Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08131996 - D8 Y TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS = Contra FROM: 'SUPERVISOR JIM ROGERS, DISTRICT I °` 's Costa County DATE: August 13, 1996 SUBJECT: APPROVE ACTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED WCCTAC SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO. 96/-In SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the following actions in support of the proposed WCCTAC subregional transportation mitigation program: 1) Initiate proceedings pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.2 (b) by scheduling a public hearing for Tuesday, December 3, 1996, at 10: 15 A.M. , to consider adoption of an ordinance establishing the West Contra Costa subregional transportation mitigation fee; 2). Direct the Clerk of the Board to publish a notice in the manner prescribed in Government Code Sections 66474. 2 (b) (2) and 65090 (a) ; 3) Direct the Public Works Director to give notice of the hearing and to file a copy of the Development Program Report with the Clerk of the Board in accordance with Government Code Sections 54986 (a) , 65091, 66016 (a) and 66484 (a) ; 4) Direct staff to provide notification of the hearing date to all applicants for subdivisions and other land use entitlements in the unincorporated portions of western Contra Costa County and to advise such applicants that their development projects will be subject to payment of a West Contra Costa subregional transportation mitigation fee to the full extent authorized by law. FISCAL IMPACT No impact to the General Fund. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE P,� &PA/V RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON August 13 . 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A 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: Pat Roche, Community Development ATTESTED August 13 , 1996 CC: Irma Anderson, WCCTAC Chair RTYVA ELOR, CLERK OF Community Development Department' OF SUPER SOR 4Z Public Works Department MINI Clerk, Board of Supervisors �g ACTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED WCCTAC SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION PROGRAM August 13, 1996 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) has developed a concept for a subregional transportation mitigation program in West County. The concept now under active consideration is a traffic impact fee program for jurisdictions in West County. The subrevional transportation mitigation program now being developed is in response to Measure C - 19881 which requires that a program of regional traffic mitigation fees, assessments, or other mitigations, as appropriate, be adopted to fund regional and/or subregional transportation projects, as determined in the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan for the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. WCCTAC is now engaged in a nexus study for the West County traffic impact fee based on requirements under California Code 66000-66003, which requires that a jurisdiction demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the portion of the cost of the facility attributable to development (nexus relationship) . General concepts of the program are as follows: • The traffic impact fee program will fund a portion of the cost for an interim improvement to State Route 4 West (between Cummings Skyway and I-80) , raising approximately $8 million based on a $750.00 per single family unit, and fund a new transit facility serving West County (to be determined) ; • A fee ordinance will be adopted by local jurisdictions on new residential and commercial development and the fee will be the same across all jurisdictions, to the extent allowable based on the nexus study; • Local jurisdictions will be responsible for collecting the fee at issuance of the building permit and all fee revenue would be remitted to a trust fund, which would be managed by the local jurisdiction, WCCTAC, or a third party. In discussing these concepts, WCCTAC acknowledges that working out all the details to this program could take some time and wants to make sure that- current development projects under consideration are not only advised that they will be subject to the fee once fee ordinances are adopted but also to capture potential fee revenue from new development during the interim period until the fee is formally adopted. At their June 28, 1996 meeting, WCCTAC approved for review and comment by its member jurisdictions, the following proposed language which they proposed be stamped on pending development applications: " Subject to West County Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program fee(s) which will be assessed upon issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy (whichever comes later) to mitigate transportation impacts of new development as a requirement of Contra Costa County's Measure C-1988 Ordinance. A The intended result of this proposed language is that pending development applications in West County will be both advised of and conditioned with a subregional traffic impact fee. The basic goal is to retain potential fee revenue from new development during the interim period until the fee is formally adopted by all jurisdictions. Attached is a memorandum from the County Counsel's office which reviews and comments on the