT'S ENVIRONMENTAL REPERCUSSIONS,
AND TO COMPARE THEM TO OTHER PROJECT SCHEMES. ( I UNDERSTAND THESE SCHEMES
ARE OUTLINED IN THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT).
THE LETTER FURTHER STATES THAT THE DEIR"FAILS ENTIRELY"TO DO THE ABOVE AND THAT
THE DEIR VIOLATES EVEN MINIMUM STANDARDS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA), IT GOES INTO GREAT DETAIL IN OTHER AREAS OF THE DEIR THAT THE
TOWN ALSO CLAIMS ARE UNSATISFACTORY.
THE STAFF REPORT GIVEN ON 10/12/00 AT THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING CAME ONLY 8 DAYS
AFTER THE DATE ON THE TOWN OF DANVILLE'S LETTER.
1
WHILE THERE WAS SOME MENTION OF THE CONCERNS OF THE TOWN OF DANVILLE IN THE
STAFF REPORT, I WONDER IF THERE WAS TIME BETWEEN THE RECEIPT OF THE LETTER AND
THE PREPARATION AND PRESENTATION OF THE STAFF REPORT TO RECONCILE THE
DIFFERENCES OR EVEN TO TAKE THE TOWN'S REPORT UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHILE
COMPILING THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION?
DURING MY LONG CAREER IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE THAT LARGE COMPLEX PROJECTS
WITH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS,AND RESISTANCE FROM THE PUBLIC, ARE MORE
SUCCESSFUL WHEN JOINT INTEGRATED PLANNING IS USED, UP FRONT AND PRIOR TO ANY
APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, THIS INCLUDES AMPLE TIME FOR INPUT/PUBLIC REVIEW ETC,
THIS ACTIVITY CAN BE PART OF THE PROJECT SCHEDULE,
MY FEAR IS THAT WITHOUT SUCH AN ACTIVITY ON THIS PROJECT "MITIGATION"WILL COME
ON A"CATCH-UP" BASIS AND ADVERSELY EFFECT THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF THE
AREA DURING THE COURSE OF THE EIGHT YEAR PROJECT.
BECAUSE OF SUCH CONCERNS, MY WIFE AND I FULLY SUPPORT DANVILLE'S CALL FOR A
REVISED JOINT DE1R, PRIOR TO ANY FURTHER ACTION ON THE PROJECT, THIS CAN BE DONE
TO A JOINTLY APPROVED SCHEDULE THAT INCLUDES TIMING FOR THE NECESSARY ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING PUBLIC REVIEW).
WE ALSO SUPPORT DANVILLE'S CALL FOR"EXACTING SCRUTINY" BY ALL APPLICABLE
AGENCIES, WITH PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
WHATEVER THE LASTING IMPACT OF THIRTEEN HUNDRED HOUSES IS COMBINED WITH THAT
OF DOUGHERTY VALLEY AND OTHER ACTIVITY ON BOTH ENDS AND ALONG TASSAJARA, IT
WILL BE HERE FOR A LONG TIME,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME,
SINCER Y YOURS,
ilyME
f0 LIQ IDAMBER PL,
ANVILLE, CA, 94506
CC:DONNA GERBER, SUPERVISOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
JOSEPH A. CALABRIGO,
DANVILLE CITY MANAGER
MARK GOLDBERG,
BLACKHAWK HOA
2
Philip Ito
4276 KaoUvkw Drive,Danville,CA 94506
925 6411-9495 0"me),650 558.7236( e)
October 16,2000 RECEI�
Dorma Gerber
District III Supervisor OCT 1 7 2000
Contra Costa.County CL 8 P
309 Diablo RI cc�,��q C C
Sa c� vrso�s
Danville,CA 94533
925 $20-9683, fax 925 820-6527
Subject: Joint Planning Commission Meeting for
Camino Tamlara Combined General Amendment Study
Dear Donna:
I atm very concerned about the manner in which the .Joint Planning Commission meeting was
conducted. At the September 21 st meeting, County staff suggested three possible future meeting
dates,namely October 12th, 19th and 26th,to County Commission Chair Richard Clark. W.Clark
selected October 12th as the meeting ting date without discussing with other Crm missionors on their
availability to attend. I was unable to attend the October 12 meeting because of a conflict with a
business meeting that evening. I am perplexed by Mr.Clark's unilateral decision given that October
12th is the earliest date which would give the public relatively tittle time to gtc aze for the hearing.
