title
Consider certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan Project; Consider adoption of the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan, making Findings of Fact and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and Consider ratification of the Master Development Agreement among the Middle Green Valley Landowners and the County of Solano
body
Published Notice Required? Yes _X__ No _ _
Public Hearing Required? Yes _X__ No ___
DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Resource Management recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Read the proposed ordinances by title only and waive further reading of the ordinances, and
2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment A):
CERTIFYING the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan Project consisting of:
i. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan, December 2009, (on file with the Clerk of the Board);
ii. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan (Responses to Comments on and Revisions to the Draft EIR), April 2010 and Errata #1, (on file with the Clerk of the Board);
iii. Revised Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan, June 2014;
iv. Responses to Comments on and Revisions to the Revised Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan, November 2014;
v. Second Revised Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan, June 2016; and
vi. Responses to Comments on the Second Revised Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan, October 2016
ADOPTING the following documents related to the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan Project (Attachment A):
i. CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
ii. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
3. Enact an ordinance (Attachment B):
ADOPTING the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan and Rezoning the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan Area, including Exhibit A to the ordinance consisting of: (1) the “Middle Green Valley Specific Plan, Solano County, California, Adopted July 27, 2010” together with “Specific Plan Errata No. 1,” which together reflect the action of the Board of Supervisors in adopting the Specific Plan on July 27, 2010 (including matters approved and authorized by the Board at its hearing on July 27, 2010, the Specific Plan draft dated December 2009, and revisions recommended by Attachment G to the July 27, 2010 Staff Report “Recommended Text Amendments, Amended Figures, and Amended TDR Table”); together with (2) the “Text Added to the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan Describing Water Supply Option C (SID Surface Water).”
4. Enact an ordinance (Attachment C):
RATIFYING the Master Development Agreement (DA) among the Middle Green Valley Landowners and the County of Solano, which includes the related Sales Participation Agreement, recorded on April 13, 2015.
SUMMARY:
The Middle Green Valley Specific Plan, EIR, and Development Agreement are back before the Board for consideration and action due to litigation on the previously approved Specific Plan and EIR. The Plan was originally approved by the Board on July 27, 2010 and later rescinded on May 22, 2012 following a Court order. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the County to provide greater analysis in the EIR of a second potable water source for the proposed development. In accordance with the Court’s direction, this analysis was completed, and a third option for water supply (SID) was identified and analyzed. On November 25, 2014, the Board reapproved the Plan and EIR components with the addition of a revised water supply discussion in the Specific Plan (which adds the SID option) and a revised water supply discussion in the EIR (which provides additional analysis of groundwater and added analysis of the SID option). The revised water supply analysis demonstrated that sufficient potable water is available under each of the three water supply options: City of Fairfield, groundwater, and SID. The revised EIR was then submitted to the Court with a request to discharge the writ. After review, the Court concluded that the additional water supply evaluation was adequate, but the EIR neglected to analyze and disclose the potential effects to riparian vegetation and associated habitat as a result of groundwater pumping to serve water to the Plan area. As a result, the Court did not discharge the writ. Since that time, staff and its consultants have developed further analysis of the potential effects to biological resources resulting from groundwater pumping. This analysis was included in the recently circulated Second Revised Recirculated Draft EIR. A total of three written comment letters were received and responded to in the Final EIR. If the updated EIR is certified by the Board, and the Specific Plan and DA are reapproved, the approval documents will be submitted back to the Court along with another request to discharge the writ.
Upon final approval of the Plan, the Plan will provide the overall land use and zoning entitlement of the area. Tentative map applications may be filed for a portion of or the entire Specific Plan area, depending on finances and market demand.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The MGV Specific Plan budget has been part of Resource Management’s approved budget since FY2008/09, amounting to $1,658,245 (as calculated through March 2015), and is funded by the County General Fund. Staff and consultant costs will be recalculated and brought up to date once the Board takes action pursuant to stipulations in the Development Agreement (DA), but is anticipated to total approximately $1,738,245 based on recent consultant costs incurred. The contract amount, for consultant assistance in developing the EIR, Specific Plan, and Master Development Agreement, in addition to Resource Management and a portion of County Counsel staff time, will be reimbursed to the County. Section 3.12 of the Master DA requires landowners to reimburse the County for these initial county planning costs through a fee applied to each building permit. Though these initial County costs will be reimbursed through the building permit process, there would be additional project related costs if the Plan is implemented. There will be costs associated with the processing of tentative subdivision maps and establishment of a County Service Area and Community Facilities District. At this time it is anticipated that these costs will be covered by applicants for development.