language proposed by WCCTAC. County Counsel notes that, except for vesting tentative maps, subregional mitigation fees can be collected at the building permit stage from pending development projects, provided that an appropriate fee ordinance is then in effect. We do not have the ability to collect an interim fee absent an ordinance to implement the interim fee. With regard to a vesting tentative map, the law prohibits a jurisdiction from conditioning a vesting tentative subdivision map to pay a fee that was not in place at the time the application was deemed complete, except as provided otherwise in Government Code Section 66474.2. ACTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED WCCTAC SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION PROGRAM August 13, 1996 Page 3 County Counsel's memorandum also points out that while the proposed WCCTAC language may be useful from a policy standpoint, it does not enhance the legal ability to collect such fees at the building permit stage. As noted in County Counsel's memorandum, the only action that the Board of Supervisors can take at this time to make sure that pending developments in West County will be subject to a subregional mitigation fee, as intended by the proposed WCCTAC language, is to initiate proceedings to adopt a fee ordinance pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.2 . I recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the actions described in the recommendation section of this Resolution to initiate such steps. By setting the hearing date on an ordinance for December 3, 1996, the Board of Supervisors would have the ability to impose a subregional mitigation fee on any vesting tentative map for which an application was deemed complete after August 13, 1996, provided that a fee ordinance is in effect prior to approving the vesting map. Please note that the Board has the ability to adjust the December 3, 1996 hearing date for the fee ordinance if necessary. At my request, the Board's Transportation Committee reviewed this matter at their July 15, 1996 meeting and endorsed in concept the actions proposed in this Board Order. attachment (1) County Counsel memorandum, 7/12/96 JR/PR/ j : proch\rogers. bo D. b COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA Date: July 12, 1996 To: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community Development Attn: Patrick Roche, Transportation Planning From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel, By: David F. Schmidt, Deputy County Counsel Re: WCCTAC Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program Introduction• This memo responds to your 7-3-96 memo, in which you asked us to review and comment on a proposal to condition development projects in the West County area with payment of a subregional transportation mitigation fee to be adopted sometime in the future. As described in your memo, the proposal being considered by WCCTAC would involve the use of the following standard condition language: "Subject to West County Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program fee(s) which will be assessed upon issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy (whichever comes later) to mitigate transportation impacts of new development as a requirement of Contra Costa County's Measure C-1988 Ordinance. " According to your memo, the intended effect of the proposed condition language is that pending development applications in West County will be conditioned with payment of the subregional traffic impact fee that is eventually adopted. As we understand your memo, the question you are asking is whether, by using the above quoted condition in approving tentative maps and other entitlements, those projects later can be subjected to payment of subregional fees when building permits are issued. As explained below, except for vesting tentative maps, subregional fees can be collected at the building permit stage from pending development projects, provided that an appropriate fee ordinance is then in effect. Vesting Tentative Vesting Tentative Maps In 1984 , the Legislature amended the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66001 and following) to add Sections 66498. 1 through 66498.7, the vesting tentative map statutes. Section 66498. 1 permits a developer to file a vesting tentative map whenever a tentative map would otherwise be required. Approval of a vesting Memo to Patrick Roche July 12 , 1996 tentative map entitles the developer, subject to certain limitations, to proceed with the project in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies and standards described in Section 66474 . 