I strongly believe that such decisions should be jointly made by the Chairs of the two Planning
Commissions.
I am also concerned abet the 45-dayy public comment period which was extended fiom September
20th to October 6th. Although this is a single application, it consists of multiple Urge-scale
residential development projects, each with a multitude of c omplox issues,munerous significant
environmental impacts,and fair r+eaaiing effects on the quality of life in the tri-valley area. It is for
these roasous that the public should be given ample time to study the issues and impacts, and to
submit written comments to County. It would be very helpful to reopen the comment period.
I appreciate this opportunity in expressing my concerns and requests.
Yours truly,
'��4
Philip Hca
SRVR Platm ng Commissioner
OCT-16--21 16:38 P.01
_ __ _ _
?�,.�� :aF dam' •+.. '�.iy. siw _ �yL ••�..
r
• Ib Nto Fax No* 1574
Board of Supervisors
C IDntrx cost&Crbunty �o G Z5, "-a
A AtS'
Awd 551 Pune Street - j4
- spMW Martinez, G 943Mpywident � Pl+orr!r
Axhvr Bc+r,wey Cktober 16, 2m
Nee PPWM&Ar A2,0 '+C g 2
Amara Kong.i.o. App by Sslat Chub and Hlackhawc HOA on extendon of mmnwntperfc�d of the
77r&wjinrr
edvy i..tierw+�wre�.eh.b. fir SUpar fjgGMSr
.Ltartin Breen
Pain Donald
de ° 'ger I eaid the report on thea which k%dicat�es that A 16th mwked publicatkm
Stephen Josephof the Natjce inr of Coaep.Ieticert
aobm Marx COMM CPA Studyand
re avadabibty of tete dE'R'or1rae
Steven Mahirnam J.V7
ftob*K Numn This isn't quite accurate. On Aug. 2 I
,�Prager the PlanniAg g- pfd up� of the dEIR fraex�staff(during
David sam=t Cammiaeiun an thr A CcxwiIl tTLL.� I d for
dixes, which"v an prat of the dI±IR,and eras told.dley had to bt
CCPbeca11"there were no mftv comes. I asked and was tcald that I waWd be called
10tala Brown WhM ctypies were ready. They werest t ready before I Taft on varaWn SepL lrst.
Eit-mist.IJrm.ar
ietb Ada= 0n Sept. 11 th whae I was on vacmt c n Save Mauro Diablo rec+eiv9d a call that the copies
7=r+era vfLan r of the appendixes were ready. �Of MY edredultng the actual availability o the
Uctl K.Tot�r full dEIR was a full 28 dregs After the Notice of Completion. I noted this problem-
.acts Klimited Oct.6 comments on the dEM in additionto S%Crs uRy
caonc re about the$145 cost
Vkf Manage? of the d.EM and appendixes
�t evait way,ric) Both availabzUty of the dEIR and its lazgv a rtbine to have potezrWv and
vim cam.CA 94,W5 s grt ficar y limited pubhc cn the aMk Save Mount DIAblo has written the
:WD County several times 6W the comment pentad jrhoWd be extended, Tharelcs
° *s, for your enation thc�e
:O.cox$376 OqueskiAnd of the appeals bice you.
V&tnut Cteek.CA 94.596 S !
y
C�+
0947-3535 � G C E I VE D
W)si.3'�-W3
Seth [CLERK
CT 1 7 2000
Visectoe of Lionel
Save.Mount Diablo BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ONTRA COSTA CO.
r.
