Planning Commission questions benefits of Alhambra Valley annexation

TUESDAY — In response to City staff’s assertion that a portion of Alhambra Valley (AV) must be annexed at the insistence of the Contra Costa County Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO), Commissioner Donna Allen floated a completely different solution at Tuesday’s Planning Commission meeting.

“Why can’t the City form its own water district?” asked Allen. “Then we wouldn’t have out-of-area service agreement anymore.”

According to Assistant City Manager Karen Majors, LAFCO is putting pressure on the City to annex Alhambra Valley in order to finally execute a number of deferred annexation agreements compulsorily signed by AV property buyers seeking water service hookup from the City over the past two decades.

“LAFCO recently completed the state mandated municipal service review for Martinez … the report discussed the number of water service accounts outside the City’s current boundaries,” Majors wrote in a Dec. 8 report to Planning Commissioners. “Without the proposed annexation it will become exceedingly difficult for new residential development … outside the City’s boundaries to be served by City of Martinez water as LAFCO is becoming much more critical of ‘out of area’ service agreements.”

Although Tuesday evening’s discussion was informational, in anticipation of a January agenda of zoning decisions necessary for a formal LAFCO annexation application, the Commission’s prevailing response was one of skepticism over the City’s alleged motives for seeking annexation.

“I would be interested in knowing what benefit the City sees [in annexing Alhambra Valley], if any, other than the water [agreements],” said Allen.

“The City would have a modest revenue vs. expenditure loss initially, but when new development takes place in the properties that are not developed but inside this annexation area that will be needing water in order to move forward…once those were developed we would  have a modest revenue surplus.”

She specified three properties, including a 23-lot subdivision, at the intersection of Reliez Valley Road and Alhambra Valley Road — “the old Christmas tree lots,” explained Majors, referring to land owned by the Busby family. Commissioner Lynette Busby recused herself from the discussion.

A Gazette article on Tuesday about the annexations referred to a consultant report that included figures for the initial annexation proposal put forth in May.

However, “the final fiscal impact information that was presented to LAFCO in June, 2009 indicated that the Alhambra Valley annexation would include only Area A (see Google Earth picture). Conservatively estimated, Area A would initially have a net negative impact of $56,138 [per year] and at build-out, a positive financial impact of $27,425 [annually],” said Majors.

Commissioners also asked numerous questions as to why the proposed Alhambra Valley annexation area had significantly shrunk over the past year.

“Looks like cherry stemming to me,” said Allen, and Harriett Burt added, “Cherry stemming three miles from the actual fruit.”

Majors confirmed the City had dropped a 1995 annexation bid due to overwhelming opposition by residents. The current proposed area doesn’t include many City-water AV customers, despite being classified as ‘out-of-area,’ Majors said, “because we would hit the protest limit.”

Majors was referring to annexation rules stipulating that “if more than 50 percent [of AV property owners and residents] ‘protest’ the annexation application [would be] dead. The terms and conditions of our deferred annexation agreements prohibit property owners from protesting the annexation. However if the annexation goes to a vote, property owners with deferred annexation agreements are not constrained by the terms of their agreement,” according to the Dec. 8 City staff report.

The Planning Commission will vote on this issue in January.