DISCUSSION:
The Middle Green Valley Specific Plan encompasses approximately 1,900 acres, consisting of the Green Valley floor and extending west into the foothills of the Western Hills. The Plan implements the 2008 General Plan which included this area as a special study area with specific requirements as noted in the analysis section of this report. The Plan is unique in that it provides for 400 new single family attached and detached homes in combination with the permanent protection of about 1,500 acres in conservation and agricultural easements through tools such as clustering of homesites and a transfer of development rights (TDR) program. The Plan not only serves as a Specific Plan, addressing all requirements under California planning law (i.e. land use, utility infrastructure, standards for development and conservation, implementation, and relationship to the General Plan), but also serves to rezone the area. It provides for an array of housing types, community buildings, and neighborhood commercial uses, and includes design review standards to ensure that all development meets the intent of the Plan and is in harmony with the rural and agricultural setting of MGV. The Plan and DA also include a mechanism for the County to recover its planning investment as building permits are issued, including return of principal as well as interest. The Plan enhances the future of agriculture, supporting institutional and financial arrangements to advance agriculture in the area. The Plan accomplishes conservation, and addresses development pressures in the area in a reasonable way. The Plan is well-designed, requiring that portions that are to be developed will be aesthetically attractive, and incorporating advanced principles and techniques of sustainable development.
The discussion below is intended to focus on the work effort that has been completed recently based on direction from the Court. Should the Board wish to review the Specific Plan’s history, key elements in the Specific Plan, a summary of the Master Development Agreement, and related General Plan policies, these items can be found as attachments to this report.
Comments Received on the Second Revised Recirculated DEIR (SRRDEIR)
As previously described, the court directed the County to provide further environmental analysis of how the use of community groundwater wells could impact biological resources in the plan area. As a result of this direction, Chapter 6 (Biological Resources) of the RRDEIR has been updated with an analysis and discussion of whether utilization of groundwater wells could impact surface biological resources. Because only Chapter 6 was revised, it was the only section of the SRRDEIR to be circulated for public comment, and the public was advised to only comment on issues resulting from the changes in this chapter. After the close of the 45-day comment period, comments had been submitted by the Upper Green Valley Homeowners (UGH), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and Bryant Washburne.
The full set of comments and the County’s responses to those comments are included in the Responses to Comments on and Revisions to the Second Revised Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, and incorporated into the FEIR. The following provides a brief summary of the some of the key comments in the letters:
Comments received from Bryant Washburne: Mr. Washburne lives on Vintage Lane and is concerned that his well will be impacted by the possible use of community groundwater wells that serve any new development.
Summary of County response: While use of groundwater wells is not the County’s preferred method of water supply to the proposed development, it remains a potential option. As explained in the 2014 RRDEIR, prior to approval of any subdivision maps, the County must develop a Water Master Plan. This Plan will address specific well locations, depths, pumping, filtration, disinfection, storage, and distribution. The Plan will also include the drilling of test wells in various locations to obtain further site specific aquifer data which will inform the exact locations of future community wells in areas that do not interfere with existing wells and surface water.
Comments received from CDFW: CDFW’s comments relate primarily to proposed mitigation to address potential impacts to oak woodlands and to address loss of Swainsons Hawk foraging habitat.
Summary of County response: Regarding potential impacts to oak woodlands, Mitigation Measure 6-3 requires site specific development projects in the plan area to submit an oak woodland management plan, prepared by a trained arborist. This plan will be consistent with the Oak Woodlands Conservation Act of 2001 and require monitoring to ensure that newly planted oak trees are surviving. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 6-1 requires future project development proponents to prepare a biological resources assessment report which contains a focused evaluation of project specific impacts on biological resources. If that assessment determines that oak woodland areas will be affected, the assessment must identify avoidance, minimization, and/or compensatory mitigation measures that must be consistent with the requirements of Measure 6-3.