2, that is, those in effect when the map application was deemed complete. The vesting tentative map statutes effectively freeze in place the ordinances, policies and standards in effect at the time the vesting tentative map application is determined to be complete. (Kaufman & Broad Central Valley, Inc. v. City of Modesto (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1577, 1586-1588; Bright Development v. City of Tracy (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 783, 792-793. ) In the Kaufman & Broad case, the court considered the validity of a condition similar to the one now being proposed by WCCTAC. The condition involved in that case read as follows: "The Capital Facilities Fee payable at the time of the issuance of a building permit for any construction in this subdivision map (parcel map) shall be based on the rates in effect at time of issuance of the building permit. " The court held that this language would not allow the city to collect from vesting tentative maps fee increases that became effective after the applications were deemed complete. Noting that the fee ordinance and resolution that had been adopted by the city did not mention the increases that the city later tried to impose through the condition language, the court held that collection of fee increases would violate the vesting tentative map statutes as well as due process. According to the court, before a vesting tentative map can be subjected to increased fees, the ordinances, policies or standards in effect when the vesting tentative map is deemed complete must include not only a general fee escalation provision but must also provide reasonable notice of the nature of the fee and the manner of its calculation. (Kaufman & Broad Central Valley, Inc. v. City of Modesto, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at 1589. ) Given the court's decision in the Kaufman & Broad case, the condition language being proposed by WCCTAC would not allow subregional fees to be collected from pending vesting tentative maps. The only way to apply subregional fees against vesting tentative maps is to adopt a fee ordinance pursuant to Government Code Sections 66001-66018.5. Once a fee ordinance is adopted, the subregional fee could legally be applied to vesting map applications that are deemed complete after the effective date of the fee ordinance. To make the fee ordinance effective at the earliest point, the members of WCCTAC could consider using urgency ordinances (Section 66017 (b) ) , as well as the procedure described in Section 66474 .2 (b) . -2- Memo to Patrick Roche July 12, 1996 Ordinary Subdivision Maps and Other Entitlements As a general rule, vested rights do not arise until a building permit or other final discretionary approval has been issued. This means that a local agency may adopt new ordinances, including fee ordinances, well into the development process (i.e. , up to the issuance of building permits) despite a developer's prior commitment of substantial resources to a project. (Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Commission (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785, 791-793 ; Golden State Homebuilding Associates v. City of Modesto (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 601, 607. ) In 1982 , the Legislature enacted Government Code Sections 66474 . 2 and 65961. Section 66474 .2, added to the Subdivision Map Act, permits a local agency considering a developer's application for a tentative map to apply only those ordinances, policies and standards in effect on the date the application was deemed complete (i.e. , normally 30 days after receipt of the application) . Similar provisions are contained in Sections 66473 and 66474. 1, which require the approval of a final map or parcel map that substantially complies with a previously approved tentative map and prohibit the imposition of additional conditions. Section 65961, which applies to single- and multiple-family residential development, generally prohibits a city or county, for a period of five years following map recordation, from imposing a requirement on issuance of building permits if the requirement could have been lawfully imposed as a condition to a previously approved tentative or parcel map. In the Golden State case, the court considered whether Sections 65961 and 66474.2 would prevent the city from collecting at the building permit stage development fees that were adopted after tentative maps or final maps were approved. After analyzing the legislative intent of those sections, the court held: "Because it had no established fee policy when the map application for Dry Creek Meadows was deemed complete, the City could not have conditioned its approval of the map upon Developers' payment of the fees in the future. Therefore, it was not barred by section 65961 from subsequently requiring Developers to pay the fees as a condition to its issuance of building permits for the development. " (Golden State Homebuilding Associates v. City of Modesto, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at 613; see also Laguna Village, Inc. v. County of Orange (1985) 166 Cal.App. 3d 125, 131. ) -3- P.q Memo to Patrick Roche July 12, 1996 Under the decisions in the Golden State and Laguna Village cases, the members of WCCTAC would be able to collect at the building permit stage subregional fees that are payable under fee ordinances in effect at the time building permits are issued. The legal ability to collect such fees at the building permit stage is not enhanced by use of the proposed condition language. We recognize that the proposed language could be useful from a policy standpoint to commit WCCTAC to collecting subregional fees or to give advance notice to developers. However, if the proposed language is used to condition tentative or parcel maps, there is a possibility that developers might argue that the language invalidly attempts to impose a fee payment condition at the map stage, thus preventing imposition at the building permit stage. Procedure for Adoption of Subregional