Co1�T1 k VdSTA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
OCT 651 Pine Street,Eighth Floor•Martinez,CA 94553-1229
t` (92S)646-4090 M FAX(92S)646-2240
La c
.fcMEMBERS ALTERNATE MEMBERS
Jo6eph Canciamills David Kurrent Richard Bartke
EXECUTIVE OFFICER County Supervisor Public Member Public Member
ANNAMARI:A PERRELLA Millie Greenberg Dwight Meadows Donna Gerber
Danville Town Council Special Districts Counn Supervisor
David Jameson Michael Menesini George H.Schmidt
Special Districts Martine:City Council Special Districts
/�
Gayle B.Uilkema Don`�atzin
DATE: October 16, 2000 County Supervisor in{ayerre CinCouncil
TO; Patrick Roche, Community Development Depa 'ED
2nd Floor, North Wing OCT 1 9 2000
FROM: Annamaria Perrella CLERK
CB�RD�c�S ERVIScsS
SUBJECT: DEIR— Proposed Camino Tassajara Combined GPA Study
And Related Actions
On October 10, I received a copy of the Town of Danville's comments on
the subject document. When I reviewed my files, I could find no indication
that the County, as lead agency for the proposed project, forwarded either
the Notice of Preparation or the DEIR for comment. LAFCO must be given
the opportunity to provide input and comments to the lead agency during the
preparation of all environmental documents. In this way, the Commission
ensures that the environmental documents address LAFCO's concerns
related to the proposed project (annexations/sphere of influence (SOI)
amendments) - especially if build out of a project may result in the capacity
of any public service or facility being exceeded or substantially affected.
With that said, even though the comment period has expired, I hope that
LAFCO's comments can be incorporated into the record.
LAFCO has specific responsibility for evaluating certain impacts and
environmental issues to fulfill its responsibilities under the Cortese-Knox
Act. Issues that should typically be addressed and which are of particular
jurisdictional importance to LAFCO include cumulative and regional
impacts, impacts to public service agencies including, but not limited to,
water supply and distribution systems; wastewater treatment and sewer
collection systems, fire protection and public facilities maintenance districts.
Patrick Roche 2
The proposed project site, located within the County's Urban Limit Line
(ULL), is for the development of 1,387 dwelling units on +/- 767 acres over
a phased build out of eight years. The intervening and Wendt properties are
within the SOI boundaries of Danville, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District (CCCSD) and the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). A
small portion of the Alamo Creek property is also within the Town's SOI,
but none of it is within the SOIs of CCCSD and EBMUD. The DEIR is
incorrect in that the area north of Camino Tassajara is within the Town's
SOI; it was removed by LAPCO, at Danville's request, early this year
As background, on March 12, 1997, this Commission approved the
annexation/SOI amendment of the +/- 165-acre Wendt Ranch site to CCCSD
and to EBMUD. The SOI boundaries of the Town of Danville, CCCSD and
EBMUD were also amended to include the so-called 44-acre "Corrie
property/Tassajara Meadows", subsequently annexed to Danville, and the
so-called "intervening property" (located between Corrie and Wendt Ranch).
At the time, both CCCSD and Danville supported the SOI amendments as
being consistent with adherence to the requirements and policies enumerated
in the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement and Danville's General Plan.
EBMUD, however, was opposed to the SOI amendments and the Wendt
annexation. Specifically, the area was outside its Ultimate Service
Boundary (USB); EBMUD's contention was that annexation and expansion
of EBMUD's SOI was "contrary to the policies of the District with respect
to extension of water service to areas outside the USB".
.Because of the proximity of EBMUD's service boundary as it related to the
Town and affected territory (i.e., logical service provider), the Commission
approved the Wendt annexations to CCCSD and EBMUD and SOI
amendments. However, the Commission recognized the complexities of
service from EBMUD, so its approval for the EBMUD component was
granted pursuant to the condition outlined in Government Code Section
568440).
Patrick Roche 3
Referring to the present project, specifically to Alamo Creek, the DEIR
states that the "remainder of Alamo Creek is not in San Ramon's SOI but
could be annexed into San Ramon." Annexation to a city requires that the
annexing area be contiguous to the city's municipal boundary. Contiguity of
the Alamo Creek to San Ramon's corporate boundary might be difficult to
achieve. From a LAFCO standpoint, it would seem to be more logical to
discuss in greater detail the possible annexation/SOI amendment to Danville
rather than San Ramon, with the analysis tailored to the factors outlined in
Government Code Section 56841 (this Commission also requires that an
annexing city prezone affected territory).
