HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09201994 - 1.1 (2) TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: VICTOR J. WESTMAN, COUNTY COUNSEL
By: Sharon L. Anderson, Deputy County Counsel
DATE: September 20, 1994
SUBJECT: Agreement Between Contra Costa County, Caltrans, BART,
and the Contra Costa Transportation Agency for the Joint
Exercise of the Power of Eminent Domain For the State Route
4/Bailey Road Interchange Improvement Project
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMMENDATIONS
APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director or his designee
to execute an Agreement between Contra Costa County, Caltrans,
BART and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for the Joint
Exercise of the Power of Eminent Domain for the State Route
4/Bailey Road Interchange Improvement Project .
II. FISCAL IMPACT
Nominal
III. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The State Route 4/Bailey Road Interchange project includes a
highway component, a BART Rail/Station/Parking component, as well
as other project features . The County, Caltrans, BART and CCTA
had previously entered into three separate Cooperative Agreements
which were intended to authorize the County to acquire
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE
4
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD
COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
0
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON September 20, 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED �_ OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
e UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I 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.
ATTESTED SEP 2 n 1994
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND C UNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY DEPUTY
CC : County Counsel
Public Works Dept .
Attn: Karen McNamer, Real Prop. Div.
Contact : Sharon L. Anderson 646-2064
r
.. L
by eminent domain the property required for all of the components of the
project including the BART and Caltrans components .
The parties intended the Cooperative Agreements to be a joint exercise of the
respective powers of eminent domain of the County, BART and Caltrans .
It is now necessary to anticipate a legal challenge to the County' s power to
acquire parcels for the project premised upon a claim that the existing
Cooperative Agreements allegedly are not the legal equivalent of a Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement .
Rather than to defend from legal attack the existing Cooperative Agreements,
which the parties consider to be the legal equivalent of a Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement, conservative practice would be to simply clarify and re-
affirm the original intent in the form of a joint exercise of powers
agreement, and put an end to the legal issue. Consequently, the County, BART,
Caltrans and CCTA seek to clarify in a single integrated agreement executed by
all parties what was intended in the three cooperative Agreements, and to re-
affirm that intent in the form of a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement .
CCTA and BART and Caltrans staff have already approved the proposed Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement .
IV. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION.
In a worst-case, but unlikely scenario, a court might rule that the
Cooperative Agreements were not the substantial equivalent of a Joint exercise
of Powers Agreement, and then deny the County' s authority to condemn for BART
and State Highway purposes .
In the more likely best-case scenario, a court would rule that the Cooperative
Agreements were -the substantial equivalent of a Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement . In this case there would be no consequences of negative action.
However, there no reason to expose BART, Caltrans, CCTA and the County any
risk of project delay in the event that the right to acquire key project
parcels by eminent domain was challenged.
dflla:4-bailey.bo