Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09101991 - 1.12 (2) I-x.20 ...4 e o Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .;' f" Y FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON Costa - in.. t , DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT co'frq.-�•--n;t.� u� fly DATE: September 10, 1991 SUBJECT: BOARD REFERRAL - JULY 9, 1991, LETTER FROM CITY OF WALNUT CREEK - OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION, NORTHGATE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. ACCEPT report from Director of Community Development responding to the July 9, 1991 letter from the City of Walnut Creek regarding joint City-County purchase of operr' Space in the Northgate Specific Plan area. i 2 . DECLARE the Boards intent to participate with , the,-City sof Walnut Creek and other interested agencies in development ;,of " financing for acquisition of the surplus property-owned;�by the : €<`. Flood Control District in the Northgate area and the Boards willingness to consider all financing options including developer fees and assessment districts that are applied uniformity to City and County areas involved. 3 . DIRECT the Director of Community Development to work with the City of Walnut Creek to establish a Northgate area open space acquisition committee consisting of representatives from each agency interested in participating in acquisition of the surplus Flood Control District property as open space. FISCAL IMPACT Staff time to work on committee efforts. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEND ON OF BP COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : — ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY 'THAT THIS ISA UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND 'ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: CAO PHIL #hTCHELORj CLERK OF Milt Kubicek THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel D COUNT ADMINISTRATOR City of Walnut Creek BY v , DEPUTY EBRPD State Parks via CDD hs/msc3:ngatesp.bos _ F < BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On June 25, 1991, the Board of Supervisors adopted the North Gate Specific Plan. The City of Walnut Creek is scheduled to consider adoption of the same specific plan on September 10, 1991. The -preparation of the specific plan was overseen by a Walnut Creek/County Liaison Committee consisting of Supervisors Schroder and McPeak and Walnut Creek Council members - Evelyn Munn and Gail Murray. On July 9, 1991, Council members Munn and Murray sent a letter to Supervisor Schroder (copy attached) asking the County to clarify its intent to work toward acquisition of the surplus Flood Control District Pine Creek Detention Basin property and to indicate if the Board will consider different financing vehicles to help accomplish that goal. On July 23 , 1991, the Flood Control District, pursuant to the specific plan intent, sent a letter to the City indicating they would have to execute on option on the property if they wanted to hold the current appraised value. The discussion of the Walnut Creek Liaison Committee members made it clear that the intent was to work toward public acquisition of this land. Acceptance of this recommendation would clarify that the County concurs in the Committee intent. It is proposed to establish a working- staff committee to develop a financing plan for the acquisition of a portion, or hopefully all, of the surplus property. The Committee should consist of the City, the County, the East Bay Regional Park District and the State Department of Parks and Recreation. The Committee's goal would be to devise a financing program for total or partial acquisition of the site. They should attempt to develop such a plan within 6 months of their first meeting. Prior to the committee's report, 'recommendation on acquisition, it would be premature for the County to specify what other financial mechanisms are appropriate for utilization in the acquisition. It should be reinforced, however, that acquisition of the entire site is the desired outcome. The city requests further urges the Board to commit to new meetings before any changes are made in the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan already commits the Board to that approach and no further action appears required. On the issue of modifications to the Specific Plan, State Planning law specifies the procedure, Amendments are heard at noticed public hearings in a manner identical to the adoption of the original plan. Hearing are required before both the County Planning Commission and the Board 'of Supervisors. Staff anticipates that should any amendments to the specific plan be proposed, that they will only be considered upon discussion with City staff to determine the appropriate procedure for City-County coordination of those changes hs/msc3 mgatesp.bos