As discussed in the SRRDEIR, potential impacts to Swainsons Hawk were evaluated in the 2009 DEIR Impacts 6-10. Several species of tall trees in the riparian corridors of the plan area provide suitable nesting habitat for Swainsons hawk, and the cropland in the plan area provides suitable foraging habitat. This SRRDEIR focuses its analysis on potential impacts to habitat as a result of groundwater pumping. As such, a drawdown or reduction of water in riparian corridors could impact Swainsons hawk nesting habitat. However, of the more shallow rooted, water dependent species in the riparian areas, only Gooddings black willow grows tall enough to provide suitable nesting habitat. Potential indirect effects of groundwater pumping to the Gooddings black willow would occur slowly over multiple breeding seasons and, as a result, would not negate the ability to successfully nest. As such, this potential indirect impact would be less than significant.
Potential impact to Swainsons hawk foraging habitat will be evaluated and mitigated as necessary at such time that site specific biological assessments and field surveys are done prior to development. Further consultation with CDFW will be required if a development project is determined to have potential impacts to foraging habitat pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act.
Comments received from Amber Kemble (Representing Upper Green Valley Homeowners): Ms. Kemble’s letter details many comments. Notable among them are the following: that the SRRDEIR does not provide for additional mitigation measures/performance standards with respect to future well testing and monitoring; that the document does not evaluate a contingency to reduce the project’s water use if its eventually determined that the siting of the wells potentially impact the creeks; and that the SRRDEIR does not adequately discuss and mitigate the potential biological resources impacts from delays in recharge following multiple drought years.
Summary of County responses: As Mitigation Measure 16-2a requires, new wells must be sited and designed to avoid interference between new water supply wells, existing wells, and surface water, which in turn would protect habitat. Specific siting and design would be evaluated as part of the process for developing the Water Master Plan as required in Measure 16-1. Future discretionary developments, such as tentative subdivision maps, will undergo project specific evaluation to determine whether the potential impacts of the development project were fully evaluated in the Specific Plan EIR or whether additional environmental review would be required. As such, since the County does not have site specific development proposed at this time, incorporating performance standards would be premature.
Further, there is no need at this time to evaluate a “contingency” plan that would reduce water use. As previously stated, site specific evaluation will be conducted at the time that further discretionary development is proposed. The County’s evaluation at that time will determine if mitigation measures incorporated into this SRRDEIR are sufficient or if additional mitigation measures are needed to address potential site and project specific impacts identified during the future development review.
While the text above only serves to provide a briefing of some of the comments submitted, all of the comment letters and the County’s responses to these comments can be found in the document, “Responses to Comments on and Revisions to the Second Revised Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report”, previously submitted to Board members and which is incorporated into the FEIR. This document is also on file with the Department of Resource Management and available for review at the County’s webpage: <https://admin.solanocounty.com:4433/depts/rm/planning/middle_green_valley_specific_plan.asp>
Note on Attachments
Due to file size, the documents referenced as attached to this report can be accessed via the links in the attached list, in addition to being on file with the Clerk of the Board. The Specific Plan, CEQA documents, and Master Development Agreement can also all be found on the MGV Specific Plan webpage at: <https://admin.solanocounty.com:4433/depts/rm/planning/middle_green_valley_specific_plan.asp>
ALTERNATIVES:
The Board could choose not to certify the Final EIR, adopt the MGV Specific Plan or ratify the Master DA. Staff does not recommend this alternative. The Plan before the Board at this time represents approximately six years of intensive work, cooperation, and coordination among County staff, consultants, landowners, the neighboring community, and many helpful agencies. The Plan, as proposed, meets the Goal and all Policies set forth in the 2008 General Plan relating to the MGV Special Study Area.
OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT:
The MGV Specific Plan was prepared with guidance from a Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC). The CAC convened twelve times to review and provide input on the various aspects of the draft Plan during its development. The draft Specific Plan and associated Draft EIR were submitted for review to regional and state agencies for consistency with their respective plans and policies as required by state law, including the Solano County Airport Land Use Commission, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Conservation, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
On May 7, 2009 and August 6, 2009 the Planning Commission conducted public study sessions to provide comments on the Specific Plan development process. Another study session was provided before the Board on May 12, 2009. On January 28, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to receive public comments on the original Draft EIR, and on May 20, 2010 made recommendations to the Board on the Draft Specific Plan, EIR, and Master DA.
As described, SID is a potential source of water for the development, and has approved its own WSA for the future development in MGV. The SID Board of Directors will need to authorize supplying water to the Plan area as its next step.
The County Administrator and County Counsel have reviewed this item and concur with the recommendations.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION