Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04251989 - T.4 TO: BOARD,1OF SUPERVISORS T. 4 FROM: M - Harvey. E. Bragdon Cmtra ;0" Director of Community Development . ' I - Costa DATE: April 17, 1989 CO Iv SUBJECT: Appeal of San Ramon Valley Regional Planning commission rejection of the DEIR for the Alamo summit Project (File #2776-RZ) . SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMUMDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Refer the existing Alamo summit Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) back to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission for public hearing and certification decision in accord with the Option B set of actions listed below. BOARD OPTIONS The following options set forth alternative approaches for the Board of Supervisors to consider in deciding this appeal. Option A (Modify existing DEIR and provide new comment period in accord with Commission Action) 1. Find that the Alamo Summit DEIR is not adequate for public review. 2. Direct staff to arrange for the preparation of a revised DEIR addressing the concerns of the Planning Commission and other public comments received prior to February 16, 1989 as appropriate. Authorize staff to assess and collect additional EIR fees from the applicant to accomplish this task. 3. Followin completion and publication of the revised DEIR, direct s?aff to renotice the revised DEIR for a new 45-day public review period. Staff is also directed to schedule the revised DEIR before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning commission for hearing and subsequent certification decision. CONTINUED ON AWACHMENT: YES SIGNA14 AlI A"[IW RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REE6RRbikbk� OF EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON April 25, 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED .2L_ OTHER y This being the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the appeal of Alamo Summit, Inc. (appellant) from the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission rejecting a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and directing staff to prepare a new DEIR for re-notice and public review. The DEIR was prepared for a proposed rezoning of 176 acres of land from General Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit District (P-1) and for preliminary development plan approval for a 37 lot single family residential project ( 2776-RZ) , Alamo Summit, Inc. (applicant and owner) , in the Alamo area. Mary Fleming, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the appeal commenting on the history of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) , the decision of the Planning Commission not to accept the DEIR. She commented on the options presented to the Board by staff, including option A the Planning Commission preference, Option B , and Option C. She commented on a letter from Frank Cameron recommending Option B. She commented that staff also recommends Option B, to take the Draft Environmental Impact Report back to the Planning Commission, take further testimony, allow a twelve day review period, extend the comment period to the 29th, take the DEIR with any comments and make changes to the DEIR so that it would incorporate modifications that were deemed to be necessary as .=a result or the comments. She commented on staff's intention to expedite this process and complete it as quickly as possible, avoid further expenses for the applicant and to take it back to the Commission for certification. She recommended the adoption of the steps in Option B. Supervisor Schroder commented on the action by the Planning Commission of rejecting the DEIR and commented that his recommendation would be to pursue Option B but to request County Counsel to have a member of his staff at the Planning Commission when the DEIR is heard. Supervisor Powers recommended that Option B be accomplished in a timely manner. The public hearing was opened and the following persons appeared to speak: Richard Clark, 156 Diablo Road, Danville, representing Alamo Summit, commented on the proposed project, the Draft Environmental Impact Review (DEIR) , the long and costly delay of having to bring this appeal to the Board, and requested the Board to place the environmental impact review and the project back on track and continue the regular environmental review process. He expressed a preference for the Board approval of Option C. David Gold, 1855 Olympic Blvd. , Walnut Creek, McCutcheon, Doyle, Brown and Enersen, legal counsel for Alamo Summit, commented on issues including that they had not seen Mr. Cameron's letter supporting Option B, that the comment period should be shortened to the day after the Planning Commission hearing, and that County Counsel' s participation in the process would be welcome. He also commented on the short circuiting of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, and requested the matter be heard before the Zoning Administrator rather than the Planning Commission. He commented that Option C in the staff report is the most viable means of correcting the wrongs to date. Robert P. Elliott, 137 Romero Circle, Alamo, representing the Alamo Improvement Association, commented on issues including the environmental sensitivity of the area in question, the deficiencies of the DEIR, and spoke in support of the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission decision in rejecting the DEIR as unacceptable. He requested the Board reject the appeal. Richard Hill, 2051 Ridgewood Road, Alamo, spoke in opposition to the DEIR, commenting on issues including the impacts of the project on Ridgewood Road, increased traffic, and that the DEIR should not be extended and allowed to have piecemeal comment made on it. Merrill Callow, 1666 Ridgewood Road, Alamo, commented on concerns including traffic patterns, emergency access, and the responsibility and liability of the people who live on the road if it is widened. Paul Ward, 264 Castlecrest Road, Walnut Creek, spoke in opposition to the DEIR commenting on issues including emergency access, the steepness of the road, and increases in traffic. Tom Graves, 364 Castlecrest Road, Walnut Creek, spoke in favor of the denial of the appeal and representing the Castlecrest Road Homeowners commented on the conditions of Castlecrest Road, emergency access, the steepness of the road, and commented on the sloppy preparation of the DEIR. He requested that the Board deny the appeal of Alamo Summit if it is legal and if not approve Option B. The following people submitted cards in opposition with comments but did not wish to speak: Phyllis J. Lempert, 320 Castlecrest Road, Walnut Creek, expressed concerns relative to the extension of Castlecrest Road through to Ridgewood Road, the steepness of the road and traffic concerns. Paulette Ramsey, 280 Castlecrest Road, Walnut Creek, commented on the steepness of Castlecrest Road. 2. Wendellyn Storch, 335 Castlecrest Road, Walnut Creek, requested denial of the appeal. and commented on the dangers of Castlecrest Road. Supervisor McPeak questioned whether the consultant had been paid for the preparation of the EIR, and expressed the hope that all the remarks today will become commentary that must be responded to in a DEIR that will then go to hearing. Karl Wandry responded to Supervisor McPeak's concern. David Gold spoke in rebuttal, and urged the Board to grant the appeal and approve Option C. Supervisor McPeak questioned whether the EIR that was prepared dealt with the issue of safety when it is foggy. The public hearing was closed. Supervisor Schroder moved that the Board accept Option B as outlined by the staff and requested that a member of County Counsel' s office be in attendance at the hearing before the Planning Commission on May 17, 1989 and that the response period should close at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, May 19, 1989. Supervisor Torlakson clarified whether the motion would include taking everything that was talked about today and having that officially be a part of the comment, the response to the document. Supervisor Fanden indicated that she would be abstaining on this matter. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the existing Alamo Summit Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for proposed rezoning application 2776-RZ along with today' s commentary is REFERRED back to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission for public hearing and certification decision in accordance with staff Option B. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: III , IV, V NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: I ABSTAIN: II MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: Alamo Summit, Inc. ATTESTED April 25 , 1989 McCutcheon, Doyle - Edward Shaffer PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Wagstaff & Associates THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AN COUN MINISTRATOR Community Development Dept. BYAl o DEP 3. -2- Option B (Refer existing DEIR back to San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission for hearing and certification decision) . 1. Find that the existing DEIR is acceptable for purposes of public review. 2. Find that the public review period for the Alamo Summit DEIR beginning December, 22 , 1988, and terminating February 16, 1989, satisfies the legal public review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, However, as a courtesy to the public, re-open the public review period. 3. Direct staff to reschedule the existing DEIR for the next available hearing and subsequent certification decision of Final EIR document before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. 4. I.n preparing responses to public comments, direct staff to prepare a revised, "stand-alone" Final EIR (FEIR) as described in the attached March 8 fetter from the EIR consultant, Wagstaff & Associates, in addition to the standard Responses-to-Comments documents. Option C (Refer existing DEIR to Zoning Administrator for public hearing and certification. decision. ) 1. Find that the existing DEIR is adequate for public review purposes. 