The factors to be considered pursuant to 56841 should also include the
ability of an agency to provide adequate services, the timely availability of
adequate water supplies, and the extent to which the proposal will assist the
annexing city in achieving its fair share of regional housing allocation needs.
LAFCO recognizes the importance of adequate and affordable housing in
growth decisions. With regard to the timely availability of adequate water
supplies, the DEIR analysis of water supply does not appear to fully address
the issue. Would an adequate water supply be available from EBMUD?
What is the specific source or sources of water? What mitigation measures
would be in place to avoid adverse impacts?
At the time of the aforementioned approval of the Wendt annexation/SOI
amendments, EBMUD advised LAFCO, quite strongly, that it would oppose
any extension of its service/SOI boundary beyond Wendt Ranch. That
position has not changed. In fact, at the time of this Commission's 2000
Special Districts SOI Program Update Program, EBMLJD again reiterated
its position of opposing any expansion easterly of Wendt Ranch. With
regard to the CCCSD component, while the District did not oppose the
annexation/SOI amendment for Wendt Ranch, I'm not aware whether or not
it opposes or supports the proposed project? Can the CCCSD system handle
the wastewater treatment needed for Alamo Creek? This information is
required in order for LAFCO to properly assess whether facilities related to
the proposal would be sized or situated so as to facilitate the extension to
lands which lie between existing facilities and the project site.
Patrick Roche 4
When and if a proposal for a change of organization or reorganization is
submitted to LAFCO, the Commission will require a Plan for Service from
CCCSD and EBMUD, prepared pursuant to Government Code Section
56653.
Finally, Governor Davis recently signed AB 2838, the Cortese-Knox-
Hertzberg Local government Reorganization Act of 2000; most provisions
of the new law will go into effect January 1, 2001. It is not yet known how
the new revisions may impact this Commission's written policies and
procedures with respect to planned, well-ordered and efficient urban
development patterns which are based, in large part, on local conditions and
circumstances. As indicated earlier in this memo, though, LAFCgs must
n w contder factors such as available water supply, affordable housing
goals and whether or not existing agencies can provide efficient and
adequate services.
Because the new legislation elevates policies that encourage efficient
extension of governmental services, the revisions will affect all property
owners, land developers and local agencies. LAFCO would encourage an
extension, if possible, of the public review and comment period.
Thank you for allowing LAFCO to comment, albeit late, on the proposed
prof ect.
cc: LAFC Commissioners
Town of Danville
City of San Ramon
CCCSD
EBMUD
OCT-18-2000 15:09 FROM CCC LAFCO TO 93351222 P.01
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
6S2 Pint Street,En(6th Floor-141artinex.CA s4m-2229
fC= (925)6464090`FAX(9M 646-nO
ta
MEMBERS ALTERNATE MEMBERS
Jonepa Caudaaailla 15arid EunvW Richard barthe
EXECUTIVE OFFICER County svtrvisor Public Member Public Member
ANNtsMARIA I IiRELLA Millie Gresabert or►w4 Meads Donna Gerber
Danville Town Coanttil Special Duurrlcet County Supervtttor
baym Jame= bricuel bilaw i croonc ffi Se zxdax
Sptcldl Districts MwTi n City Colum! Sp 641 Districts
Gale&r Ww" Don TaUb
County supervisor raf?wetre f iry counro
DATE: October 18, 2000 REC 1i E
TO. Patrick Roche, Community Development Departme t OCT 1 9 2000
2nd Floor, North Wing CLERK BOAR of suprp�;,sons
zzCONT ACO 74 Co.
FROM: Annamaria Perrella, Executive Officer
SUBJECT: PROPOSED CAMINO TASSAJARA COMBINED GPA STUDY
AND RELATED ACTIONS
This Commission's staff has urged agencies seeking a change of organization or
reorganization for a development project to structure the CEQA process so that
the environmental document(s) can address all aspects of the LAFCO process,
not just the annexation or sphere of influenoc amondmont. That way, even
though those entitlements may not be considered by LAFCO for some time, it will
be possible to use the environmental document(s)to address the whole project.
When I called last week and informed you that LAFCO was omitted from the
distribution list for the Notice of Preparation and the DEIR for the subject project,
you advised that the comment period had ended. However, you hand-delivered
a copy of the DEIR to my office on October 13 and said that if I prepared a
response "early next week" it would be Included in the record.
On October 16, 1 "quickly" reviewed the document and prepared a response. In
my October 16 response, I encouraged an extension of the public review and
comment period because it was not yet known how AB 2838 would Impact this
Commission's written policies and prucmdures (and other required factors)when
it considers a proposal for a change of organization or reorganization or sphere
of influence amendment. I had hoped that LAFCO's comments could be
reviewed by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting yesterday—especially in
light of my suggestion that the public review and comment period be extended.
Unfortunately, I loarnod today that my memo and request for an extension wasn't
received until after the Board met and determined not to extend the public review
and comment period.
OCT-18-20W 15:10 FROM CCC LAFCO TO
Patrick Roche 2
Since LAFCO is a responsible agency for the proposed project, it must use the
lead agency's EIR. However, under CEQA, a responsible agency's role is more
limited than that of a lead agency. This is particularly true in the case of a
LAFCO as a responsible agency since a LAFCO has little power to control
specific land use in a manner that would mitigate or avoid most environmental
impacts. A LAFCO's role is generally to look at the broader governmental
boundary considerations of a proposal and approve a boundary change (or
approve with modifications) if the proposal Is consistent with sound governmental
structure for the area. With that said, l think it's very important that the
Commission's comments be included in the EIR.
Because of time constraints, I did not include in my October 16 response a copy
of osis Commission's policy statement regarding the provision of water service to
urbanizing areas. In light of the complexities of the proposed project, especially
with the provision of water service, please accept this memo and the enclosed
statement as an addendum to my October 16 comments.
Enclosure
Distribution;
• LAFC Commissioners
• Town of Danville
City of San Ramon
• EBMUD
«� CCCSD
ICT--1e-20eO 15:10 FROM CCC LRFCO TO 93351222 P.W
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COMW
STATEMENT OF POLICY FOR EVALUATING APPLICATIONS REQUESTING
THE PROVISION OF WATER SERVICE TO URBANIZING AREAS
(Adopted January 13, 1"9)
In addition to the,factors the CornmWivn is required to evaluate and review pursuant to
Government Code Section 56841, the following criteria are also applicable in order to ensure
greater consistency in LAFCO's decision-making process:
1) Any proposal for a change of organization which includes the provision +nf water service
shall provide information sufficient to determine that adequate services, facilities, and
improvements can be provided and financed by the agency responsible for the provision
of such services,facilities and improvements.
2) Any proposal for a reorganization(two or more changes of organization)will be
evaluated based on each component organizational change. The Commission will then
balance the overall benefits against the costs and adverse impacts in deciding on the
rwrpudz utiun ab it whole.
3) In evaluating the capability of an annexing agency to provide the required service,the
Commission shall take into account the agency's ability to acquire the resources
necessary to provide the needed service(i.e.,water rights necessary to provide the water
scrviccs nc dcd by an arca proposed for annexation).
4) In cases where it is not clear that the provider of water is able and willing to provide
service to the annexing area,the Commission would like to see evidence that water
service will be available. Such evidence may include,but not limited to,any of the
following: 1)a Plan for Service pursuant to Government Code Section 56653, 2)a "arid
serve"letter by the agency,or 3)an agreement between the developer and the agency.
5) The Commission may determine that a need for service exists if there is a public health
or safety threat or if the area's growth patterns indicate that the area is likely to be
developed for urban.n use with five years provided it is designated for urban uses inthe
appropriate land use authority's General Plan.
6) Lauds W be wwexcd shall be within the adopted sphere of influctxre of the affected
agency.
7) The annexation must be a reasonable and logical expansion of the agency's boundaries.
Further,territory to be annexed must be contiguous to the annexing agency unless
otherwise provided by the principal act under which the agency operates.
rnTa a a