Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02111992 - D.1 D.1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on February 11, 1992 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: The Board took no action, but only received ABSENT: testimony and discussed the matter. ABSTAIN: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Settlement Agreement and Annexation of the Franklin Canyon Golf Course to the City of Hercules The Board on February 4, 1992, fixed this time for discussion before the Board on the Franklin Canyon Golf Course Property annexation to the City of Hercules. Chair McPeak requested anyone who wished to speak on the matter of the Settlement Agreement or an:y other matter that would relate to the annexation of the Franklin Canyon area to the City of Hercules, noting that this time is set for accepting testimony, that the Board may or may not take any action. Chair McPeak inquired if the City of Hercules had any comments they wished to make today. There being none, the Chair called for comments from interested persons. The following persons appeared and gave testimony: Greg Ceres, representing Labor, advised that without any commitment from the Developer on this project, the Building Trades People, the men and women of this County, would be opposed to this project and annexation at this time.. Tom Adams, appearing on behalf of Plumbers Local 159 and the Electrical Workers Local 302, advised that while they believed annexation of this property to Hercules at some time is appropriate, they do not believe the occasion is present yet and are opposed to the annexation of this property at this time, citing deficiencies in the EIR, the need for a new sewage treatment plant, availability of adequate water supply, that the ability of Hercules to provide police and fire and other services for this project is entirely dependent upon successfully developing a resort hotel as part of project, yet the city has not done a market study see if such a hotel is feasible Terry Maurinan advised that he has served on the County JPA, the County Service Area R-10, and has been on the Board of the Rodeo Citizens Association, and advised that he was not anti growth, but he felt the infrastructure was lacking in this case, the roads are subject to stalls and that type of thing, the water supply seems to be in a limited state, and therefore his group cannot support this. Carol Buyer, biologist and zoologist, commented that she was just at the end of the first edition of a. resource inventory of the Briones Bio-region into which this project intrudes, suggesting this project would fragment wild land and watershed. Sandy Skaggs, representing Franklin Canyon Enterprises, the owner of the property, commented on the long history of the attempts to develop this property, and that the owner of the property has been caught in the middle over,the past five years. He urged that the Board find that the Settlement Agreement has been fully complied with and that the County then comply with the terms of the agreement by supporting the annexation. He declared he would like to address the union issue, noting that the matter is not part of the settlement agreement and not necessarily an appropriate issue. He noted that the unions would like the project to be a union project, but that they are opposing it at every step of the way, including filing a lawsuit to stop the project. He noted that Franklin Canyon Enterprises is not anti union, they have been having meetings with the unions and have agreed to make the hotel a totally union project. The outstanding issues between the union and his client are diversity of the work force and the residential side of the project which will not be completed by Franklin Canyon Enterprises who intends to sell off the residential portion of the project. He suggested further discussions and investigations on the above issues to determine what an agreement on the residential side should take and to understand what impact it will have on the salability of the property. Julian Frazer, reviewed the history of the project as he has been following it. He discussed the items of overriding consideration. He suggested this is a premature thing to do. He suggested this is an environmental issue. Ceclia Bridges, Attorney for the City of Hercules, reminded the audience that this is not a hearing on the EIR, that there had been a seven-month process on the EIR, and that many of the people who spoke here today had participated in that, and secondly this is not a LAFCO hearing, that the LAFCO hearing is scheduled for tomorrow. She commented on the Settlement Agreement, of which the Property Tax Exchange Agreement was a part, noting that there were not really two agreements, there was a Settlement Agreement and the Property Tax Exchange Agreement was a part of that Agreement, and it was a response between the parties, the County, the City and the property owner, to litigation that was filed May 25, 1989. She declared that the Settlement Agreement was passed by the Board of Supervisors on February 27, 1990, and passed by the City Council of the City of Hercules the same day, and that pursuant to that Agreement, the lawsuit was dismissed in April of 1990. Ms. Bridges advised that the Agreement did not have any terms addressing use of union labor and that the City of Hercules had no jurisdiction in such a matter. Board members discussed with staff the item and the testimony given today. Supervisor Fhaden expressed her deep concern and opposition to adding any traffic to Highway 4 until the that road has been improved and made safe. Supervisor Powers agreed that having the matter before the Board is premature, but urged that the Burd continue to keep an eye on it, and when it is appropriate to take action, the Board do so. He agreed not to take action at this time. Chair Mc:Peak noted that the Board had entered into the Settlement Agreement and the Property Tax Exchange Agreement which is a process, a joint process, which the Board is legally obligated to uphold and that the Board intends to do that. Chair McPeak advised that she wished to address an issue not in the settlement agreement, and that is who is going to get the jobs. Maybe Hercules does not have the power, and the Board does not have the power to address this directly. She suggested that everyone here should be very concerned that if we are going to do development in Contra Costa, local people should get the jobs. It is a matter of moral responsibility. It does not do the County any good to generate jobs for people from the outside.