Fees The procedure for adopting development fees is governed by Government Code Sections 66001-66018. Section 66016 requires that any action to levy a new fee or increase an existing fee be taken only by ordinance or resolution. The clear legislative intent of Section 66016 is to prohibit public entities from adopting new fees or fee increases by methods other than resolution or ordinance. (Cavalier Acres, Inc. v. San Simeon Acres Community Services District (1984) 151 Cal.App. 3d 798, 802 . ) Once a local agency adopts a fee ordinance or resolution imposing development fees, the fees are effective 60 days after adoption, unless an urgency ordinance is used. (Section 66017. ) According to your memo, WCCTAC is now engaged in a nexus study for the subregional fee based on requirements of Sections 66000-66003. It thus appears that the members of WCCTAC will be following the procedures just described in adopting fee ordinances. As mentioned above, certain procedures are available to make the fee ordinances effective at the earliest point. (See Sections 66017 (b) and 66474 .2 (b) . ) DFS/ cc: J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director Attn: Julia Bueren, Transportation Engineering Supervisor Jim Rogers, District 1 Supervisor Jeff Smith, Chair, BOS Transportation Committee -4- . � D § 66474 GOVERNMENT CODE Note t Fact that tentative subdivision map conformed to zoning not mentioned in this section. 64 OpsAtty.G m 328, law in eidstence at date on which it was improperly denied 4--21-81. because of incorrect interpretation of this section did not Environmental int entitle applicant to approval under law then in effect Count board of determination that regi- f without complying with subsequently enacted zoning con Y su p ditions where there was no bad faith in denial of applica- dential development would cattle no substantial environ- tion, rezoning process had been in existence prior to mental damage was supported by sufficient evidence,in- denial and applicant did not claire any vested tights eluding initial study made by county department of re- Palmer v.Board of Sup'rs of Ventura County(App.2 Dist gional pig. Topanga Assn for a Scenic Community 1983) 193 CaLRptr.669,145 CaLApp3d 779. v.County of Los Angeles(Oakmont Development Aaaoci- If significant adverse enviroantenttl effects identified ates)V4*2 Dist 1989)263 CaLRptr.214.214 CaLApp3d with respect to tentative map of subdivision relate to ice' design of or proposed improvements of subdivision,local County board of supervisors'determination that devei- agency may not approve the map under Pub.ResC. opment of property would not cause substantial and avoid. § 21081. 68 OpsAtty.Gen. IM 5-17-85. able injury to wildlife habitat was supported by auffident evidence,even though 57 out of 177 oak trees in project 2. Findings—In general area would be destroyed, where developer obtained oak Deemed approval provision of Permit Streamlining Act tree permit,and board also imposed conditions requiring U 66956)conflicts with requirement of 166474 that city replacement of trees to be removed with new trees on must deny subdivision map application unless city makes two-to-one ratio and protection of remaining trees during specified findings. Selinger v. City Council of City of and after development of project Topanga Assn for a Redlands(App.4 Dist 1989)264 Cal.Rptr.499,216 Cal. Scenic Community v. County of I.os Angeles (Oakmont App.3d 259,review denied. Development Associates)(App.2 Dist 1989)263 Cal.Rptr. 3. —Sufficiency.findings 214,214 CalApp.3d 1348. City council's finding that developer's proposed project Mere presence of archaeological resources on property was consistent with city's applicable general plan was not docs not require finding that development of property abuse of discretion; there was evidence that project was 'would cause "significant effect on the environment" or consistent with land use designation for site and with "substantial environmental damage"would require disap. applicable policies of city's comprehensive plan. Sequo- prod of project Topanga Assn for a Scenic Community yah Hills Homeowners Assn v.City of Oakland(W.P.N. v-County of Los Angeles(Oakmont Development Associ- Associates) (App. I Dist 1993) 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182, 23 ates)(App.2 Dist 1989)263 Cal-Rptr.214.214 CalAppm CaLAppAth 704. 1348. That property to be developed contained archaeological 4.5. Design requirements sites did not preclude county board of supervisors from A local government may not approve an alternative use finding that development would not cause substantial envi- of Williamson Act 0 51200 et seq.) contract property ronmental damage and did not require board to impose which is not consistent with its current general plan under conditions on developer designed to mitigate significant the 'window"provisions of Stats1981,c 1095. 