The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 07281998 - D5 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Resolution on July 28, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Gerber, Canciamilla and Rogers NOES: ane ABSENT: Supervisors Uilkema and DeSaulnier ABSTAIN: Done SUBJECT: Proposed Incorporation of the RESOLUTION NO. 98/ 390 City of Oakley (LAFC 97-17). (Gov.Code §§ 57077(a) 2, 57482, 57100, 57101, 57103(a), 57144 [56842.6], 57133(a), 57134, 51.137, 57139, and 57145 - 57149) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES and ORDERS that: 1. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Act, Government Code Sections 56000 et seq. 2. The change of organization("boundary change") ordered by this Resoluiton consists of an incorporation to form a new city to be known as the City of Oakley. 3. The exterior boundaries of the above-noted boundary change are as specified in Exhibit A of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra Costa County("LAFC") Resolution No. 97-17 attached hereto (marked"Exhibit 1") and made a part hereof. 4. The affected territory for this incorporation has been determined to be legally inhabited. 5. All of the terms and conditions upon this incorporation change of organization approved by LAFC are as set forth in Exhibit 1 attached hereto. 6. The regular county assessment roll will be used for the collection of taxes and assessments in the affected territory. The affected territory will be taxed for existing bonded indebtedness (if any) of any agency whose boundaries are changed. 7. The reasons set forth in the Chief Petitioners'proposal for the boundary change are to (a) enhance local control and accountability through a locally elected city council, (b)increase opportunities for citizens to be directly involved and participate in local civic and governmental activities, (c)retain revenues generated within the city to support local programs and services and(d)promote orderly governmental boundaries. 8. Pursuant to Government Code Section 57077(a), this Board finds that insufficient protests were filed to require termination of proceedings and, therefore, hereby ORDERS this incorporation change of organization to be effective July 1, 1999, subject to the terms and conditions specified herein and to confirmation by the voters as hereinafter set forth. 9.The Board Clerk shall file a certified copy of this Resolution with the County Clerk (Registrar of Voters and elections official) and LAFC Executive Officer as soon as this may be done within five days after July 28, 1998. 10. Elections. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 57077 (a)(2), 57100(a), 57101 and 57103(a), this Board hereby calls a special election to be consolidated and held with the November 3, 1998 general election on the following questions in the area described in Exhibit A of LAFC Resolution No. 97-17 attached, on the following questions and requiring the approvals noted: a. By majority vote of the voters in said Exhibit A's area, confirmation of the incorporation change of organization to form the City of Oakley. b. By majority vote of said Exhibit A area voters whether members of the City of Oakley council in future elections are to be elected by district or at large. c. The election of five city council members elected at large from throughout the City in the incorporation election of November 3, 1998. 11. Pursuant to Government Cotte Sections 57133 (a), 57134 and 57137,the specific language of the aforenoted ballot measures shall be as set forth in Exhibit 2 attached hereto. 12. The precincts and the polling;places for the elections shall be timely determined in accordance with normal procedures by the Elections Department, so as to have precincts conforming to the map of Exhibit A and ballot measures of Exhibit 2. 13. Candidates for the city council shall pay for the publication of their statements of qualifications pursuant to Elections Code Section 13307 (c). 14. As noted in Section 9,within five days of the call of the special election pursuant hereto, the Clerk of this Board shall transmit a notification of the election call,to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission, in conformance with the requirements of Government Code Section 57144. 15. The County Clerk(Elections Department)and the Clerk of this Board are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary or appropriate to implementing this Resolution, including: a. Concerning the Incorporation election: Publishing, posting, and mailing in a timely manner the notices of election required by Government Code Sections 57130 and 57131. b. Ina timely manner: a.) Determining and fixing reasonable dates prior to the election for arguments to be submitted,in accordance with Government Code Section 57146(x), b.) Publishing notice of the date for submission of arguments, in accordance with Government Code Section 57146(b), c.) Receiving and selecting arguments and rebuttal arguments on the questions submitted to the voters,in accordance with Government Code Sections 57145 and 57147, d.) Assembling,printing and mailing the ballot pamphlet,in accordance with Government Cade Section 57148,and e.) Conducting and reporting the canvas of the ballots cast, in accordance with Government Code Section 57149. f.) Conduct the city council members election in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 57139 and as required by the Elections Code. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: 19s PHIL BAT Lt] Cierof the Board cc: County Clerk,Elections Dept. of pervrs acid my administrator Annamaria Perrella,L.AFCO Executive Officer By AQ I Deputy Phil Batchelor,County Administrator County Counsel 9$1390 i RESOLUTION NO. 97-17 RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA MAILING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING THE PROPOSED INCORPORATION OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY AND ESTABLISHING THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE {SOI) BOUNDARY OF SAID CITY RESOLVED, by the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, that WHEREAS, on June 30, 1997, a registered voter petition of application was fled with the Executive Officer of this Commission pursuant to Title 5, division 3, commencing with Section 56000 of the Government Code, requesting the incorporation of the City of Oakley and establishment of the SOI boundary of said City; and WHEREAS, the names of the signers of the petition were compared against the voters register and all signatures on the petition were secured within six months of the date on which the first signature on the petition was affixed; the Executive Officer determined and certified that the petition qualified as a sufficient petition and was signed by the requisite number of qualified signers for a sufficient petition; and WHEREAS, the Executive Officer caused to be prepared by the Proponents a Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis for the proposed incorporation and furnished a copy of the Analysis to each person entitled to said copy; and WHEREAS, the Executive Officer reviewed the application and, as lean agency pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prepared an Initial environmental study and made a recommendation that a negative declaration be adopted for the incorporation proposal; a notice of intent was duly published and posted in accordance with the requirements of Section 15073 of CEQA Guidelines giving the public 30 days to make comment on the proposed negative declaration; and WHEREAS, this Commission called for and held a public hearing on the proposed incorporation on May 13, 1998 at the time and place specified in the notice of public hearing. At the hearing, the Commission considered and received all oral and written protests, objections and evidence which were made, presented or filed, and all persons present were given an opportunity to hear and be heard with respect to the proposed incorporation, comprehensive fiscal analysis, negative declaration, and the report of the Executive Officer; the hearing was then continued to May 27, 1998 and continued again to June 10, 1998 and continued again to June 24, 1998; and j. f NOW, THEREFORE, the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Contra Costa DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, ORDER AND FIND as follows: 1. The Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been considered by the Commission, along with all comments thereon. In the exercise of its Independent judgment, the Commission hereby finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, adopts and approves the Negative Declaration. The Executive Officer is instructed to file the appropriate Notice of Determination with the County Clerk within five days of adoption of this resolution. The Executive Officer shall be the custodian of the record of all proceedings and papers regarding environmental review and upon which the Negative Declaration is based. 2. The distinctive short-form designation of this proposal is: "Incorporation of the City of Oakley (LAFC 97-17)"; 3. The proposed city shall be named the "City of Oakley" 4. The boundaries of the proposed city are set forth in Exhibit"A" attached hereto and made a part hereof; further, the sphere of influence boundary is hereby established for said city to be coterminous with the approved boundaries, and the proposed new city contains approximately 14.7 square miles of territory. Upon incorporation, the approximately one square mile area located east of highway 160, which is currently within the sphere of influence of the City of Antioch, shall be removed from said sphere and become a part of the new City of Oakley and its sphere. 5. The effective date of incorporation shall be July 1, 1999, and the election on the question of incorporation shall be November 3, 1998. 6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36501, the City shall be governed by a City Council which consists of five city council members elected at lame from throughout the City in the incorporation election of November 3, 1998. In accordance with Government-Code Section 36801, the elected City Council members shall chose a mayor from among themselves at the first City Council meeting. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 36801-36803, the mayor will have the same powers as other councilmembers, but shall preside over Council meetings. 7. Pursuant to the incorporation petition filed with this Commission and Government Cade Section 56702, the city manager is to be appointed`by the elected City Council. 8. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 36511, the City Council shall appoint the City Treasurer and City Clerk. 9. Pursuant to Government Code Section 57101(b), the election on the question 4 of incorporation shall also present the question of whether members of the City Council in future electrons shall be elected at large or from five districts. Further, in accordance with Government Code Section 57377: a)The three members elected with the lowest votes shall hold office until the first general municipal election held in the new City after July 1, 1999 and until their successors are elected and qualified. Thereafter terms of office shall be four years. b)The two members elected with the highest votes shall hold office until the second general municipal election held in the new City after July 1, 1599 and until their successors are elected and qualified. Thereafter terms of office shall be four years. Provided, however, that if the voters approve election by districts, the procedure of Government Code Section 34884(x) shall apply for the establishment of districts and, pursuant to Government Code Section 34884(b)+(c): a) The terms of office of the two members elected with the lowest vote shall expire on the Tuesday succeeding the first regular municipal election held in the new City after July 1, 1999 and, at that election, members shall be elected by district in the even-numbered districts and shall held office for four years; and b) The terms of office of the three members elected with the highest vote shall expire on the Tuesday succeeding the second regular municipal election held in the new City after July 1, 1999 and, at that election, members shall be elected by district in the odd-numbered districts and shall hold office for four years. 10. The territory of the proposed incorporation is inhabited and contains a population of approximately 21,237 residents and 12,081 registered voters as of fiscal year 1996197. 11. The assessed value for property tax purposes within the area of the proposed incorporation is approximately one billion dollars as of fiscal year 1996/97. 12. No existing bonded indebtedness or obligation for payment of principal and interest on indebtedness will be affected by the incorporation of Oakley. Property within the incorporation boundaries shall continue to be liable for any existing bonded debt. 13. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56375.1(a), the Commission finds that incorporation of the City of Oakley is consistent with the intent of the Cortese Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 including, but not limited to, the policies of Sections 56001, 56300, 56301 and 56377. 14. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56375.1(b), the Commission declares that it has reviewed the spheres of influence of all affected local agencies and finds that the incorporation is consistent with those spheres of influence, subject to the change in the sphere of influence to the City of Antioch noted herein. 15. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56375.1(c), the Commission certifies that it has reviewed the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis prepared by the Proponents under the direction of the Executive Officer. No State Controller's report was requested or prepared. 16. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56375.1(d), the Commission certifies that it has reviewed the Executive Officer's Reports and Recommendations on this matter and all testimony presented at public hearings on this matter. 17. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 56375.1(e) and 56852.3, the Commission finds that revenues projected for the new City are sufficient to cover the projected costs of public services and facilities and maintain a reasonable reserve during the three fiscal years following incorporation. This-Commission has reviewed and concurs generally with the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis, which analyzed the fiscal stability of the proposed City through 10 years following incorporation and concluded that the City would maintain reasonable reserves through year ten. This Commission accepts and adopts each of the findings and recommendations made in the Executive Officer's Reports and Recommendations and in the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis on this matter. This Commission finds that the City of Oakley is financially feasible and that the new City will be capable of maintaining or improving the level of service now provided in the community. 18. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56845(b), this Commission finds 1) that current revenues to the County, which fund services that will be provided by the new City upon incorporation, are substantially equal to the expenditures currently made by the County for the services to be provided by the new City upon incorporation, and 2) that the approximate amount of current revenues which will be lost by the County upon incorporation will be included in the revenues to be received by the new City upon incorporation. Therefore, this Commission finds that the effect of the incorporation on the County will be revenue neutral. 19. The Commission finds that dissolution of the portion of County Service Area EMS-1 (emergency medical services) and County Service Area P-6 (extended level police services) that would be in the new City would deprive the area of services needed to ensure the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the area and further finds that continuing County Service Area EMS-1 and County Service Area P-6 would not affect the ability of the new City to provide any service. Upon incorporation, any taxes, fees, assessments and charges imposed by CSA P-6 and CSA EMS-1 shall continue to be imposed in the Areas becoming part of the City at the same rate and manner as under the County, and the existing zones of both County Service Areas shall continue. Upon incorporation, the management of the proceeds and the levying of any taxes, fees, assessments and;charges currently imposed by the County in the zones of CSA P-6 shall be accomplished by the City, rather than the County, provided that the proceeds of any such taxes, fees, assessments and charges shall continue to be used for the provision of extended police services in the territory of the existing zones of CSAP-6. Upon G { incorporation, the balances of the CSA P-6 accounts for the existing zones of the Oakley Area shall be transferred to the City. 20. If the incorporation is approved, County Service Area L-100 (street lighting) shall be dissolved within the area of the new City, effective June 30, 2000, and all unencumbered funds of the Area, including cash on hand and moniesdue but uncollected, and any obligations of the Area, shall be divided between the City and the Area in proportion to the area remaining in the unincorporated area and the area included within the new City. Further, upon dissolution, the authority to collect assessments or fees for street lighting shall pass to the new City. 21. The amount of base property tax transferred to the new City from the County pursuant to Government Code Section 56842 shall be $641,179, determined as follows: County auditor's ratio (Gov. C. Sec. 56842(c)(1)): 42.25% Total net county cost of services to be transferred, as determined by this Commission (Gov. C. Sec. 56842(c)(2)): $1,517,584 Calculation of County base property tax to be transferred to new City (Gov. C. Sec. 56842(c)(3)): 42.25% X$1,517,584 = $641,179 22. Pursuant to Government Code 56842.6, the provisional appropriations limit for the new City shall be $4,145,258, and the permanent appropriations limit shall be proposed by the City Council and subject to approval of the voters at the first municipal election following the first full fiscal year of operation. 23. Pursuant to Government Code 65865.3, project approvals and development agreements issued by Contra Costa County prior to the effective date of incorporation, including (but not limited to) those related to the Cypress Corridor; shall be honored by the new City, subject only to modifications in the conditions of approval that are necessary to reflect the change in jurisdiction. 24. Existing County ordinances shall remain in effect after incorporation for the period specified in Government Code Section 57376. The County General Plan and zoning ordinances shall continue in effect within the City boundaries until such time as the City has adopted its own General Plan and zoning. 25. Business license taxes which are levied in the proposed incorporation area shall continue to be levied by the City at the same rate and in the same manner that they are collected by the County. 26. Real property transfer taxes which are levied in the proposed incorporation area shall continue to be levied by the City at the same rate and in the same manner that they are collected by the County. 27. Transient occupancy taxes which are levied in the proposed incorporation area shall continue to be levied by the City at the same rate and in the same manner that they are collected by the County. 28. Bales and use taxes which are levied in the proposed incorporation area shall continue to be levied by the City at the same rate and in the same manner that they are collected by the County; provided, however, that the County shall receive from the City's sales tax revenues the same percentage of sales tax as the County receives from other cities in this County, 29. As provided by Government Code Section 57384(b), the new City shall repay the County the net cost of services (as determined for fiscal 1998-7 in the amount of$1,517,584) adjusted by the California Consumer Price index for fiscal 1997.8, 19989 and 1999-2000 (Gov. C. Sec. 55842(c)) as provided by the County during the first fiscal year the new City exists (fiscal year 1999-2000) or until the City council regyests discontinuance of the services (whichever occurs first), less any revenues from the incorporation area retained by the County after•inccrporation. Such repayment shall be over 5 years, beginning in fiscal year 2000-01, with interest charged on the balance remaining after each fiscal year at the County's cost of funds for the year. 30< Under the terms and conditions specified in Exhibit B hereto, the County shall transfer to the City the real property set forth in Exhibit B, such property being directly associated with the provision of municipal services transferred from the County to the new City, Other County property, including properties awned by the County Redevelopment Agency, shall remain in County ownership, subject to any applicable provisions of law that may govern any transfer. 31. To the extent that County-maintained trust accounts for road improvements include funds from development impact or Area of Benefit fees derived from the incorporation area, such amounts shall be transferred by the County to the City within 180 days of the effective date of incorporation, subject to any relevant legal restrictions. If any such trust accounts have a negative balance, the negative balance shall be paid by the City to the County. The repayment schedule(times and amounts for payment) for such negative balances shall be the same as would be scheduled for payments to the trust fund if the area were to remain unincorporated. In accordance with this condition, the negative fund balance of $1,409,300 for road improvements in the Oakley Area of Benefit shall be paid to the County as fees are collected by the Oakley Area of Benefit, in the same manner as if the incorporation had not occurred; provided, however, that any proceeds of the sale of property purchased with development impact or Area of Benefit fees derived from the incorporation area shall be applied to reduce the loan balance. 32. Upon incorporation, Quimby Act parkland funds derived from developments that occurred within the incorporation area, including any balance on hand and the right to any outstanding receivables, shall be transferred from the County to the new City. 33. The portion of Lighting and Landscape District 2 within the new City, including s e any portions of zones therein, shall continue in existence but shall be governed by the new City. The new City shall continue to levy any existing taxes, fees, charges and assessments for said District at the same rate and in the same manner as currently levied. All unencumbered funds of the District, including cash on hand and monies due but uncollected, and any obligations of the District, shall be divided between the City and the District in proportion to the area remaining in the unincorporated area and the area included within the new City. 34, To the extent authorized by law, upon the transfer of the County's Oakley Area Redevelopment Agency to the new City,-the new City's Redevelopment Agency u shall continue the following pass-throughs, which are currently authorized under the County's Oakley Area Redevelopment Agency. _ 1) Brentwood Elementary School District 2) Contra Costa County Mosquito Abatement District 3) East Bay Regional Park District 4) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 5) County office of Education 6) Antioch Unified School District 7) Oakley Union School District 8) Liberty 11igh School District Further, to the extent authorized by law, upon the transfer of the County's Oakley Area redevelopment Agency to the new City, the new City's Redevelopment Agency shall pass-through to the following agencies such amounts as would be required for such agencies under Health and Safety Cade Section 33£07.5 if the City were starting its redevelopment agency ab lnitio. 1) Contra Costa County (General Fund) 2) Contra Costa County Water Conservation and flood Control';District 3) Contra Costa County Water Agency 4) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 5) County Library DistricttFund 35. East County Regional Traffic Impact Fees shall continue to be collected by the new City at the same rate and in the same manner that they are currently collected, with the proceeds being used for the same purposes as when the County collected the fees. 7 t . ....,.:w...a... .....,.:.:. -'.-.:.iSxe+i.eYffif M1Yavrn+-..'wm+..waaw.•....v'>r.,a+n 4.F.r y 36. (a) To the extent authorized by law, upon incorporation the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District shall continue to levy and collect, in the same manner as presently done, the Storm Water Utility Assessments currently levied and collected by the District. To the extent authorized by law, upon incorporation the City shall assume the rights and responsibilities the County now has for proposing,and managing the assessment and the provision of services for the incorporation area, subject to applicable permits and law. (b) To the extent authorized by law, upon incorporation the City shall support Contra Costa,Flood District approved drainage fee increases and other drainage area ordinance revisions designed to repay any existing debts to the Flood Control District,Further,to the extent authorized by law, drainage area fees shall continue to be collected by the new City for the District in the same manner as the County presently does. (c)To the extent authorized by law, the new City shall accept transfer of future District rights of way and maintenance of completed drainage area storm drain improvements. 37. To the extent authorized by the Cortese-Knox Act and other applicable law, and to the extent the conducting authority deems feasible in the incorporation election, the vote on the proposed incorporation shall include a vote on the provisions of this Resolution authorizing the Imposition or continuation of any current tax, fee, charge, or assessment and the establishment of the appropriations limit for the-new City. 38. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is designated as Conducting Authority for incorporation proceedings and said Board is authorized and directed to conduct further proceedings in compliance with this resolution. 39. The Executive Officer is hereby authorized and directed to mail certified copies of this resolution as provided in Government Code Section 55853. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of,lune 1998, by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS CANCIAMILLA, GREENBERG, CORY, JAMESON, TAT IN, UILKEMA AND McNAIR NOES; NONE ABSTAIN.Commissioner Meadows I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of a resolution passed and adopted by this Commission on the elate aforesaid. Annamaria Perrella, Executive Officer { 0 Mora Road Brwgohm d R 4 �� Lave Oak Avenue 0 d 2 FL Empire t •„fie ✓SP`5'1•'1S Avenue � B Sneak Rd. � fi4uTYY sa sz� l� Brown Road © p R r5 Cat b � Ohara Ave. ear Ohara Ave. ' "{ Roar Ave. m m � ZZ.tom b Z U) b ° > m Fnn CX4 r Setters Avenue Sellers Avows a 0 m a P iii 9 m ' -L 31, 0 C CaL//�� Jersey laland Rd. a t a Exhibit B The following properties are to be transferred, as soon as possible ager the effective date of the incorporation, subject to any conditions set forth hereinbelow: 1) Subject to Government Code Section 57885, roads, highways and their rights-of ways within the boundaries of the new City, to the extent such roads, highways and right-of-ways were part of the county road system prior to circulation of the petition for incorporation. The entire roadway and right of way for any roads or highways constituting a City boundary shall be transferred (rather than a transfer to the centerline of the road). 