2. Find that the public review period for the Alamo Summit DEIR beginning December 22, 1988, and terminating February 16, 1989, satisfies the legal public review requirements of CEQA. However, as a courtesy, re-open the public review period. 3 . Direct staff to schedule and notice a hearing before the Zoning Administrator on the existing DEIR, at the next available hearing, and for subsequent certification decision. 4. Following certification action by the Zoning Administrator, rezoning application (File #2776-RZ) shall be scheduled for hearing before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. BACKGROUND The Alamo Summit rezoning application was filed in December, 1987. The proposal is to rezone 187 acres on the ridgeline west of Alamo from General Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit District (P-1) , and for preliminary development plan approval for a 37-lot development. The P-1 approach to development of this project was applied for at -3- the suggestion of staff. Should the preliminary development plan be approved, final development plan and tentative map applications would still have to be heard and approved prior to any development. It should be noted that in 1981, an earlier development (Diablo View Properties) had been proposed on this same site. A draft environmental impact report had been prepared and heard; and a Responses-to-Comments document had been drafted. However, prior to certification decision, the project application was withdrawn. Selection of EIR Consultant Early on in the review of the current application, staff advised the applicant that a new Environmental Impact Report would be required. The standard procedure was followed in hiring a consultant to prepare the EIR. A consultant was selected after completion of a competitive bidding process. After the County collected fees based on the selected bid amount, the County entered into a contractual services agreement with the selected consultant, Wagstaff & Associates, to prepare the EIR. After the bid was awarded, the consultant issued an administrative draft EIR which was reviewed, modified and accepted by staff for public circulation. It should be noted that the firm of Wagstaff and Associates has been retained by the County for numerous EIR contracts including, most recently, the Rancho Paraiso project. DEIR Hearing On December 22, 1988, a Notice of Completion was issued for the Alamo Summit Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) (attached) . On February 1, 1989 the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to accept testimony on the adequacy of the DEIR. At the onset of the hearing, the Commission expressed concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR as a public review document. The Commission indicated that substantial modifications would be necessary before the Commission could feel comfortable in accepting public input on a DEIR for this project. Following these comments, the Commission took testimony from the public on the DEIR. At the conclusion of the testimony, the Commission voted 6-0 (Cardinale abstaining) to reject the DEIR and to direct staff to prepare a modified DEIR. The Commission allowed for written comments to be submitted as late as February 16, 1989. The transcript from this hearing is attached. Following the Commission decision, the applicant appealed the Commission' s DEIR decision to the Board of Supervisors. Attached is a letter dated March 17, 1989 from the applicant' s legal -4- counsel, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enerson, explaining the applicant' s objections to the Commission action. Commission Concerns with DEIR At the DEIR hearing, staff requested that the Commission expressly identify why they feel the DEIR is unacceptable for public review. In addition to the oral comments from the Commission, three Commissioners (Ruch, Lehman, and Nudelman) submitted written comments. These comments are attached together with written comments from the public-at-large. Most of the comments on the document are of a detailed, technical character. The major perceived deficiencies which were identified include the following: The description of the allowable uses and densities under existing policies is misleading and inaccurate. The document is biased in favor of the project. The document does not provide sufficient review of neighborhood traffic impacts (as contrasted with community traffic impacts) , particularly with regard to the steep grade of the two access roads to the site. - The recommended community traffic mitigation measures are excessive and would conflict with community objectives. - The DEIR does not adequately address the issues and concerns raised in the EIR for the prior project (Diablo View Properties) . - The DEIR should assess impacts and mitigations based on current standards, not necessarily what was acceptable in the past. - The mitigation measures that respond to reported traffic and visual impacts tend to be vague and weak. DISCUSSION When the Alamo Summit DEIR was released for public review, staff was essentially comfortable that the document was fundamentally sound and in accord with County CEQA standards. The Alamo Summit