67 Ops effects of project on archaeological resources,where board Atty.Gen.247,6-5-84. made no fording that archaeological sites contained unique A tentative map of a subdivision must be disapproved if archaeological resources. Topanga Assn for a Scenic it fails to meet the design requirement of § 66473.1, Community v.County of Los Angeles(Oakmont Develop- providing for future passive or natural heating or cooling ment Associates)(App. 2 Dist 1989)263 Cai.Rptr. 214, opportunities in design,even!hough such requirement is 214 Cal-App-3d 1348. § 66474.01. Tentative map or parcel map; approval Notwithstanding subdivision(e)of Section 66474,a local government may approve a tentative trap,or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required,if an environmental impact report was prepared with respect to the project and a finding was made pursuant toap_ragraph(3)oC subdivision(a)of Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code that specific economic,social,or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (Added by Stats.1985, c. 738, § 1. Amended by Stats.1994, c. 1294 (A.B.314), § 1, eff. Oct. 4, 1994.) Historical and Statutory Notes 1994 Lceslation The 1994 amendment substituted a reference to para- graph(3)of subd.(a)of§ 21081 for a reference to subd. (c)of§ 21081. § 66474.2. Approval of tentative map; ordinance,policies and standards applicable (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b) or (c), in determining whether to approve or disapprove an application for a tentative map,the local agency shall apply only those ordinances,policies, and standards in effect at the date the local agency has determined that the application is complete pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code. (b) Subdivision(a)shall not apply to a local agency which,before it has determined an application for a tentative snap to be complete pursuant to Section 65943, has done both of the following Additions or changes indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks ` 154 { i a GOVERNMENT CODE § 66474.3 GOVERNMENT GORE ,n this section 64 OpsAtty.Gen 328, (1) Initiated proceedings by way of ordinance,resolution, or motion. W im (2) Published notice in the manner prescribed in subdivision (a) of Section 65090 containing a of supervisoW determination thatcera- description sufficient to notify the public of the nature of the proposed change in the applicable general or enc Would cause no aubatantial environ- specific plans,or zoning or subdivision ordinances. 113 supported by sufficient evidence,in- udy made by county depart ent of re. A local agency which has complied with this subdivision may apply any ordinances, policies, or TO WP Aaa'n for a Scenic Commual + standards enacted or instituted as a result of those proceedings which are in effect on the date the local Angeles(Oakmont Development Associ- agency approves or disapproves the tentative map. 1989)263 CaLRPtr.214,214 CaLApp.3d i (c} If the subdivision applicant requests changes in applicable ordinances, policies or standards in f sup ors'determination that level connection with the same development project„any ordinances.policies or standards adopted pursuant to would not cause substantial and avoid- the applicant's request shall apply. ",fe habitat was supported by mxtKcieat (Amended by Stats.1988,c-548, § 1; Stats.1989, c.847, § 10.) )ugh 57 out of 177 oak licca in project i sUoYed, Where developer obtained oak Notes of Decisions ,Gard also'imposed coaditana requiring ees to be removed With new !sees on Existing ordinances,standards,and policies 2 Evidence did not support trial court'a finding that de- ment ofg trees dig Notice I veioper,at time its vesting tentative map application was W ojecL Topanga Ass's for a deemed complete, had notice of city policy pursuant to V. County of LosAngeles (Oakmont which city sought to require developer,at its own expense, :antes)(App.2 Dist.1989)263 CaLRptr. to 'ltnderground" existing ori site un'lities fronting pro- •1 1348. 1. Notice posed subdivision and, thus,city could not impose such t archaeokxgical resources on property City could not retroactively apply policy pursuant toervui�meoatatement i gtranscriQt�fadevelopment tti ending that development of which it sought to require developer,at its own expense, meeting � anything,that no ficant effect on the environment-Property to 'underground- existing off-site utilities fronting pro- such ordinance.policy or standard was then in existence, equiredior posed ceding Y y and addition to city's d standards of resolution aIle rmental damage-Would p• subdivision, absent b cit that condition Y• �� g- rOPanga Assn fora is Com uni y promoted health and safety of city residents.. Bright edly memorialising undergrounding policy suggested ab• eles Scenic Development Asso t Development v. City of Tracy (App. 3 Dist- 1993) 24 sence of any such preexisting policy outside minds of city 9 3 CAL out Development A p.3d Cal.Rptr.2d 618,20 CalAppAth 783, as modified, review employees. Bright Development v.City of Tracy(App.3 263 Cxi Rptr.214.214 G:LApp 3d denied. Dist. 1993) 24 C4LRptr.2d 618, 20 CaiApp.4th 783, as I developedmodified.review denied. contained arelncolo ' Vesting tentative map statute requires prior notice, 8ual 2 Existing ordinances,standards,and policies ,de county board of supervisors from either actual or constructive, as condition to imposing _ g ment would not cause substantial envi- ordinances, policies and standards upon devetoper/appli- At time developers vesting tentative map application and did not require board to ' cant who is entitled to rely on complete vesting tentative was deemed complete,city did not have ordinance,policy oper designed to mitigate significant map. Bright Development v.City of Tracy(App.3 Dist or standard in effect requiring developer, at its own archaea 1993)24 CaLRptr.2d 618,20 Cal.AppAth 783,as modified, ems.to'underground"existing off-site utilities front. l res,where board review denied. ing proposed subdivision. so as to entitle city to impose c ces.aeTopan l tales contained unique undergroinding requirement on developer; standard `� ToP� Ass's fora Scenic Ordinance policy,or standard of public which is enacted b cit depicted requirement relating solei �Y of Los Angeles{Oakmont Develo AMY apprise t,on-site improvements,standard specifications did not SPP 2 Diet 1989)Zq P written and accessible is reasonably calculated to C'Utptr. 214, interested parties of their responsibilities in connection expressly require undergrvunding of existing off-site utili- with development project, and would suffice to supply ties but, rather, implied contzary, and condition for ap- "constructive notice"for purposes of vesting tentative map proval of map made no mention of undergrounding re- stawte. Bright Development v. City of Tracy (App. 3 quirement for off-site utilities. Bright Development v. Dist 1993) 24 CaLRptr-zd 618. 20 CalApp.4th 783. as City of Tracy(App_3 Dist 1993)24 CaLRptr2d 618,20 ray approve a tentative map,or a modified.review denied. CalAppAth 783,as modified,review denied. ural impact report was Pfepared h(3)of subdivision(a)of Section •r considerations make infeasible § 66474 3. P to p�Otnerd,, ►as affecting conditions oraffecting tentative project; likely default on twnds; project ,mental impact report. 3..B-314), § 1, eff. Oct 4, 1994. (a) If the legislative body of a city or county finds,based upon substantial evidence in the record,that any project for which a tentative map or a vesting tentative map has been approved will be affected by a previously enacted initiative measure to the extent that there is likely to be a default on land-secured bonds issued to finance infrastructure on the project,the legislative body shall allow that portion of the project served by that infrastructure to proceed in a manner consistent with the approved tentative map or vesting tentative map. (b) For purposes of this section, land-secured bond means any bond issued pursuant to the Improve- ment Act of 1911 (Division 7 (commencing with Section 5000)of the Streets and Highways Code), the lards applicable Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Division 12 (commencing with Section 10000) of the Streets and Mining whether to approve or Highways Code),the Improvement Bond Act of 1915(Division 10(commenting with Section 8500)of the. only Nose ordinances, Streets and Highways Code), or the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Chapter 25 ,at the pokcles, (commencing with Section 53311)of Part I of Division 2 of 71tle 5,so long as the bond was issued and aPPfication is complete sold at least 90 days before the proposed initiative was adopted by either popular vote at an election or by determined an a lication for ordinance adopted by the legislative body. )f the following (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the legislative body may condition or deny a permit, approval, by asterisks extension, or entitlement if it determines any of the following- Additions or changes Indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks • 155 r RECEIVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY �� 31 's COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTME T CLOK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. D : October 30, 1996 TO: Jeanne Maglio, Clerk of the Board FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community Development by: Patrick Roche, Transportation Planning Division*WW',& SUBJECT: Cancellation of Public Hearing on December 3, 1996 to consider ordinance establishing the West Contra Costa subregional transportation mitigation fee Due to some unforseen delays in completing a key study by the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC), the proposed ordinance to establish a West Contra Costa subregional transportation mitigation fee program will not be ready for a public hearing by the Board of Supervisors on December 3, 1996. Please remove this item from the Board of Supervisors' agenda for December 3rd. The Board of Supervisors' public hearing date on this matter will need to be rescheduled to a new date in early 1997 to better coincide with WCCTAC's review and approval of a program recommendation. I am working with the Supervisor Rogers' office and David Schmidt, Office of County Counsel, on a Board Order that would amend the action taken on August 13, 1996, which scheduled the original public hearing date for Tuesday, December 3, 1996, 10:15 A.M., to reschedule a new hearing date. All other actions contained in the August 13, 1996 Board Order directing the Clerk of the Board and Public Works Director to give notice of the public hearing in accordance with the Government Code would remain in effect based on the new public hearing date. For your planning purposes, the new target date for the public hearing is Tuesday, February 25, 1997. Should you have questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 335-1242. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. attachment(1) Board Order from August 13, 1996 cc: K.Nimr,Supervisor Rogers'office D. Schmidt,County Counsel S.Goetz,CDD-TPD ,000"�� � eiA ee