2) Properties deeded by developers or purchased with development impact or area of benefit fees paid from within the area to be incorporated: a) 034-100-493 Rose Ave--So. Laurel b) 035-211-002 O'Hara Ave _ c) 035-734-453 4678 Bayside Way d) 049-130-444 Orchard Way e) 041-183-408 4154 Richard Way 0 037-800-102 5164 Claremont Lane g) 049-234-450 No Address-- End Canopy Lane h) 034-010-403 3984 Empire Ave i) 037-150-030 2950 Main St j} 037-131-008 100 Carol Lane k) 037-131-009 2190 Main St 1) 037-132-403 101 Carol Lane 3) Other than properties covered under 1) and 2), properties directly associated with the provision of services now provided by the County or County-controlled agencies but to be provided by the new City upon incorporation: a) 037-170-006 Vintage Parkway b) 037-100-084 29H c) 037-080-02.3 29H d) 035-011-018 29C e) 035-4012-009 29E f) 035-300-025 29E g) 035-220-025 30A h) 035-220-026 30A 1) 034-450-003 30C 4) Other than properties covered under 1), 2) and 3): a) 033-302-026 95 Laurel Road [donated property restricted to childcare uses] 1 EXHIBIT 2 -BALL T MEASURES 1. "Shall the,order adopted on July 28, 1998,by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ordering the incorporation of the territory described in the order and designated in the order as the Incorporation of the City of Oakley(LAEC 97-17)be confirmed?" [See Gov. Code, §§ 57133(a), 57134.] 2. Shall members of the Oakley city council in future elections be elected by district and not at large? [See Gov. Code, § 57101(b).] H:\GROUPS\CLER\ex2bdmea.wpd EXHIBIT 2 Local Agency Formation Commission Contra Costa County, California Approved Description Date: 6/10/98 By: Tim Aiello (L.A.F.C. 97-17) PROPOSED INCORPORATION OF OAKLEY EXHIBIT A All deed and map reference hereinafter referred to are as recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Contra Costa County, State of California. Beginning,at the intersection of the southerly right-of-way line of Wilbur Avenue with the westerly right-of-way line of Bridgehead Road, said point being on the easterly boundary of the City of Antioch; thence along said City of Antioch boundary in a general southerly direction to its intersection with the southerly right-of-way line of the Southern Pacific Railroad; thence along said southerly line, continuing; along said City of Antioch boundary southeasterly to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of Empire Avenue; thence leaving; said City of Antioch boundary continuing along said railroad right-of-way southeasterly to its intersection with the westerly extension of the southerly right'-of-way line of Neroly Road; thence along said southerly right-of-way line of Neroly Road and its extension easterly to its intersection with the southerly right-of--way line of Delta Road; thence easterly along said southerly line to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of Sellers Avenue; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the southerly right-of-way line of Cypress Road thence easterly along said southerly line to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of Jersey Island Road; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the southerly line of Dutch Slough; thence westerly along; said southerly line to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way line of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Flood Control Channel (5012 OR 314); thence, along said right-of-way westerly and southwesterly to the most northeasterly corner of the parcel conveyed to the Oakley Bethel Island Wastewater Management Authority by Grant Deed recorded December 20, 1991, in Book 17096 at Mage 852 of Official Records; thence along; the north line of said parcel North 56017'46" West, 1,149.57 feet; thence North 78"35'47" West, 514.94 feet; thence South 07"46'30" West 352.46 feet; thence North 88"]8'11" West to a point in Digi Break 200 feet northerly of the mean high tide line; thence along; a line 200 feet northerly of said mean high tide line in a general northwesterly direction to its intersection with the easterly right-of=-way line of Highway 160; thence southerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way line of Wilbur Avenue and the City of Antioch boundary; thence along said City boundary easterly and southerly to the,plomf of beginning. Containing; 8,100.00 acres, more or less. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION f C 651 Pine Street,Eighth Floor-Martinez,CA 94553-1229 (925)646-4090-FAX(925)646-2240 C CMEMBERS ALTERNATE MEMBERS Joseph Canciamilla Dwight Meadows Michael Cory County Supervisor Special Districts Special Districts EXECUTIVE OFFICER Millie Greenberg Michael Menesini Donna Gerber ANNAMARIA PERRELLA Danville Town Council Martinez City Council County Supervisor David Jameson Martin McNair David Kurrent Special Districts Public Member Public Member Don Tatzin Gayle B.L3ilkema Lafayette City Council County Supervisor DATE: August 13, 1998 rsFc EIVED TO: Distribution below: FROM: Annamaria Perrella L�'t C€EEK Suti D OF SUPEAVJ8r;AS SUBJECT: IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED OAKLEY NIP COSTA GO INCORPORATION (LAFC 97-17) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Enclosed is a copy of the subject Analysis approved by LAFCO at its meeting yesterday. Please note that there is a minor correction in the first paragraph, line 3: it should read"square miles bounded on the WEST by the City of Antioch...", not the EAST as shown in the draft. Thank you. CC'. Ann Cervelli, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Hugh Denton; Elections Department Bob Braitman Walter Kieser IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED INCORPORATIONOF THE CITY OF OAKLEY Approval by a majority of those voting on this proposal will result in the incorporation of the City of Oakley, which would encompass approximately 15 square miles bounded on the west by the City of Antioch, on the south by the City of Brentwood, on the north by the Big Break Area, and on the east by Sellers Avenue. The new city would have approximately 21,000 residents and 12,000 registered voters. If approved by this vote, the incorporation would become effective on July 1, 1999. Services to be provided by the new city would include law enforcement, land use planning and regulation, and public streets (eg, street maintenance). Upon incorporation, decisions on such services would made by an elected city council and public officials (eg, city manager) appointed by the council. Fire protection, public schooling, public health, water and sewer, and regional recreation services would continue to be provided by other agencies. An election for city council members shall be held concurrently with the election on the question of whether a new city should be established. The five candidates for city council receiving the most votes will be elected as the initial governing body if the new city is formed. The election on the question of whether a new city should be established also shall determine whether future city councilmembers shall be elected by district or continue to be elected at large. Upon incorporation, taxes, fees, assessments and charges currently levied by the County would continue to be levied by the new City. When approving the incorporation, the Local Agency Formation Commission determined that the proposed City would be financially feasible and capable of maintaining or improving the level of services now provided to the area by the County. Approval of the incorporation also would constitute approval of an annual appropriations limit of$4,145,258, consistent with the City's projected revenues and expenditures. The above statement is an impartial analysis of the proposed incorporation . If you want a copy of the resolution of the Local Agency Formation Commission, approving the proposed incorporation, please call the elections Department at (510) 646-4166 and a copy will be mailed to you at no cost. C.oakimpanai.doc CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LO"L AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 651 Pine Street,Eighth Floor•Martinez,CA 94553-1229 (925)646-4090•FAX(925)646-2240 La .fcc MEMBERS ALTERNATE MEMBERS Joseph Canciamilla Dwight Meadows Michael Cory County Supervisor Special Districts Special Districts EXECUTIVE OFFICER Millie Greenberg Michael Menesini Donna Gerber ANNAMARIA PERRELLA Danville Town Council Martinez City Council County Supervisor David Jameson Martin McNair David Kurrent Special Districts Public Member Public Member Gayle B.Uilkema Don Tatzin County Supervisor Lafayette City Council DATE: August 5, 1998 DECEIVED TO: LAFC Commissioners } FROM: Annamaria Perrella, Executive Officer CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ONTRA COSTA CO. SUBJECT: Agenda Item 8; August 12, 1998 CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED OAKLEY INCORPORATION (LAFC 97-17) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Board of Supervisors, as Conducting Authority for the Oakley Incorporation, has called an election on the question of incorporation for November 3, 1998, and the Executive Officer is required to prepare and submit to the Commission, for its approval or modification, an impartial ballot analysis. Enclosed is a draft analysis, which does not exceed 500 words in length (Gov.C. 57144) and includes a general description of the boundaries of the affected territory. Recommendation: Approve the enclosed impartial ballot analysis and direct the Executive Officer to immediately forward the approved document to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. cc(with enclosure).- Ann nclosure):Ann Cervelli; Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Hugh Denton; Elections Department Bob Braitman Walter Kieser 4 IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED INCORPORATION OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY Approval by a majority of those voting on this proposal will result in the incorporation of the City of Oakley, which would encompass approximately 15 square miles bounded on the east by the City of Antioch, on the south by the City of Brentwood, on the north by the Big Break Area, and on the east by Sellers Avenue. The new city would have approximately 21,000 residents and 12,000 registered voters. If approved by this vote, the incorporation would become effective on July 1, 1999. Services to be provided by the new city would include law enforcement, land use planning and regulation, and public streets (eg, street maintenance). Upon incorporation, decisions on such services would made by an elected city council and public officials (eg, city manager) appointed by the council. Fire protection, public schooling, public health, water and sewer, and regional recreation services would continue to be provided by other agencies. An election for city council members shall be held concurrently with the election on the question of whether a new city should be established. The five candidates for city council receiving the most votes will be elected as the initial governing body if the new city is formed. The election on the question of whether a new city should be established also shall determine whether future city councilmembers shall be elected by district or continue to be elected at large. Upon incorporation, taxes, fees, assessments and charges currently levied by the County would continue to be levied by the new City. When approving the incorporation, the Local Agency Formation Commission determined that the proposed City would be financially feasible and capable of maintaining or improving the level of services now provided to the area by the County. Approval of the incorporation also would constitute approval of an annual appropriations limit of $4,145,258, consistent with the City's projected revenues and expenditures. The above statement is an impartial analysis of the proposed incorporation . If you want a copy of the resolution of the Local Agency Formation Commission, approving the proposed incorporation, please call the elections Department at (540) 646-4466 and a copy will be mailed to you at no cost. Approved: 7/15/98 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Minutes of Special Meeting June 24, 1998 Board of Supervisors Chambers - Martinez Chair McNair reconvened the meeting at 1 :05 p.m. Present at today's meeting were: WE M Martin McNair, Chair; Public Member Millie Greenberg, Vice-Chair; Town of Danville n," M Joe Canciamilla; Supervisor, District 5 MW c� David Jameson; Special Districts cs� Dwight Meadows; Special Districtsc 0 Gayle B. Uilkema; Supervisor, District 2 Michael Cory, Alternate; Special Districts Donna Gerber, Alternate; Supervisor, District 3 David Kurrent, Alternate; Public Member Don Tatzin, Alternate; City of Lafayette The Chair said the June 10 meeting had been adjourned to today's special meeting to finalize the fiscal impacts and any other relevant information required to make findings pursuant to Gov.C.Sec.55375. 1 and make a determination on the questions of the Incorporation of Oakley (LAFC 97-17 ) . He noted Commissioner Meadows has stepped down from participating in this item and Commissioner Cory will sit in his place. He also noted that Commissioner Tatzin will sit in for Commissioner Menesini who is absent today. 7 . MATTERS SET FOR HEARING 7a. LAFC 97-17: Incorporation of the City of Oakley and Establishment of an SOI Boundary for Said City EO Recommendation: Find that the proposed incorporation of Oakley is supported by the intent of the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, including but not limited to, the policies of Sections 56001, 56300, 56301 and 56377; find affected territory to be legally inhabited; designate the proposal as "Oakley Incorporation (LAFC 97-17) "; designate the Contra Costs County Board of Supervisors as Conducting Authority and authorize said Board to conduct further proceedings in compliance with this resolution, and approve the incorporation subject to the terms and conditions stated in the enclosed Exhibit A, Resolution Making Determinations . LAFCO Meeting Minutes - June 24, 1998 2 Ms. Perrella said she would recap the handouts and changes and additions received since her staff report was sent out June 19 : (1) the updated 6119 "terms & conditions"; (2) another "terms & Conditions" adding a change for #36; (3) today's Delta Protection Commission FAX from Margit Aramburu and Ms. Perrella's suggested amendment to her staff recommendation, deleting the Big Break portion from the incorporation area; (4) Counsel Westman's memo regarding sections of the public resources code pertaining to solid waste franchise fees; (4) a short memo regarding Redevelopment pass-through and agency boundaries and that two Fire Districts listed in that memo no longer exist; (6) letter received today which states that last night the Antioch City Council adopted a resolution supporting this incorporation; and (6) the last handout today, which has nothing to do with Oakley, is her memo regarding changing the LAFCO July 8 meeting to July 15, one week later. Chair McNair said the public hearing has been closed and asked for a motion to reopen it. A motion by Commissioner Greenberg to reopen the public hearing was seconded by Commissioner Canciamilla and approved by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Canciamilla, Cory, Greenberg, Jameson, Tatzin, Uilkema and McNair NOES: None Dale Smith, Oakley Incorporating, thanked the Executive Officer for her help in preparing this proposal. He also expressed appreciation to all the people on their committee, most especially Thayne Thomas . Mr. Thomas also thanked everyone who assisted with this local government venture. He said they do not have any outstanding issues with the current terms and conditions, and he noted their group will be satisfied with any decision LAFCO makes regarding Big Break boundaries. Tony Enea, of the County Administrator's office, said local government is very complex and apologized to the Commission for the last minute action and paperwork. He thanked the Oakley citizens and the Executive Officer for all their hard work. Margit Aramburu of the Delta Protection Commission said one of their main goals is to keep out the spread of city boundaries in the Delta's Primary Zone. She said they hope that most of Big Break can be deleted from Oakley's boundaries today and thanked LAFCO staff and the Oakley Incorporation Committee for their cooperation. Meeting Minutes - June 24, 1998 3 When Chair McNair said there was a suggested 100-foot boundary from shore into the water, Ms . Aramburu said that would work for them. He then noted that there had been a request from one Commissioner to separate the fiscal issues from boundary issues. Commissioner Uilkema noted that Ms. Aramburu's letter stated the staff report said the proposed city boundaries would extend beyond the Urban Limit Lines. When she asked what did Ms . Aramburu recommend, there was no specific recommendation, east that the boundary be pulled back toward land as far as possible, closer to the ULL. She felt this was something that the city and county to discuss, not necessarily coterminous, but closer. Chair McNair asked what other issues besides boundary issues that still needed to be discussed. Ms. Perrella said all new information had been touched on and if the Commission has determined that it wants to split the issues, there is no problem with going ahead with that. A motion by Commissioner Canciamilla to adopt the staff recommendation including the resolution authorizing the incorporation of Oakley, minus the boundary lines, and also including the most recent version of the Terms and Conditions, with all amendments, modifications and changes up to and including those at 1:30 this afternoon, was seconded by Commissioner' Uilkema and approved by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Canciamilla, Cory, Greenberg, Jameson, Tatzin, Uilkema and McNair NOES: None ABSTAINING: Commissioner Meadows Commissioner Canciamilla said he was prepared to put a motion on the floor, if the Chair was ready to discuss a specific option. When Chair McNair asked Mr. Thomas if the 100-foot boundary would be inboard or outboard and at what tide-level, Commissioner Canciamilla said his experience was that it was generally mean high-water. Mr. Thomas said they had no problem with bringing the boundary contiguous with the shore line at high tide and including all structures that protrude from the shore. Chair McNair understood that to be 100 feet waterward from the mean high water line. When the Chair spoke of Mr. Thomas ' concern for island areas and the jetty to the south, Mr. Thomas said they were not concerned about those items, as long as the boundaries follow the shore line and that would make the boundaries contiguous with the East Bay Regional Park District. Those park district boundaries cover about one-half of the Big Break area, he added. Meeting Minutes June 24, 7.998 4 Chair McNair understood Mr. Thomas to suggest south of the regional park area and what the Chair suggests is 100 feet waterward of the mean high-water line. Commissioner Canciamilla said the EBRPD boundary is to the east of the area we are talking about and runs north/south. The idea is to create a city boundary for the Antioch bridge running east to the border with the EBRPD, so that in terms of law enforcement, maintenance and shoreline operation, there would be one entity responsible from the bridge and park district eastward. The Coast Guard will have jurisdiction. Oakley Incorporating did not want to be in a position where all of a sudden the sheriff is patrolling this stretch of Big Break and then sending them a pro-rated bill for patrolling "city jurisdiction" . Chair McNair asked if he was comfortable with the 100 ft. boundary, Commissioner Canciamilla felt 150 ft at high tide would be sufficient. Commissioner Canciamilla said if someone wishes to build a dock, there are three or four permit processes they would have to go through. Commissioner Meadows stepped to the public speaker stand and noted there is a 200 ft. buffer in the water on the north side of the levy for Ironhouse Sanitary District boundaries . Commissioner Canciamilla said that whether 100 or 200 feet, the idea was to set a finite boundary that did not go out into the Big Break area to cause any kind of problem. He proposed to establish a boundary west to east to follow shore line with County and EBRPD one-half of Big Break area. A motion was made by Commissioner Canciamilla to adopt the remainder of the staff recommendation which includes boundaries and the following modification: that the City boundary on the north side extend from the mean high-water mark to the Antioch bridge eastward to the boundary line of the EBRPD SOI and follow the shore line 200 feet out. He further clarified the motion "the purpose is to establish a definite boundary line for the city running west to east that would follow the shore line and establish a boundary not only with the County in the waterway, but would establish a boundary with the EBRPD half of the Big Break area". Meeting Minutes - June 24, 1998 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tatzin and approved by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Canciamilla, Cory, Greenberg, Jameson, Tatzin, Uilkema and McNair NOES: None ABSTAINING: Commissioner Meadows Chair McNair offered congratulations to the Oakley Incorporating Committee and said Mr. Braitman has requested to speak after this vote. Oakley Consultant Bob Braitman said the people on this incorporating committee are dedicated, intelligent and extremely hard-working. He thanked County staff, and especially Consultant Walter Kieser, for his terrific help. He also thanked LAFCO Counsel Graves and Ms . Perrella for all their efforts, noting that the LAFCO Executive Officer is professional, acts with alacrity, and is independent of the County, which is a good thing. He said the next step for LAFCO will be to adopt the impartial ,analysis for the November election. He sincerely thanked the Commission for their dedication throughout this four-meeting incorporation process . Chair McNair commended all the citizens of Oakley, stating the amount of data generated was amazing. He was impressed with the fact that there was no significant opposition to this incorporation and felt it was a credit to the thoroughness of this Committee. Commissioner Canciamilla said he had never seen a group as willing to work to gather facts and funds for their goal, and then also come up with agreements . He commended them for their labors, stating the next tiny "hurdle" is the election and then they will be wondering about their own problems, instead of someone elsewhere in the County doing that. Counsel Westman said he was present when the first incorporation process (City of Clayton) went through LAFCO and has seen quite a few ethers since that time. He felt the City of Oakley will surely succeed with this group of people who are willing to work so hard for it. Commissioner Uiikema noted this was a very different process from the failed Alamo Incorporation, which had much controversy and where the people didn't get the chance to vote. Commissioner Greenberg congratulated the Incorporation Committee and wished them the best in their endeavors. Meeting Minutes - June 24, 1998 6 Chair McNair stated the Executive Officer did a magnificent job in assisting with making things running so smoothly on this proposal. He has met many Executive Officers from other counties and feels that Contra Costa has the "best EO in the State". He asked her for any final comments to wrap this up. Ms . Perrella thanked the Oakley Committee, Tony Enea and Walter Kieser for their willingness and cooperative hard work, noting that she was surprised and heartened by this experience where everyone worked together in resolving any issues that arose. There was a short break and when the meeting resumed Ms. Perrella said her June 23 memo requested a change of the July meeting date and adjournment today to July 15 . The Chair asked for a motion to this effect. A motion by Commissioner Tatzin to adjourn to July 15 for the next meeting was seconded by Commissioner Greenberg and approved by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Canciamilla, Greenberg, Jameson, Meadows, Tatzin, Uilkema and McNair NOES: None Chair McNair adjourned the meeting to July 15, 1958 at 1:30pM. Respectfully submitted, Therese Humbert Commission Secretary I LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) Approved: 7/15/98 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Minutes of Regular Meeting June 10, 1998 Board of Supervisors Chambers - Martinez Chair McNair called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was followed by the roll call. Present at today' s meeting: Martin McNair, Chair; Public Member Millie Greenberg, Vice-Chair; Town of Danville Joe Canciamilla; Supervisor, District 5 David Jameson; Special Districts M Dwight Meadows; Special Districts [i!l iMichael Menesini; City of Martinez _mGayle B. Uilkema, Supervisor, District 2Michael Cory, Alternate; Special Districts rnDonna Gerber, Alternate; Supervisor, District 3 David Kurrent, Alternate; Public Member Don Tatzin, Alternate; City of Lafayette DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS The following campaign contribution notice was read to LAFCO Commissioners and audience by Annamaria Perrella, Executive Officer: Government Code Section 84308 requires that a Commissioner disqualify herself/himself and not participate in a proceeding involving an "entitlement for use" if, within the last 12 months, the Commissioner has received $250 or more in campaign contributions from an applicant, an agent of an applicant, or any financially-interested person who actively supports or opposes a decision on the matter. A LAFCO decision approving a proposal (e.g. , for an annexation) will often be an entitlement for use within the meaning of Section 84308. However, Sphere of Influence determinations are usually not subject to GovCode Section 84308. If you are an applicant or an agent of an applicant on such a matter to be heard by the Commission and if you have made campaign contributions totaling $250 or more to any Commissioners in the past 12 months, Section 84308(d) requires that you disclose the fact for the official record of the proceeding. The disclosure of any such contribution (including the amount of the contribution and the name of the recipient Commissioner) must be made either: 1) In writing and delivered to the Commission Secretary prior to the hearing on the matter, or, 2 ) By oral declaration made at the time the hearing on the matter is opened. LAFCO Meeting Minutes - June 10, 1998 2 Contribution disclosure forms are available at the meeting for anyone who prefers to disclose contributions in writing. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. Adoption of Agenda: A motion by Commissioner Greenberg to adopt the agenda, was seconded by Commissioner Uilkema and approved by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Greenberg, Jameson, Meadows, Tatzin, Uilkema and McNair NOES: None Public Comments : Chair McNair asked for public comment on any item not on the agenda and there was none. Consent Calendar 6a. Consider approval of May 13 and May 27 , 1998 meeting minutes 6b. Summary of Pending Proposals 6c. LAFC 98-19 - MS 8-97 Annexation to CSA L-100 Eta Recommendation: Certify review and consideration of the County- prepared Categorical Exemption; find affected territory to be legally uninhabited; designate the proposal as "MS 8-97 Annexation to CSA L-100 (LAFC 98-19 ) " ; approve the proposal subject to the conditions that 1) the boundaries of affected territory shall be as shown on Proposal Map 98-19, and 2) affected territory shall be subject to the rules, regulations, ordinances, bonded indebtedness, contractual agreements and special taxes or charges of the annexing agency; and, pursuant to GovCode 56837(c) waive Conducting Authority proceedings . 6d. LAFC 98-26 - LUP 2013--98 Annexation to CSA L-100 Eta Recommendation: Certify review and consideration of the County- prepared Categorical Exemption; find affected territory to be legally uninhabited; designate the proposal as "LUP 2013-98 Annexation to CSA L-100 (LAFC 98-26) "; approve the proposal subject to the conditions that 1) the boundaries of affected territory shall be as shown on Proposal Map 98-26, and 2) affected territory shall be subject to the rules, regulations, ordinances, bonded indebtedness, contractual agreements and special taxes or charges of the annexing agency; and, pursuant to GovCode 55837 (c) waive Conducting Authority proceedings . LAFCO Meeting Minutes - June 10, 1998 3 6e. LAFC 98-27 - MS 13-97 Annexation to CSA L-100 EO Recommendation: Certify review and consideration of the County- prepared Categorical Exemption; find affected territory to be legally uninhabited; designate the proposal as "MS 13-97 Annexation to CSA L-100 (LAFC 98-27) "; approve the proposal subject to the conditions that 1) the boundaries of affected territory shall be as shown on Proposal Map 98-27, and 2) affected territory shall be subject to the rules, regulations, ordinances, bonded indebtedness, contractual agreements and special taxes or charges of the annexing agency; and, pursuant to GovCode 56837(c) waive Conducting Authority proceedings . 6f. LAFC 98-28 - LUP 2075-96 Annexation to CSA L-100 EO Recommendation: Certify review and consideration of the County- prepared Categorical Exemption; find affected territory to be legally uninhabited; designate the proposal as "LUP 2075-96 Annexation to CSA L-100 (LAFC 98-28) " ; approve the proposal subject to the conditions that 1) the boundaries of affected territory shall be as shown on Proposal Map 98-28, and 2) affected territory shall be subject to the rules, regulations, ordinances, bonded indebtedness, contractual agreements and special taxes or charges of the annexing agency; and, pursuant to GovCode 56837 (c) waive Conducting Authority proceedings . Commissioner Meadows amended page 8 of the May 13 minutes to show that he is a Board Member of Ironhouse Sanitary District. A motion by Commissioner Uilkema to approve the amended consent calendar was seconded by Commissioner Meadows and approved by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Greenberg, Jameson, Meadows, Tatzin, Uilkema and McNair NOES: None 7 . MATTERS SET FOR HEARING 7a. LAFC 97-10: KIRKORIAN, IBSEN, GINNISAIYA BOUNDARY REORGANIZATION EO Recommendation: Adopt the LAFCO-prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration; find that mitigation measures specified in the document are the responsibility and jurisdiction of parties other than LAFCO; designate the proposal as "Kirkorian, Ibsen, Ginn-Saiya Boundary Reorganization (LAFC 97-10) " ; find affected territory to be legally uninhabited; designate the CCCSD Board of Directors as LAFCO Meeting Minutes - June 10, 1998 4 Conducting Authority and authorize said Beard to conduct further proceedings without notice and hearing; and approve the proposal subject to the conditions that: (1) the boundary of affected territory shall be as shown on the proposal map; (2) affected territory shall be subject to the ordinances, rules, regulations, bonded indebtedness, service charges (if any) and contractual obligations same as the annexing agencies; (3) prier to the Executive Officer's filing of the Certificate of Completion, and to further the purpose of establishing the rights, priority and/or capacities of water for the annexing territory (Gov.C.56844 ( j ) } , EBMUD or the property owner(s) shall present evidence to the Executive Officer that EBMUD and the property owner(s) have entered into an agreement that is intended to mitigate the impacts on water supply in a manner satisfactory to EBMUD. If the evidence of an agreement(s) between the property owner(s) and EBMUD is not presented to the Executive Officer within 12 months of the date of LAFCO approval, the reorganization will terminate and not become effective. In the event any property owner has not entered into such an agreement for its property within the 12-month period, this shall not prevent the reorganization from being effective as to those property owner(s) who do enter into such agreement with EBMUD. In such event, the Executive Officer shall file a Certificate of Completion as to those properties for which agreements with EBMUD have been entered into. Ms . Perrella said this proposal has been pending for over a year and as all property owners agree to this reorganization, there is 100% landowner consent. The public hearing opened with attorney Bill Falik, representing the property owners, stating the staff report summarizing both pros and cons and discussing all issues is excellent and complimented the Executive Officer for such a good job. In March when the Wendt proposal was approved, this Commission decided to include this property and the Meadows property in the SCI of Danville, EBMUD and CCCSD. The understanding was, that being in those spheres, as the properties were planned and infrastructure provided, they would be annexed. Six or seven months ago the Meadows property annexation was completed. He said the intervening properties are still not approved and noted this is a classic Cortese/Knox "island" situation. The real question is, "Is this a logical extension of urban infrastructure?" he noted, as he didn't believe there could be a better one than this. The two very extensive EIRs have dealt with all the impacts of these issues and to have yet another EIR is unnecessary, as the applicant agreed to the one critical mitigation measure. With that completed, entering into a mitigated negative declaration is all, that would be required under CEQA. Regarding the Town of Danville's TVPOA concerns, he noted he was very much a part of the withdrawal process for TVPOA from the County and reiterated that the project no longer exists. This proposal is completely separate from TVPOA, he added. LAFCO Meeting Minutes - June 10, 1998 5 He then introduced Eric Hasseltine, Lyon Company representative, who said they plan to eventually build homes on this land. He said previous LAFCO action put this area in all three SOIs and today is a follow up with the next logical step, annexation to EBMUD and CCCSD. The present opposition is primarily the same as, that to the Wendt annexation, he noted. With the TVPOA gone, there is a new argument for changing the spheres, but it's apparent that focus is centered east of the Wendt property. Regardless of what they do with the Urban Limit Line, he feels it irrelevant to the decision to be made today. He supported the staff recommendation with conditions as imposed for the service district and asked for Commission approval . Commissioner Jameson asked why they weren't also going forward with annexation to the Town of Danville at this time. Mr. Hasseltine said the Town is only on one side of this project and doesn't create an "island", as surrounding by the two districts does . Commissioner Jameson said one side was enough for annexation to the Town and asked for the logic of not including it at this time. Mr. Hasseltine felt that eventually they would petition to become a part of the Town, but as of right now they only wish to proceed with annexation to the two districts. In looking at page 5 of the staff report and listening to testimony today, Commissioner Uilkema wondered if it is necessary to identify a conducting authority for the EBMUD portion. The Executive Officer noted that in the first paragraph she has recommended that CCCSD be the Conducting Authority for this boundary reorganization, and the conducting authority processes both districts ' annexations. When Commissioner Meadows asked if the Meadows was now in Danville's city limits, Commissioner Greenberg said that it was . Commissioner Jameson asked if there was pre-zoning. Ms . Perrella said when a city submits an application, LAFCO requires pre-zoning in order to place that city in lead agency status. She added that the Commission has the authority to amend this proposal to include annexation to Danville at this time and pre-zoning would not be required. When Commissioner Canciamilla asked if it is currently zoned "ag" , Ms. Perrella said that it is . LAFCO Meeting Minutes - June 10, 1998 6 Marilyn Miller, of EEMUD, stated their opposition to this annexation and said their April 17 letter states they, do not feel the CEQA documentation adequately addresses the water supply impact. If the Commission decides to approve this proposal, EBMUD urges the adoption of the mitigation included in the negative declaration and staff report. Chair McNair asked about the EHMUD meeting of yesterday and Ms . Perrella said Commissioner Jameson would report on that meeting later today, as it is not related to this present discussion. Commissioner Tatzin said although this is not an annexation, but a boundary reorganization, he wondered if the Commission had the option of breaking it into two separate annexation proposals . Counsel Graves said not at this point as it was submitted as a reorganization with certain conditions that apply. Perhaps a part could be denied, but it would be as if LAFCO were self-initiating at this point and there are certain limitations in doing that. Commissioner Menesini arrived and Commissioner Tatzin :stepped down. Danville Town Manager, Joe Calabrigo, said these lands are within the sphere of Danville and both districts, and there are no general plan or land use applications pending on any of these properties right now. Tassajara was annexed to Danville, but Wendt remains in the County, he said, noting that the County, Danville and San Ramon have begun a comprehensive process regarding ag land preservation and urban development in this area. Danville's May 18 and 27 letters state their position regarding the negativedeclaration being inadequate. The intervening property landowners planned to use the Wendt & Meadows EIRs, but he felt they are site specific and said nothing has been prepared specifically for the intervening areas . Danville feels that approval at this time is inconsistent with the County's General Plan, which only allows' ag use and believes approval of this proposal would be premature and inconsistent with land use planning, and lead to piecemeal development. He said the staff report assumes that approval won't cause piecemeal development, because control rests with the land use agencies and that a negative declaration is sufficient. He believes that is presuming someone else will comply with CEQA. Premature approval would preempt the land use planning process, he added, and asked LAFCO to deny this project without prejudice or continue it until such time as specific land use entitlements are granted. If the Commission decides not to deny, then the Town requests continuance to a date certain to allow them time to ensure there will be no negative impact on service to Town residents . LAFCO Meeting Minutes - June 10, 1998 7 Commissioner Jameson asked how long Danville would require, and Mr. Calabrigo said 60 days would probably be adequate. When Commissioner Menesini asked where they were in the County/Danville/San Ramon discussions, Mr. Calabrigo said efforts thus far have been focussed on the area east of Wendt and the intervening areas are on the other side of Wendt. Commissioner Menesini asked when these discussions would be finished, and Mr. Calabrigo said at the rate they are going, probably within the next month. Chair McNair questioned time limits for continuation, and Ms . Perrella said 70 days is considered directory. Chair McNair asked what the difference is between continuing and denying without prejudice. Counsel Graves answered there would be a benefit to denying without prejudice in that if continuation goes beyond the 70 days, it becomes a grey area, but with denial without prejudice, there is no problem. Area landowner, Barbara Ibsen, said they are encountering water supply problems and now, twenty feet from their property, 260 houses are to be built with water already planned for them. She said it wasn't fair for them to have water service and not her and asked the Commission to approve this project. Mr. Falik commented, "Mrs . Ibsen has just said it all ! " He disagreed that Danville should be included in this proposal, as that annexation should come sometime in the future. It good time, the Town will plan for annexation of this area, he said. When the Wendt proposal was approved, in effect this "intervening area" was also approved, and leaving this "island" is in violation of Cortese/Knox, he added. The proponents aren't requesting in any way a separation of this reorganization, they have not applied for a simple annexation and do not want a single annexation, but a boundary reorganization and anything else is unfair, he added. They hope to be able to sit down tomorrow and enter into an offset mitigation agreement with EBMUD, and be able to use the (Meadows/Wendt) pipes that will go right past their property. When Chair McNair questioned the timing on this; would it be 30, 60, or 90 days, Mr. Falik stated that may be what we hear today from Danville, but to do comprehensive planning for this community in 60-90 days when it took 8 years for the process that is now withdrawn, is ludicrous. The Danville/San Ramon/County discussions affect the property to the east of this property, not us, he said. They are surrounded by property that is either in Danville or in EBMUD, so to wait for a process that is affecting property to the east is absolutely unnecessary and also unfair. LAFCO Meeting Minutes - June 10, 1998 8 Danville Town Manager, Joe Calabrigo, said the 60 days estimate is for the process currently under way and they should have an agreement in respect to the ag preserve agreement. It would be in the second phase of this effort where they look at how to plan for any properties that are not in the ag preserve. Chair McNair asked if LAFCO could impose a condition to get this done in 60 days and Counsel Graves said you could, but if they didn't, then the effective condition would be that it wouldn't go forward. With no further speakers, a motion by Commissioner Uilkema to close the public hearing was seconded by Commissioner Menesini and approved by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Canciamilla, Greenberg, Jameson, Meadows, Menesini, Uilkema and McNair NOES: None When Commissioner Menesini asked if we have heard from EBMUD on this, Chair McNair said that was discussed today prior to Commissioner Menesini 's arrival. The Executive Officer said that EBMUD responded to our earlier notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration that was part of the environmental review process . The Commission received those copies at an earlier time, she added. When Commissioner Jameson asked if it would be illegal to deny or postpone this proposal, Mr. Graves said it would not. Since the EBMUD letter shows concern, Commissioner Menesini said he supports "denial without prejudice" . Commissioner Greenberg concurred with him, noting this area is now zoned "ag" and this proposal is premature. She will support the "denial without prejudice" option. Chair McNair asked the Commissioner how they felt about a deadline to do that. Commissioner Menesini said if the process does not unfold as stated, he feels the proponents will come back, and therefore a time limit is not necessary. When Commissioner Uilkema asked what would simple "denial" mean, the Executive Officer said outright denial means they may not come back to LAFCO for 12 months with this project and denial without prejudice means they can come back at any time. LAFCO Meeting Minutes - June 10, 1998 9 Commissioner Uilkema asked if they would then be limited to only the areas included in this present application and Ms. Perrella said no, it would not. It could also be amended to include annexation to the Town. Commissioner Uilkema asked what would have changed two months from now, and Ms. Perrella was not sure what could change in 60 days. She wondered if Danville would then withdraw its objection or assume lead agency status for environmental review. The mitigated negative declaration did not address annexation to the Town of Danville with this proposal, out of respect for the Town as they had stated objection to being included. She was unsure just what the 60 days could accomplish. Mr. Calabrigo said there is more than one alternative to what could occur in 60 days and it's possible for them to come with a request to be included in this annexation. Their intent is to move forward in a timely fashion. Commissioner Uilkema said what if the Commission agreed with the staff report, in order for annexation to occur, doesn't planning and infrastructure have to be included in the annexation plans and in the logical course of things be what the City does? Mr. Calabrigo said that essentially puts the cart before the horse. Bill Falik asked what can be expected to happen in 60 days, noting that he started on the Meadows project two yearsbefore its annexation to Danville - it's not a 60 day process and the suggestion that something will happen may be true for the property to the east, but he seriously doubted that. That's not an issue; the 60 days is a panacea that serves no purpose whatsoever and to suggest study of the FIR would have one impact: CCCSD agrees with the negative declaration and EBMUD will agree after entering into an offset mitigation agreement. When Commissioner Jameson asked Mr. Calabrigo if 60 days was sufficient for Danville to prepare a resolution to amend this application to include them in this boundary reorganization, his answer was "yes" . Planning for the property is going to take as long as it's going to take and Danville requests that' LAFCO allow these property owners time to reapply as soon as there is a project that is defined, he stated. Chair McNair asked if the Town was comfortable with their concerns being taken care of within a 60-day period and Mr. Calabrigo replied that they could prepare a resolution in that time period. LAFCO Meeting Minutes - June 10, 1958 10 Commissioner Canciamilla said the applicant has made a good paint, but things have changed in the last few weeks within this County. He is no longer willing to accept a "double standard" regarding process for areas in Central County and East County. He commented that Manville's concerns are minimal but there are 'several site specific issues yet to be addressed. He felt LAFCO is setting a very poor precedent if it annexes agricultural land into urban service areas. If the Commission chooses approval today, he would be most happy over the next few months to use that approval in considering proposals from East County. Finally, regarding the Ibsen"s water concerns, there is a way of solving their problem without approval of this reorganization, he said. As that area's Supervisor, Commissioner Gerber said she would be pleased to speak with Mrs . Ibsen regarding their water problem. She finds County/City issues regarding development interesting and felt sympathetic with the cities, hoping to work together with them on issues of concern. If LAFCO decides to approve this proposal today, she felt strongly that the Town of Manville should also be included. Commissioner Menesini restated his choice is to deny without prejudice today. When Commissioner Uilkema wondered how a future application for this area could change from how it is now, Commissioner Menesini said that Mr. Calabrigo has stated this as well as it can be stated. Then she asked why "deny without prejudice" was preferable to "approval including the addition of annexation to the City of Manville", and Commissioner Menesini said he reit the 60-day period was critical . Commissioner Canciamilla restated that he expects this project to be held to the same standards for infrastructure as proposals from East County are held. Commissioner Jameson agreed with Commissioner Canciamilla, noting the only problem he saw was inadequacy of water. He felt a full EIR was not necessary, but more than a simple negative declaration for all ether issues to be addressed. Commissioner Meadows understood LAFCO has committed "great sins" in some of its actions, especially in annexing the Wendt and Meadows properties . He wanted to know if LAFCO was now going to look at every new annexation proposal in the same way? He said he supports this reorganization today. LAFCO Meeting Minutes - June 10, 1998 11 Commissioner Greenberg said a major difference is that Wendt had a GPA, pre-zoning and a certified EIR and that is not the case with this proposal today. She added that SOIs are a planning tool and that planning needs to be done. She will be voting to deny this proposal without prejudice today. A motion by Commissioner Menesini to deny the proposal without prejudice was seconded by Commissioner Jameson and approved by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Canciamilla, Greenberg, Jameson, Menesini, and McNair NOES: Commissioners Meadows and Uilkema After a short break, the meeting resumed. 7b. LAFC 98-25 : MORAGA-ORINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOUNDARY REORGANIZATION EO Recommendation: Certify Commission review and consideration of the District' s Notice of CEQA Exemption; find affected territory to be legally inhabited; find that affected territory is within the adopted sphere of influence boundaries for fire districts within the County; designate the proposal as "Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District Boundary Reorganization (LAFC 98-25) " ; designate the M-OFPD Hoard of Directors as the conducting authority and authorize said Board to conduct subsequent proceedings with notice, hearing and mail ballot election; and approve the proposal subject to the following terms and conditions : (1) the effective date of the proposed reorganization will be September 1, 1998, and that will be the date of recordation with the Contra Costa County Clerk by LAFCO: 2) the boundaries of the District shall include the two areas shown on the proposal map; and (3) the proposed reorganization shall be conditioned upon approval by the affected voters by mail ballot of a special tax or fire flow 'tax to fund fire suppression, emergency medical and related services to be provided by the District, as is currently paid by the residents of the District. The Executive Officer said two years ago, when the Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District was formed, this reorganization was discussed, and the District agreed to come back to LAFCO at a later date. That is what they are doing now and the District's Chief and Attorney are present for any questions, she added. LAFCO Meeting Minutes - June 10, 199$ 12 The public hearing opened with Moraga Orinda Fire District Counsel, William Ross, stating they concur with the staff recommendation. He emphasized this proposal is consistent with orderly service and Categorically Exempt under CEQA, and he believed all issues have been addressed. A motion by Commissioner Uilkema to close the public hearing and adopt the staff recommendation was seconded by ' Commissioner Menesini and approved by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Canciamilla, Greenberg, Jameson, Meadows, Menesini, Uilkema and McNair NOES: None 7c. LAFC 97-17 : INCORPORATION OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY EO Recommendation: Close the public hearing and continue this item to a special June 24, 1998 hearing in order to 1) finalize the fiscal impacts and any other relevant information required to make findings pursuant to Gov.C.Sec.56375. 1, and 2) make a determination on the question of the incorporation of Oakley. The Executive Officer said this is the third hearing on this proposed incorporation. At the May 27 meeting this Commission declared its intent to make a determination at the 4th hearing on June 24 and today's meeting will be adjourned to that June 24 meeting. Today's meeting will continue the evaluation of the incorporation feasibility and provide direction on any additional information the Commission might desire. Bennis Barry, County Community Development Director, is present today for questions on the Big Break area of concern, she added. Commissioner Meadows stepped down and Commissioner Cory took his seat. Using a wall map, Mr. Barry explained the County's General Flan Land Use, noting the Big Break area is shown as "water" on a wall map and it is also designated as "water" in the General Plan. He said the black lines show the voter-approved Urban Limit Lines that the County has asked LAFCO to consider when looking at an incorporation proposal . They also asked consideration of their growth management standards and policies with respect to development of the Oakley/North Brentwood area. If an incorporation should occur, the new city will have 30 months to adopt its own general plan. LAFCO Meeting Minutes - June 10, 1998 13 Regarding development agreements, he said the Cypress Corridor area agreement has a 100-acre dedication of land for community purposes, to be accomplished by a comprehensive zoning study of the area. GovC. 65865. 3 regulates how development agreements are to be treated in newly- incorporated cities. Generally speaking, there is a requirement that the newly-incorporated city honor the development agreement, either for its term or for an eight-year period. The County's Consultant has stated a specific condition should be included stating the new city will honor this development agreement. Ms. Perrella noted that in Mr. Graves ' handout prior to today's meeting, development agreements are covered under the terms and conditions of the draft resolution, although not specifically by name. The County and the proponents are in general agreement with these terms and conditions, but they will continue to be reviewed prior to the June 24 meeting. When Chair McNair asked is Big Break in or out of this, Ms . Perrella said that is a boundary issue, and it needs to be determined by the Commission. County consultant, Walter Kieser, said at the last meeting there was concern expressed about the possible loss of MVIL fees . An analysis, with all else being equal, shows a deficit if these revenues were not available. Although with the reserves the city would not run out of money, they would be running in deficit. In the next couple of weeks they will continue to work with the proponents on how to lower costs and find other revenues if that concern would become a reality. He noted the County's terms and conditions were given to LAFCO staff and they plan to continue working with the proponents on all issues, including the redevelopment in the Cypress Corridor and specificity on items such as the transfer of real property to trust accounts, etc. He said they are awaiting a complete Executive Officer's report, as normally at the time of incorporation hearing, there is a substantial report which includes EO recommendations and the reasons for those recommendations. As he does not have those at this time, it is difficult for him to know what their position is on a number of topics, such as terms and conditions, findings, etc. He wanted to know when that would be available, as clearly with a hearing on the 24th, it will be interesting to know just when that will be available. Commissioner Greenberg questioned how the redevelopment agency tax will be transferred to the city if incorporation is approved by LAFCO, as that has not been explained to her satisfaction. Either he could return to the next meeting with a thorough explanation or do so today, she added. LAFCO Meeting Minutes - June 10, 1998 14 He said the Oakley redevelopment area is a large entity, generating $2 million a year. When a city takes over redevelopment from a county, it is through redevelopment law and LAFCO does not have any particular control of that transfer. He said they are not concerned about the normal transfer process, but rather with fiscal mitigation, which is usually a topic in development matters. The County has an interest in the orderly and clear transfer of the RDA, both from the standpoint of the city's fiscal well-being, as well as ongoing fiscal mitigation between the city and county. They hope to see such a recommendation in LAFCO's final action, he said. Thayne Thomas spoke for Oakley Incorporating on possible mitigation measures in the case of MVILF loss . He said planning department and service costs reduction would help and noted that although there would be a decline in revenue, there would be a decline in requests for services also. He added that the P-6 funds had not been taken into consideration and would be additional funds to help off-set that loss. Commissioner Greenberg asked Mr. Thomas to check their projections for MVILF, as it states $46 per capita and her city's experience is that it is $42 . She asked him to check those figures, as they could be overestimating revenue. He said that brings up a point he wanted to make, in that during the ten-year period there was no provision for an increase in MVILF. The population may not change, but the MVILF does actually increase in per capita during each successive year. He noted that would also be an additional source of revenue for the city during the 10-year period. Commissioner Greenberg noted Assemblyman McClintock is going to be in Lafayette Friday the 19th at 7 :30 for Assemblymember Leach's breakfast and she added that anyone wanting to ', express the importance of the MVILF revenue source to local governments could do so at that time. She then added that in the franchise fee section there is no mention of a solid waste franchise fee, which is fairly substantial and similar to the cable tv one. She questioned that there was no amount for capital projects in the budget and he said there was only the road maintenance item. She thought the staffing costs might be under-estimated, as she did not note any salary increases over time. Please take another look, she said. She had trouble getting through the memo relating to LLAD and Prop 218 and ask about transference of the landscape and lighting service areas and asked if the County had already voted on that. Mr. Thomas said they both had been done in the Oakley area. LAFCO Meeting Minutes - June 10, 1998 15 When Commissioner Jameson questioned the differences in proponent/county conditions, Mr. Thomas said it's not so much there are differences as that there are now three lists of conditions; they now have to get together to clarify with slight changes in wording to make one list. One area of concern would be repayment of negative accounts. Oakley currently has a $1.4 million obligation for the area benefit fee for widening Highway 4 and they wish to see that put in the terms and conditions. They feel an obligation for that debt and hope to repay it by using the same mechanism as was authorized when originated by the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Cory was pleased with the group of letters from organizations and the public in support of this incorporation in the last month. When he asked about candidates for City Council, Mr. Thomas said more individuals have expressed interest but as they have not divulged their names, he did not feel free to do so. Commissioner Cory encouraged as many people as possible to get involved in this process. Mr. Thomas said their group could ask the press to publish an article asking candidates to step forward and make themselves known. Commissioner Cory asked why they proposed a directly elected mayor and four councilpersons as opposed to electing five councilmembers who select the mayor. Mr. Thomas said there was no particular reason and they are agreeable to the 5-member process, if that is the appropriate way to proceed. Regarding one other matter, election by "district" or "at large" , he noted the group supports the "at large" method. When Commissioner Uilkema asked if the terms and conditions received in the agenda packets are the latest version, Ms . Perrella said they were not, as a draft update was given out today and another will follow soon. Commissioner Uilkema thought that charges, fees and assessments not only be continued at same rates but also for the same period of time and time was not mentioned in the documents . She asked if the appropriations limit is an area of contention for Oakley and Mr. Thomas said it was not. She said it then needs to be filled in and Ms. Perrella said the draft received today does have that item filled in. Commissioner Uilkema noted that in the draft received today, the EO warned that a general fund operating deficit is projected in the years 2001 through 2005. Commissioner Uilkema wondered if a cause of that would be the repayment of the loan to the County and she hoped this could be ironed out so that down the road litigation doesn't show up, as that would really throw Oakley's budget projection out of whack. { LAFCO Meeting Minutes - June 10, 1998 16 When Commissioner Cory suggested that the Oakley group find a "friendly city manager and consult with him", Mr. Thomas said he already had someone in mind. A motion by Commissioner Uilkema to close the public hearing and adopt the staff recommendation was seconded by Commissioner Menesini and approved by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Canciamilla, Cory, Greenberg, Jameson, Menesini, Uilkema and McNair NOES: None Commissioner Uilkema asked that the Executive Officer evaluate inclusion of the Big Break area and make a recommendation to the Commission. Ms . Perrella said her three earlier staff reports will be tied in with her June 24 staff report and recommendation. 8. INFORMATION ITEMS/ANNOUNCEMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS a. CALAFCO Conference and Nominations for the Executive Board Ms . Perrella said that as the CALAFCO Conference is set for Sept 9- 11, there will be an item on next month's agenda for Commission consideration of whether to postpone or cancel our regular September 9 meeting date. She asked any Commissionerplanning to attend the conference to notify the Secretary as soon as possible. Commissioner Jameson said he was seeking reelection to the CALAFCO Executive Board and passed out copies of his resume, asking for the Commission's support. He added that CALAFCO hopes for more nominees than "spots" to fill and asked other Commissioners to please apply, as CALAFCO hopes to have competition for seats . b. Discussion of William Ross 517109 letter re his appointment to the Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Centu Eta Recommendation: Take the matter under consideration and determine if there are any issues your Commission wishes to address. If there is a specific area of concern,' it can be discussed in more detail at the August 12 meeting, and a response forwarded to Mr. Gotch after that time (the August agenda is recommended because the Oakley incorporation hearings should be concluded by then) . LAFCO Meeting Minutes - June 10, 1998 17 Mr. Ross said he has extensive exposure to the legislature process and looks forward to working on this Commission. He is open to receiving any Commissioner letters regarding recommendations for general or specific areas needing attention regarding changes of substantive law. Speaking regarding the joint LAFCO/EBMUD process, Ms . Miller said Commissioner Gerber's ag preserve concept is similar to the one in the Brionnes area. She noted her Board will prepare' a report of their June 23 meeting for distribution. She added they will be discussing the urban limit line process and how EBMUD 'is a part of this process . Commissioner Menesini said although ULLs are a county creation, cities might want to look at them and perhaps agree to those lines, even look at DLLs and update spheres of influence at the same time and he hoped LAFCO would participate. Ms. Perrella said in 1992-93 LAFCO tried to do this, but did not have a lot of success with its efforts . Commissioner Menesini said as Chair of Mayor's conference, he felt each city would respond, as some cities felt they were treated unfairly in ULLlsphere decisions. The meeting adjourned to a special LAFCO meeting at 1PM on June 24, 1998, Board of Supervisors Chambers, Martinez, in order to discuss the fiscal impacts, estimate of property tax distribution and other relevant financial information for the Proposed Incorporation of the City of Oakley (LAFC 97-17) . Respectfully submitted, Therese Humbert Commission Secretary NOTICE O, BLit HEMf4e ON WUNDF TY CHANGE AFFECTING TEMT0R 4N C0NM COF AC C9JNTY (Government Cate 9e tlen 57026) The Locei rar,y�Formation Com "M Of Cotrtra COft counh �ie` �+ t'° own as the The n r ihb boundary change were IrAW, d by; A of ddwa of to Affaftd toy Sladon,June ff197, ttra G Chiet ra Enrico E. s�ulnt s>sY Ce E.Paeirts- y,CA and Thayna t.Ttromaa.Jr.,tiebeY CA. The reaswsa ret Wft in the PeYlap�►i for PROOF OF I�ClBUCATION �, � � *dd,� incYease_oppoetunWas for t ba �viee (•2 d 1 5.5 C�i:.C.p.) acre partrCipata in ub c}retain nevemraa snaraied trs eu�pporl STATE OF CALIFORNIA �oc�s P� r a�and fit promote o arty •t:ourity Cif Contrz Costa PLEASE TAKE N E THAT A iWBUC tlet"a rtnAt B£ HELD ON THE PROPOSED BCUND/1t�Y I am a citizen of the United States and a CHAHf36: resident of the County aforesaid; t am over Pima of Boaraofsupen+*oWCnambara the aue bf elohteen years,•$.ctd not a party.tobet t07,11, or Interested•In,the ab6ve-•entitted matter. f � I am the Prfnclpal Legal Cfedc of the Ledger Data asxt lyme W trete=JutY 28;t985.of ti9 a.m. Dispatch and Brentwood News. News Pape ftb#r bpdy auftfted to oondnct hang:antra pp P Costa County goard of 9uMAeors of.gener-d( clrcufatfon, printed and published „> ,wteda + nenrWearatOft hearing and be at 7550 Cavallo Road In-the City of Anticich, t�rdontlrabwardaryol&W. County of 0ontra Costa, 94509. The chtngaa of ori�ainiaation andtor reor anrzat+ona And d pp id which newspapers ers have been audger s�r�g �: rbkrn roues boundary ofs 9W CRY. of m re of newspapers of general cirdulatlon.by the Su- A sdsa d Of exterior'bounder of the penor Court of the Gounty of Contra Costa, ow fe ory a " furs " altrState of Ca.Ilfornla, under the date of March gra , a L 8t 1870. Case Number 745370. sdohmrAnatioricarut Of N�o•.g7-txgo"11,m In The notice, of which the.annexed Is a printed A*Wniatr son iigt r�ioor #Pl co { In in type not smaller than nonpareil), t �r#°�,�oo,ardary e has beer' pub€ished in each regular and en- r , sae Attea$ EadrRiit fire Issue of said newspapers and not In any thaf tYsi ie6Gt#s tlta tsotmYgelst®rmtrtsd SAY supplement thereof on the following dates, ffBtA{i ED. to-WI t: PWTEST3: .......... , /�"� r At any lima Pctor to the condtraion of Bio at�ve noris � 1 T-. hear) A vtrittan net#sa In the+y ar o E 1998.................................... 57 R.c to t ag l t rtl the fmf�g,and as W10"C fy,(or declare} under penalty of perjury � gTrd t° ,�� °"t' that the foregoing is true and correct. � � ner Protest arwor a A 6<ecuted at Antioch; Callfomia. � a Lar,4MMPrr t: On this ...�2....... day of ... o� ,ln `�0 a ttod� ;c� 1998" 2)It a r+�uarae.orb . .. y the Tina name and md>Mq dEdreas ttw of owrnsr of and . a,, .. ..... , sireetaddrese daecdpdat eg. 6L Itc ttlX t' paicei nt w fy the tend. Ledger Dispat and Brentwood News b.PegisferedvotarProtaat: P.O. t7X 2299 t}A ata that ute patron ding the protest IS a voter*oil the termory subjeet to the; Antioch, CA 94531-•2293 bo�rct . (5Y f3j'"7'5 7=2��5 • 2j 7t� Hemi dna ad�'saa of drs volar: sa tt ri�esrsan g alTidrvit of voter regiatratir ,. Date of Noace:JtdyB,T996 r CCa� i Cleric of the Board and By:Arm COMM,stralff– deputy Cleric �., . Oakley am— De�iet BNBt 3674 s ,K Publish:Duty t4,f9ft8 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MING ON WUNOARY CHUMN4t".,TYE AFFECTING TERRITORY 04 CONTRA COSTA(I]UN (Government owsodw 57M) The Loa Agency For=Wn ConantasW of Contra Costa has Loved«tmou chs a known as the =hot ro[ckki�tyday 17). The V0o,#t p for this booMd4r(dVVV4 were irdda6ad by: A aptd�yld st to an C ;n. r t-n t fr t rt f n t Tltcctu►dCRk»Ottd+ LA. may`CA and "'PROOF a.�� t:st t� €�rt-M Q i� � Th°n�asaru►i +tu+►tt�'a a a a� iw acamunOw b V4% h« a o be city 4ot+ectt� • ., ��)`��.� �.G.P.} kncrsaae o is �to dtr acUv4se, ST C? C�'iLIIAIIA cIi e�� rat the city to suri. R . and td?Ptanote. sey -#00unty of Contri Costa pLEASE TAKE NpTICS•THAT A PUBLIC HEARING t .am ;i •Gitlzen of the United States ,and a WILL BE HELD t3N THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY resident of,this County e.foressld, I am over CHANGE1 V the aae €7f ; l%;hte�enye ,=t�.tw not a party.W Ptaceat c�'�oS`psry Chambers or. Interested,tn,the ab ve-entltted matter. tdaisGtAion I am the Prfn&lpal Legal Clerk of the ,..edger rat««�ndt�+a�tha.+ r�riz� it .atii a.m. OispatchYand Brentwood views.Ne�rsppapers a, ad to tle hearing:contra of c6neril olrc;ufa.tlonr printed and ptsltftshed Co � at 1650 Cavallo Road ln'the City of Anticich, �apPw'at this hearing and be County of contra Costa 94509. heardornttehoutndarY The 4han ss of-org tzstton--sndlor reornat3ons And whlcxc newspapers have been adjudged nt�tc+ �a� ,� n"�` .t ai te SoharIncorporation necuspapers of General c coutation.by the Su- 3ntttanoe rrFsawoty the penor Court of the County of Contra Costa. A arm +��a•� �f' �` ed Stat; oaf Oallfomla, under the date of Mardh to `trry out eawmt f WTI to � to spt rt of the 26r 18-10.-Case Number 746:370: Formadan Ccvr Issio V srtutto,No, LOOM 18-10. datorn9natksna s�andd shed u+nr3ary :h*nga, Ite notlGer cif which the.anAexed Is a.printed y�y�'d afbrt a Genua ersta L�' +troat cogs-{set In a not str>ajfet-than n6hpar'ell}, ��'R w tn; i ;'l has beery ;pu�lshed In ouchregular and en-� s:sA`a � tire ts:tue of said newspapers and not Iii a.ny . t Foei�Ort t.axeisiaato,m has detem4ned suoptet�ent thereof oil the (otfowlng dates. {{mo�iLha Xbylkll intobey tt3 t fNNAt3ttiwD; .... .1r.?:k�.! �t ... .................................. t�Raz E3T5., ....... / At tltine prior to the-'� tusks eiiginstr,'.ad bowduy VW aff In the year of 1998' tM b�iy': arse tutartrtid,and as tcuavut. I dettll'yTor declare) unjf,r penalty of peduty t � t s r�yaa t«ma Ind that,lit toregc�tn€� Is true 4ad GdrreCt. ,y,�,n Poreast«tncllrnr a Aagtetared �xec�sted Fit tlo Catifornli. YotarProteaL'asioito a.t a_ridowna(Protect! { On -Chis ............. day of ....r. .t;C .... i)A��tar r�P*r,�==o,,#: �� I .... .. ...... - x}Tha fltma acid tsct�rg address of lire awna(of +ilric" ttrrt: - .:•a.ur:. 3)TMsfrestarJdri�sa*t��itwy t-.eddeC C)lspa.tch and ntwood News b.PA0A radVoWP*M(e#1: P.O.-BOX 9 -• i)Asim mmvt that the person,ksnti n,e protest is a r.�,ttsred votes vr�kt the isrtito+y su*lct to tate AlltlorA 94531-2299 txn,andamyd cttar>sie.and 25- - 2}The name atnd address of the registered voter • . . as it apps"on I*es"Vit of voter reghtr«tion Date of Notloa.J*8,i t#iEi " — 'IT M h*1 t etK of ba Boom and CopPty, uahar �. � IM PROOF OF PULL{CA`T IOtai .: STAT,r of CAtiF{: RNL'k County of Contra Costa ;> I arra a CitlZen of the United States and a resident of the County a(oresald; f am over the ape of ciohtoen years, and not a party to or-tnterosted In the above-entttted matter- I Em the Pcfncipaf Laval CteeK of the Contra Costa Times. a nawspaPer of ocaora.t clrcxtfatfocj, .printed rind pub- itshed. at 2.f)-4o shadetands odvo Ln the City of Walnut Greek, County of C:antra,Costa„ 94598_ And wfitch newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circ&ation by the SUp,,2t [orC;ourtof the County of Contra. Costa„ State of C ff(ocn[a, under thd'date of -October 22. 1934_Mase Number't976d- The rrotfoe. of which the annexed Cs a.printed copy(set In type not smafler than nonpa.reil), has been published In each re0cf(ar and entire Issue 6(said newspaper and not In any supplement thereo(on the (ollowinp dates, to merit: 11); aff In (he year of 15. f Certify (or declare) under penalty of pcduc�l that the (or13001nCI Is true and correct. executed at Walnut eels California On this . ` da o -.r ... ...... Sfc7na.ture Contra Costa nines P.D., Box 4147 Wa.[nut C?reeK CA 94596 (5'I Cfj,935-2.525 . Proof of Pubitcatfon of; (atYaC110d is a copyof the Iegaf advertisement that pub- Iisharla r �a EAST BAY: . .w.. REGIONAL o 044 MAK PARC DISTfUC' Q9Y Ypt�p ,o37-tgt�D TfJR'Y F Y MARSK r � CREEK Oakley 9 =VACA"L w i N Awn0CH iwnd Rona Awd 4L`13END HM Awnw wiwtiLMW,LYM Une Nrof RGb cow$"ftok d +d asE:aar Proposed Clty of Oakley AM 24,IM NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON BOUNDARY CHANGE AFFECTING TERRITORY IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (Government Cade Section 57026) The Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra Costa Cour nroved a boundary change known as the"Incorporation of the City of 0ak?ey(U7e97-17)." The proceedings for this boundary change were initiated by. A petition of citizens of the affected territofiled on June 30, 1997,by the following Chief Petitioners:Enrico E. Cinquini,Oakley,CA; Alice E. Posin,Oakley,CA;and Thayne L.Tomas,Jr.,Oakley,CA. The reasons set forth in the Chief Petitioners'proposal for the boundary change are to Ja)enhance local control and accountability through a locaallelected city council,(b)increase opportunities for citizens to be direct y involved and participate in local civic and governmentalcytIV ties,(c)retain revenues generated within the city to support local programs and services and(d) promote orderly governmental boundaries. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGE: Place of hearing: Board of Supervisors'Chambers County Administration Building 651 Pine Street,Room 107 lartinez,CA 94553 Date and time of hearing:July 28, 1998,at 11 a.m. Public body authorized to conduct the hearing:Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Any interested person may appear at this hearing and be heard on the boundary change. The changes of organization and/or reorganizations comprising the proposed boundary change are: Incorporation of the City of Oakley and establishment of the Sphere of Influence boundary of said City. A precise description of the exterior boundary of the territory subject to the boundary change(the"subject territory"),along with any terms and conditions applicable to the boundary change,is a part of the Local Agency Formation Commission's Resolution No.97-17, making determinations and a roving the boundary change,which m%be viewed in the office of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra Costa?(ounty,County Administration Building,8th Floor,651 Pine Street,Martinez CAT45 3(phone:(510)646- 4090).The general area of the subject territory for the boundary change is:See Attached Map Exhibit A. The Local Agency Formation Commission has determined that the territory subject to the boundary change is legally INHABITED. PROTESTS, At any time prior to the conclusion of the above-noticed public hearing,a written protest against the proposed boundary change may be filed pursuant to Government Code Section 57051 with the clerk of 6 public boy authorized to conduct the hearing,and as?1ollows: The territo sub ct to the boundary change is legally INHABITED.The protest must include the information shown for a Landowner Protest angor a Wegistered Voter Protest,as follows: a.Landowner Protest: 1)A statement that the person filing the protest is an owner of land within the territory subject to the boundary change,and 2)The name and mailing address of the owner of the land,and 3)The street address,or other description(eg,assessor parcel number),sufficient to identify the land, b.Registered Voter Protest: 1)A statement that the person filing the protest is a registered voter within the territory subject to the boundary change,and 2)The name and address of the registered voter as it appears on the affidavit of voter registration. Date of Notice:July 6, 1998 ATTEST- Phil Batchelor Clerk of the Board and County Administrator By:Ann Gervelli,Dep r Clerk Legal CCT 3735 P, [is July 8, 1998 _ _ . . ....................................... d RECEIVED NOTICE Of PUSUC HEARING ON BOUNDARY CHANGE AFFECTING TERRITORY IN t;Ot+TR1 COSTA COUhlf`! (t3owrtanant Coda 5ecticn 67028) The Local A Fonnadon Conwission of Contra Costa JUL 14 k C*uaty has a rot a boon cna a known as the tnc + orabon,City_*,t�siiaY� r6�-17?" The Proceedings for itch boundary 0"ware initiated by: Ci.ERK BOARD OF S VISORS. AAebtton of duzena of atf®dad to tiled on June 3g ,t�g 7, ttta P are:Enriga E ',. r1^� CT qutni t C ttasin,&May.CAt and r t t'1 L +{� { P('8L1,0A f(DN ° The naaons set forth in the CW Pe f loners lar �,�y( ..rJ �✓. %. j.i the0und3angeftWg ars- i 0tance bcd*and STATE O to In local d*OW ar,elected city cou to be activies , yC+1t ratty Of facn)dr>taut raysnusa rand the city to sui ar taeat Vrograsras .M,the oraerty' gawrrana:ttat t atrt �citfzen Of the United States and a f-EASE T tcE N tic ZHAT A'PUBL O HEARING re iderlt ref• the County sfc+resaid; i ant Over �s Lz, �w fH PROPOSED BOUNDARY the aCe i7f i�tittbOc7 yr3 sr•g�tC3 not 4 party.0 Place ofhaassng:Board ofSupe ora Chambers Or tnterested'In.the abdve-entitled matter. Cou�ty � r 11,019 i am the Prfricipat Legal Cleric of"the Cadger 85t inal,C eet;Roomt07 l, ,at;,ca 94ss3 Dlspatcit and Srerltwood Netts. hiest papers tate and rima of Iwart:,My28,108,at ii a.m. o(I.Genet cif Gir-Ctliatfonr printed and pubitshed qo body sutttortzad to twndtttt the ttaartrtg:Contra at 't650 Cavallo Road in,the City of Antioch, C«�ys*anttstsutHtntatm COunty of Ct3ntra Costa, 94509. h^asyrd*rort#»btwtt art this hearing and t» And ri iciii r7ewspa� have ( d Ud d The ehan es of org Fdration and/oer reorganizations rte4Vsp Aers of tienetdi ci 1 o°fr;'YI;Ctiy etW,01 ihm�sitr rt,sptiaraet of C+✓ui2ctfalrt.by the Su influence n*undaty*is:aw cn perior Court Of the County( of Contra Costa. State Of CaiifOrniax under the date of Mardh A prsoiea d of the axterf*r bound of ma 26C Y 870.'Case Narnber 746 70: territory sub t>ot ary cnanCa{titi auttjea to ,ritlt,utyisrvta paandc*nshtktns sIcat>Ne , Th;tlt> icet t7f tvi�iGh rite. *n c«ntstii>�a Rexotu dtbn f a oo7a Arr+aici datemtinatl*ns earl a ttta b*unda chart y annexed is a Printed ,FIS,may t»vkw.a �te of FY(set Cat �yp e riot smaiier than nv arei . A t stn cwtuactmati' unty has been publlsfled in ath Ffoor est Pina tree tire + c3 Ct'(yltti+9 i f;i — reafatl(>a ( t tis LtYBfi}.The general SLf issue of said newsy em and not Vi bny seaaaachad tr B,a tsaundary change i ppi+✓rxer`it thereof On the (01E0Gtrin(7 dates. Yhatasal f tlonCorrrtttsttbnhasdetemtktad tC►- t. ••• % ai > ic lZut baraiC+try change is legally a yam/• ,. •••• •. ' PROTEST$' Aff in the year of 1998" Il Y iq t of#the�Sa-not 5705iha ciaAd Pu i t*body mtdfw t f ttify.XOr declare) under pen of Qetjvty thahaering,artdaefalowe conduct that the foregoing is true the to ubjeci to the�Sh le ragauy £Cectfted at f�ni#d, end Cori-eGt. rNttAOt ' tea teat met Wk ds t to foenation `^4 % tif(3t7 tick. ahowtt tw+a tnnrioi+mar Protest and/or a Registered On ... Your Protaa'as a.tsndownsr Pro tasd 1913$.-. ... clay O� ....f.'�.C;•�� '...., . ..` 1)o�r withthat>he thea 'Ning ttta (*teat is ,and. territory arlt)fect to Ihs ,'• ••••••..:+.a.•a � t� isnd air+dand tnad6rgaddress ofthe owner of .... ., _ iCfnature . f E 3)The-aVest atdcGesa,or*seardea*ri ��7er•01ztpatch and ntwoOd i�ieuls a °rwwh, tsetl.autiktoctt8� ant the P.O.-BO '">�& X 2.299 -" �.taagiatara Voter Pmost �StttiO t:�+• 9 53 T-2299 f)A auwnent the the parson tair g to" aat Is 7=,525• a iarsd+qi wtttM the tartifory subject to MarY+atahgs,and 2)The trema andof the steeed v*isr as#appetas oh ttto 't*t vol registration. Date of Notice-July8,INS ATTEST Pott gaiche(or CWK of the hoard and - CcsattyAtknitrfatraEx #" SY: ridrNeNi,Deputy Clark 7. ',..Y, • _ �F. � fit' • . L i clayey } . j +` - iZisB 1238 ` `3u1y,6,time . . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON BOUNDARY CHANGE AFFECTING TERRITORY IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (Government Code Section 57026) The Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra Costa County has approved a boundary change known as the " Incorporation of the City of Oakley (LAFC 97-17)." The proceedings for this boundary change were initiated by: A petition of citizens of the affected territory, filed on June 30, 1997, by the following Chief Petitioners: Enrico E. Cinquini, Oakley, CA ; Alice E. Posin, Oakley, CA ; and Thayne L. Thomas, Jr.,Oakley, CA. The reasons set forth in the Chief Petitioners' proposal for the boundary change are to (a) enhance local control and accountability through a locally elected city council, (b) increase opportunities for citizens to be directly involved and participate in local civic and governmental activities, (c) retain revenues generated within the city to support local programs and services and (d) promote orderly governmental boundaries. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGE: Place of hearing: Board of Supervisors' Chambers County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, Room 107 Martinez, CA 94553 Date and time of hearing: July 28, 1998, at 11 a.m. Public body authorized to conduct the hearing: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Any interested person may appear at this hearing and be heard on the boundary change. The changes of organization and/or reorganizations comprising the proposed boundary change are: Incorporation of the City of Oakley and establishment of the Sphere of Influence boundary of said City. A precise description of the exterior boundary of the territory subject to the boundary change (the "subject territory„), along with any terms and conditions applicable to the boundary change, is a part of the Local Agency Formation Commission's Resolution No. 97-17, making determinations and approving the boundary change, which may be viewed in the office of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra Costa County, County Administration Building, 8thFloor, 651 Pine Street, Martinez CA 94553 (phone: (510) 646-4090). The general area of the subject territory for the boundary change is: See Attached Map Exhibit A. The Local Agency Formation Commission has determined that the territory subject to the boundary change is legally INHABITED. PROTESTS: At any time prior to the conclusion of the above-noticed public hearing, a written protest against the proposed boundary change may be filed pursuant to Government Code Section 57051 with the clerk of the publics body authorized to conduct the hearing, and as follows: The territory subject to the boundary change is legally INHABITED. The protest must include the information shown for a Landowner Protest and/or a Registered Voter Protest, as follows: a. Landowner Protest: 1) A statement that the person filing the protest is an owner of land within the territory subject to the boundary change, and 2) The name and mailing address of the owner of the land, and 3) The street address, or other description (eg, assessor parcel number), sufficient to identify the land. 2 b Registered Voter Protest: 1) A statement that the person filing the protest is a registered voter within the territory subject to the boundary change, and 2) The name and address of the registered voter as it appears on the affidavit of voter registration.' Date of Notice: July 6, 1998 ATTEST: Phil Batchelor Clerk of the Board and County Administrator By: A&fIA Aq n Cervelli, eputy erk a:oakley.no 3 EXHIBIT A Bin UVO f r F E x: A z CSC Avenue Fh t � RmOo Avenue 9nurk Rd y� )ifRr 4 Xf5j'f.(!tl P AY Ohm AVr }- C%wa Ave. ss Aoss Ava, sr > ig m C4 m OW AVWWO MA 00 z . o z i`i" Jorary kdmd Ad