Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS. Browne Letter - Lafco sewer connLAW OFFICES OF P. SCOTT BR~WNE The 0[d Post affrcc 13I South Auburn Street Grass Valley, California 95945fi501 Scott ascottbrowne.com {530) 272250 Fax{530) 272-16$4 January 20, 2011 Ann Schwab, Mayor City of Chico P.O. Box 3420 41 I Main Street Chico, CA 95927 RE: Extension of Sewer Services without LAFCo Approval Dear Mayor Schwab: A[VI}REW HARRIS Associate andvfa~scottbrowne.com MARSHA A. Bi1RCH Of Couase! marsha~scottbrowne.cam SRS JAN x ~ 2or~ ORO~~<<~` ~41.IF ORN1~ This letter is written at the direction of the Butte Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to advise the City to cease and desist from allowing further sewer connections without first obtaining LAFCo approval. LAFCo was recently advised of the City's connection of the property of Victoria McArthur, at 1246 Stewart Ave before seeking LAFCo approval and has xeviewed past connections after the sewer connection had already occurred. The McArthur service request (LAFCO File No. 11-04} was denied by LAFCO which determined that the annexation of the parcel was both feasible and preferable to extending services by contract. It appears from information provided to LAFCo that other connections have been made or are being considered. The Commission is now requesting the City provide a complete Iist of all sewer connections provided to unincorporated parcels in order to determine compliance with the law. As we have advised the City in writing at least twice before, §56133 of the Government Code requires LAFCo approval before any such extensions of service are provided. LAFCo must insist that this law be respected by the City and followed. Please understand that LAFCo supportive of, the significant efforts made to provide public sewer to homes within the area affected by the Chico Nitrate Compliance Program. However we are concerned that providing sewer service without LAFCo consideration or annexation, not only violates state law, but also will result in the continued existence of multiple unincorporated islands within the City. Because these islands will have already been provided with the critical municipal services--sewer service from the City and public water from Cal Water--they will have little reason to ever seek or support annexation to the City. The result would be the continuation of fragmented City boundaries which would be inconsistent with LAFCo's core objectives of encouraging orderly, logical boundaries and the efficient delivery of overall municipal services in the urban area. That islands create inefficient service patterns is well known. The Citypolice and fire personnel no doubt are frequently the first responders into these areas xather than the County sheriff and County Fire Department. Yet the County must also respond as well, putting demands on already strained County services to the detriment of rural County residents. This is an important LAFCo consideration when reviewing boundary and service delivery issues. Furthermore, the selective provision of limited municipal services by the City creates governance and environmental justice concerns. Not only does it result in fragmented land use decision-making, but the residents of the island areas are materially affected by the decisions made by the City Council, yet have no vote and little say on such decisions. \'` ,~- z ~~ ~ ~ ~'~ Letter from Butte LAFCo to the City of Chico Re: Extension of Sewer Services without LAFCo Approval This would seem of particular concern to the City and inconsistent with the City's efforts to promote diversity and inclusiveness of underrepresented populations. . The Commission has appointed a subcommittee under the direction of the Chair to assist the LAFCo Executive Officer in addressing the issues raised in this letter. The Committee would like to meet with a similar connnaittee of the Council and possibly the County to develop a plan that meets the needs of all affected entities. It is important to note the while the City and County have regularly met to address sewer service issues, LAFCo has been conspicuously absent from this dialogue. The Commission is confident that if the City, LAFCo and the County work together, a plan can be developed that will allow sewer connections to proceed, but without the continuation or creation of permanent unincorporated islands. LAFCo looks forward to hearing from the City with regards to this proposal. ht the meantime, we must insist that the City comply with the law and not connect properties outside the City to City sewer until they have received LAFCo approval. Sincerely, L~W OFFICES OF P. SCOTT BROWNS r -~ - P. Scott Browne LAFCo Counsel cc: Stephen Lucas, LAFCo Executive Officer LAFCo Dave BurkIand, City Manager Fritz McKinley, City Director Building and Development Services Mark Wolfe, City Planning Services Director Lori Barker, City Attorney Chair of the Board of Supervisors Paul Hahn, County CAO NOTE: All City copied correspondence should go to: City of Chico P.O. Box 3420 411 Maizt Sixeet Chico, CA 95927 All County correspondence: 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 2