DEIR covers all of the basic information required in a DEIR. It addresses all of the major environmental impacts (geology, soils, traffic, visual, etc. ) which might be created by the development. In some respects, the DEIR went into greater detail than is -5- typically found in County DEIR' s (e.g. , the traffic TIRE analysis, public trail reviews) . Staff was also satisfied that the analysis was conducted and reported in an objective manner. While shortcomings might be identified in the public review, staff believed that the document would essentially be received as a reasonable portrayal of the existing environmental setting, the project' s impacts and mitigation measures. Any shortcomings would be corrected in the usual manner, prior to certification of a Final EIR. The response of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to the DEIR was completely unexpected. To our knowledge, the Commission action is also unprecedented with regard to the nearly 20 years in which the County has been administering the California Environmental Quality Act. Following closure of the public comment period, staff reviewed the oral and written comments from the Commission and the public. The comments on the content of the DEIR indicate a need for clarification on the various points raised. In many instances, the comments have identified shortcomings in the document that warrant modification. However, staff respectfully disagrees with the Commission on the need to require a re-write of the DEIR and to provide a second 45-day public review period. We have found no evidence to suggest a bias by the preparers or within the content of the DEIR. While the comments received-to-date have identified some flaws with the document, none are of a magnitude that would disqualify the document for public review purposes. Staff continues to find that the Alamo Summit DEIR is essentially sound and in accord with County CEQA guidelines. Staff and the EIR consultant believe that the comments submitted to date are manageable without having to resort to a revised DEIR. Any shortcomings in the document should be corrected prior to certification of the DEIR. Moreover, requiring a re-write of the Alamo Summit DEIR would constitute an unfair burden on the applicant. The additional work would require a modification to the existing contract with the consultant and the collection of additional EIR fees from the applicant. A re-write of the DEIR would also delay the project an additional three to four months. Proposed EIR Review Procedures In lieu of a revised DEIR, staff is recommending an alternative approach. The Board should refer the DEIR back to the Commission, to the next available Commission hearing, to allow for another opportunity for public review and comment. The prior public review period should be recognized as satisfying the legal requirements of the law, but an additional opportunity (not necessarily a 45-day -6- review period) should be provided to allow for additional public comment. At the conclusion of the public comment period, the matter should be continued to allow for the preparation of a Responses-to-Comments document to address all comments received on the DEIR since December, 1988. This approach described thus far is consistent with the County practice of processing EIR' s and preparing them for certification. However, recognizing the Commission' s discomfort with the existing DEIR, a special effort should be made to address the Commission concerns prior to certification of a Final EIR. Ordinarily, the County procedure is to accept a Draft Environmental Impact Report and Responses-to-Comment document as constituting the Final EIR. Because of the numerous comments, it would be appropriate for the County to follow another approach to this project. Any modifications to the DEIR recommended in the Responses-to-Comments document should be integrated into the DEIR to constitute a new "stand-alone" Final EIR. The "stand-alone" Final EIR, together with the Responses-to-Comments document would be presented to the Commission for Final EIR Certification decision. Were the Commission not satisfied with the revised document, the Commission could instruct staff to make necessary modifications to correct any remaining deficiencies with the Final EIR. The recommended course of action is identified in Option B above. The proposed approach is encouraged by State and County CEQA guidelines. The consultant is agreeable to this approach without any modification to the existing contract. See attached letter dated March 8 , 1989. Other Options If the Board is inclined to agree with the Commission, that the existing DEIR is unacceptable for public review purposes, staff recommends that the Board follow the actions identified in Option A. This would entail re-negotiation of the existing contract with the consultant, and the collection of additional fees. Alternatively, the Board might find that the existing DEIR is adequate for public review purposes but feel that it would be appropriate for another hearing body to accept public comment and certify the DEIR. Earlier this year, the Board approved revisions to the County CEQA Guidelines to allow the Zoning Administrator to hear and certify EIR' s. Option C in the set of options described above would allow for this approach to completing the CEQA requirements for this project. While this approach is identified, it is not the preferred approach. The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission will -7- ultimately have to hear and make recommendations to the Board on the merits of the Alamo Summit project. Staff feels that the Commission should be fully involved in the environmental review decision that precedes the Commission' s review of the merits of the project. Conclusion Staff believes a re-write of the EIR is in order, however this should be accomplished only after another opportunity for public comment has been afforded and concluded. A revised "stand-alone" Final EIR should be prepared and presented to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission for certification decision. RHD:plp/SRIV BEFORE THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEAL - Rejection of Draft Environmental Impact Report Alamo Summit, File #2776-RZ Alamo Summit, Inc. (Applicant and Owner) WHEREAS, an application was filed with the Community Development Department on December 24, 1987, by Alamo Summit, Inc. (Applicant and Owner) ( #2776-RZ) for approval to rezone 187 acres from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Planned Unit District (P-1) and for preliminary development plan approval for 37 residential lots; the subject project is identified as the Alamo Summit project; and WHEREAS, after preparation of an initial environmental study on May 9, 1988, staff concluded that an environmental impact report on the project would be required to be prepared and certified prior to hearing on the merits of the project; and WHEREAS, on May 13, 1988, a Notice of Preparation of the Environmental Impact Report was issued in accord with State and County California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, and was distributed to nearby residents and community organizations and was published in a local newspaper; and WHEREAS, after receiving comments on the Notice of Preparation, the County selected a private consultant to prepare the EIR; and WHEREAS, an Administrative Draft EIR was received from the consultant and accepted by staff subject to modifications; and WHEREAS, on December 22, 1988 , a Draft Environmental Impact Report was issued and a Notice of Completion of said EIR was circulated to interested parties and published in accord with State and County CEQA guidelines; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 1989, a public hearing was held before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to receive oral testimony on the DEIR. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that on February 1, 1989, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission REJECTED the Alamo Summit Draft Environmental Impact Report and DIRECTED that a revised DEIR be prepared and re-circulated. APPEAL - Alamo Summit DEIR Page 2 The foregoing order was given by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on Wednesday, February 1, 1989, in a regular meeting as follows: AYES: Commissioners - Moore, Nudelman, Auch, Kaye, Lehman, Cameron NOES: Commissioners - None ABSENT: Commissioners - None ABSTAIN: Commissioners - Cardinale BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that on Friday, February 10, 1989, Alamo Summit, Inc. appealed the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission' s decision to your Board for public hearing and determination. FRANK G. CAMERON Chairman of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: Ha ey E. rag n, Secretary of t San R on alley Regional anning Co ssion, County of Contra Cost State of California HEB:plpSRIV -A McCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN COUNSELORS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 1855 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD THIRD FLOOR WALNUT CREEK OFFICE TELEX 34-0817 SAN JOSE POST OFFICE BOX V FACSIMILE GI, II AND 111 WASHINGTON, O.G. SHANGHAI WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596-1270 _ (415)930-2390 TAIPEI TELEPHONE(415) 937-8000 CABLE ADDRESS MACPAG February 10, 1989 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Alamo Summit - Appeal of Action by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission regarding Environmental Impact Report County File 2776-RZ Our File No . 72571. 001 Dear President and Members of the Board: 1 A public hearing was held on February 1, 1989 by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission ("Commission") , to accept public testimony on a Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "Draft EIR") covering a development proposal by our client, Alamo Summit, Inc'. , the applicant and owner (".Applicant" ) of approximately 187 acres located in Alamo (County File No . 2776-RZ) . This hearing was conducted before the February 10 deadline for submission of public comments on the Draft EIR (according to the February 1 staff report) . At the close of public testimony, the Commission apparently voted to completely reject the entire Draft EIR as inadequate, and to require preparation of a new EIR. This letter is submitted on behalf of the Applicant to appeal the action by the Commission to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors . Enclosed please find the fee of $100 to cover this appeal. Without limiting the grounds for appeal which may be presented by the Applicant, the grounds for this appeal include the reasons set forth below. First, the purpose of the hearing before the Commission was solely to receive public testimony concerning the Draft EIR. There was no indication in the published public notice or warning directly to the Applicant that the Commission might consider such action. It was inappropriate for the Commission unilaterally to prematurely terminate the County' s a Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors February 10 , 1989 Page 2 official comment period and discard the Draft EIR. See State CEQA Guidelines §§ 15087, 15201-15203 . The Commission failed to expressly identify which aspects of the Draft EIR it considered inadequate, and did not specify what additional information or analysis would cure perceived deficiencies . The DEIR was circulated for public review and comment. The recognized procedure is that comments from the public and directions from County officials regarding specific deficiencies or unresolved questions in the Draft EIR are addressed by preparing responses containing any needed additional analysis . See State CEQA Guidelines §§ 15088, 15204 . The comments and responses together with the Draft EIR will constitute the Final EIR. Wholesale rejection of the Draft EIR without direction as to its inadequacies is inappropriate, inequitable, unproductive and contrary to established County and state CEQA procedures . The public record contains no criticism of the Draft EIR. The four comment letters received by the County as of February 1, 1989 (attached to the Staff Report to the Commission) do not complain of any inadequacy in the Draft EIR. Comments submitted by area residents addressed the project itself, but not the quality of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR has been supervised and reviewed by all appropriate County departments, and no objections were submitted by County staff . The hearing conducted by the Commission on February 1 appears to violate the public meeting law. Government Code § 54950 est sea. (the "Brown Act") . Published notice for the public hearing designated a starting time of 7 :30 p.m. However, the Commission apparently began the hearing on the Draft EIR at 7: 00 p.m. Curiously, opponents of the project also were at the meeting place one-half hour early. When the Applicant arrived at the hearing at 7:30 p.m. that evening, the Commission already had been receiving public testimony for thirty minutes . Supposedly, the Commission rejected a suggestion at 7: 00 p.m. that the hearing be delayed until the Applicant arrived. Not having heard that missed testimony, the Applicant was not able to respond to comments or criticisms received by the Commission. The Applicant understands that most of the oral testimony related to criticism of the proposed project itself , not the adequacy of the Draft EIR -- just as with the written comments received by the County. It appears that there is no foundation in the record for the Commission ' s action rejecting the entire Draft EIR. ' Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors February 10, 1989 Page 3 The County employed a skilled, reputable EIR consultant approved by County staff, Wagstaff and Associates . This firm followed generally accepted practices under the supervision of County planners . To date, approximately $45-50, 000 has been spent by the Applicant for preparation of the Draft EIR. The Commission' s action -would appear to require the Applicant to prepare an entire new EIR, subject to a second period of public review and comment. This procedure would unfairly burden the Applicant with considerable additional expense, and is contrary to the requirements of County and state CEQA regulations . We are not demanding that the Draft EIR be certified as is . Instead, we believe the County must provide specific direction to the environmental consultant selected by County staff, identifying those particular portions of the Draft EIR which may be in need of revision. We hereby preserve the Applicant ' s right to appeal to the Board on matters or testimony presented to the Commission prior to the noticed 7: 30 p.m. starting time for the February 1 hearing. Werequest that the Board set this appeal for hearing at the earliest possible date. Very truly yours, McCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN BY EdwardL• affer ELS:new/2 1242U cc: William M. Sembrat -"Richard Clarke Carl Wandry Clerk of the Board David A. Gold McCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN COUNSELORS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 1855 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD,THIRD FLOOR WALNUT CREEK OFFICE SAN JOSE TELEX 34-0817 POST OFFICE BOX V WASHINGTON, D.C. FACSIMILE GI, II AND III SHANGHAI WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596-1270 (415)930-2390 TAIPEI TELEPHONE (415) 937-8000 CABLE ADDRESS MACPAG March 17, 1989 HAND DELIVERED Co Mr . Harvey E. Bragdon M• r Yom' Director of Community Development rMCI Contra Costa County Community Development Department w County Administration Building ►` 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, N. Wing 4 Martinez, CA 94553 r x' C3 C Alamo Summit - Appeal of Action by the % San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Regarding Environmental Impact Report County File 2776-RZ Our File No . 72571 . 001. Dear Mr . Bragdon: To date the County has failed to set the requested appeal to the action taken by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission ( "Commission" ) on February 1 , 1989 in regard to County File No . 2776-RZ . On February 10 , 1989 , I filed with the Clerk of the County Board of Supervisors a timely appeal letter on behalf of Alamo Summit, Inc . , the applicant and owner of the subject property. Thereafter, on February 21 , 1989, I received a letter from Ms . Mary Fleming, Chief of Land Development, which acknowledged receipt of the appeal letter and advised me that I will be notified by the Clerk of the Board when the appeal is scheduled for hearing before the Board. On behalf of Alamo Summit, Inc . , we protest the delay in scheduling the hearing, and we request your assistance in expediting this matter . Five weeks now have passed since our letter was filed, but the appeal before the Board has not yet been scheduled. We met with Mr . Robert Drake on March 6, and spoke with Mr . Karl Wandry on March 7 , at which time they agreed to schedule the hearing for April 11 , 1989 -- which would be two full months after the appeal . However, the Clerk Harvey E. Bragdon March 17, 1989 Page 2 of the Board has not been contacted by the planning staff and no hearing date has yet been set for April 11 or any other date. The action taken by the Commission which is the subject of our appeal represents an aberration from recognized CEQA procedure. The Commission conducted a public hearing, ostensibly for the purpose of accepting public comment concerning a Draft EIR for Alamo Summit ' s proposed project . Oral and written comments received by the Commission and staff later would be used to prepare a Responses document . Eventually, the Final EIR would be submitted to the Commission and then evaluated for adequacy. However, the Commission took the unprecedented action at its February 1 hearing of voting to completely reject the entire Draft EIR as inadequate, and to require preparation and recirculation of a new Draft EIR. This vote occurred before close of the public comment period (on February 15) , before staff or the consultant hired by the County could review the comments received, before additional research and evaluation could be conducted and formal responses could be prepared. A significant delay has occurred in the schedule for EIR processing as a result of the Commission' s action. Ordinarily, now that the period for submission of comments has ended, County staff would be working with the environmental consultant to respond to comments , conduct additional environmental analysis as required, and produce Responses and a Final EIR. However, the EIR process is at a standstill , awaiting resolution of our appeal by the Board of Supervisors . Alamo Summit appealed to the Board to obtain a speedy determination and allow the EIR process to continue . However, more time now has been lost than if an appeal had not been filed. County Subdivision Ordinance Section 26-2 . 2412 calls for .appeals of Planning Commission actions to be heard. by the Board within 30 days after filing. Section 14-4 . 006 more generally directs hearings on appeals to be promptly set at an early Board meeting. Given the lead time needed to prepare the required materials, schedule the hearing, and provide public notice, we fear that another month or more may pass before this appeal finally is heard -- two and one-half months after being requested. Due process demands proper treatment of this matter . We understood that the normal operations of County staff were disrupted by illness during February, and we were sympathetic to the delays in our obtaining copies of the written comments submitted and a transcript of the Commission' s Harvey E; Bragdon March 17, 1989 Page 3 hearing. We are writing this letter now because it does not appear that any action has been taken by planning staff since our last contacts on March 6-7 , and the commitment to an April 11 hearing may not be met . We do not know when County planning staff intend to schedule the hearing, or whether they have begun preparing the necessary documentation. We and our clients have attempted to cooperate with staff on this matter, but communication has been difficult throughout this period. We call your attention also to the one-year time limit for the County to act on development applications under the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 et seg. ) . Its provisions require the County to act expeditiously and avoid delays in processing environmental reviews and project applications, and Alamo Summit may consider seeking recourse to the Act . If you have any questions regarding this letter , please contact me immediately. Very truly yours , McCUTCHEN,DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN B Y Edward L. 611affer ELS :new/4 01300 Enclosure cc : Clerk of the Board Karl L. Wandry Mary Fleming Robert Drake William Sembrat Richard Clark David A. Gold Wagstaff and Associates Urban and Environmental Planning Parker Plaza, 2550 Ninth Street, Suite 205 Berkeley,CA 94710 (415)540-0303 March 8, 1989 Mr. Robert Drake, Senior Planner Contra Costa County Community Development 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California ,94553 RE: RECOMMENDED RESPONSE TO SAN RAMON VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNS REGARDING ALAMO SUMMIT DRAFT EIR ADEQUACY Dear Bob: As I explained in our telephone conversation today, we recommend that the following approach be advocated to the Board of Supervisors by county staff in response to San Ramon Valley Planning Commission concerns regarding the adequacy of the Alamo Summit Draft EIR: Rather than submitting another Draft EIR, an approach which may be inconsistent with state (CEQA) EIR guidelines, we should offer instead to submit a revised stand-alone, Final EIR which includes: (1) a Preface summarizing the overall EIR process and describing the Final EIR background, preparation, approach, and content, (2) a revised EIR text, including all revisions to the Draft EIR warranted in response to the substantive environmental points raised by the Commission and others during the public review period, with each change indicted by a bold r in the margin adjacent to the revised line, and (3) a Response-to-Comments section which includes an index to all comments received (by subject), a written response to all substantive environmental points raised, and an indication of where changes have been incorporated in the Final EIR text in response to the comments. We have enclosed an example of such a "stand-alone" Final EIR format for your review (the Westridge 4 & 5 Final EIR, City of Petaluma). As you know, this "stand-alone" Final EIR approach would go considerably beyond the county's normal Final EIR addendum procedure (the county typically prepares a response-to-comments addendum, which together with the Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR). The alternative approach that we propose would provide the Commission and Board with a complete, stand-alone, overhauled Final EIR document, which supersedes the earlier Draft EIR. In effect, the Draft would be discarded, and the Mr. Robert Drake *March 8, 1989 Page 2 stand-alone Final would be used as the information base for subsequent Commission and Board action on the project. In preparing the Final EIR, we would re-evaluate all sections of the Draft which have been cited by the Commission and others in the public review process as possibly deficient, and would incorporate the revisions necessary to cure perceived inadequacies. We would also incorporate any impact finding or mitigation recommendation refinements derived from the additional Alameda whipsnake field study which will be undertaken in April by Dr. Samuel McGinnis. Since the Draft EIR has indicated that (1) the snake may be present in the site's scrub patch areas, (2) the potential impact of related project components may be significant, and (3) a redesign of these areas of the project may be warranted, the results of the McGinnis Spring filed study are not expected to raise any new issues. Rather, the survey will more fully ascertain the actual presence and abundance of this species on the project site, and will more definitely determine to what degree the associated habitat preservation measures described in the Draft EIR (lot and layout modifications) will be necessary. The stand-alone Final EIR, together with a staff report and recommendation by county staff, would be submitted to the Commission for review. Under county and state EIR guidelines, the Commission could then take one of two actions: (1) recommend to the Board that the Final EIR be certified as adequate or; (2) request additional information in the form of a revised Final EIR, EIR Addendum, or Supplemental EIR. We believe that this approach will allow us to prepare a Final EIR which fully responds to the Commission's concerns and includes the necessary revisions to cure any perceived deficiencies or unresolved questions regarding the Draft EIR. We also believe that this approach, the preparation of a revised, stand-alone Final EIR, as opposed to the more typical response-to-comments addendum, would demonstrate an extraordinary degree of county staff and consultant responsiveness to the Commission's concerns, but in a manner which is in keeping with CEQA guidelines. Sincerely, W,.4GPTAFF AND ASSOCIATES #JohnWagstaff JW:ai:3o7 cc: James Cutler, Chief of Advance Planning Karl Wandry, Deputy Director