Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10191993 - 2.2 TO: BOARD OF SL-PERVISORS -A Contra FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa County October 19 1993 DATE: `ou. SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR AUTHORITY TO CONFER WITH THE EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF WATER SERVICE AVAILABILITY SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . AUTHORIZE the Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, to confer with the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) between now and the time the Legislature reconvenes on January 3,. 1994, regarding the definition of water service availability and report the results of his efforts to the Board of Supervisors no later than December 14, 1993 . 2 . ADOPT a position in SUPPORT of legislation applicable to all counties which have a voter-approved urban limit line under which, in case of a dispute between a special district which provides utility service and a general purpose local government over the availability of utility service to an area designated by the general purpose local government for development, the applicable Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) would resolve the dispute. 3 . REQUEST the Contra Costa County LAFCO to 'consider sponsoring and seeking the co-sponsorship of the California Association of LAFCOs for legislation similar to that outlined in recommendation # 2, above. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: /61 RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON oeebeE 19 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER Recommendation No.l: Approved unanimously by all five Board Members. Recommendations Nos. 2 and 3: Approved by the following vote: Ayes: Supervisors Powers, Smith, McPeak, Torlakson Noes: Supervisor Bishop VOTE OF SUPERVISORS (See above) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED October 19, 1993 Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Director, GMEDA Community Development Director Les Spahnn; Heim, Noack & Spahnn BY— - DEPUTY -2- BACKGROUND: Earlier this year, the Board of Supervisors agreed to sponsor legislation which would clearly place in the hands of general purpose local governments the responsibility for land use planning and decisionmaking. This would be accomplished by providing a mechanism by which local governments could appeal a decision by -a utility not to extend service to an area which had been designated by the local government as appropriate for development. As the year has progressed, the bill has been amended several times . The bill now provides for the following: 1 . Requires that any special district which provides water or wastewater service serve any territory within its boundaries that has been designated for urban growth by a measure adopted by the voters which adopts urban limit lines or other growth boundaries, except under one of the following circumstances: A. For water service, that the special district declares a water shortage emergency condition, pursuant to specified provisions of the Water Code and takes the actions which are required by those provisions of the Water Code, including limitations on providing new service. B. For waste water treatment only, that the special district declares that a lack of service capacity exists. 2 . Requires a special district which declares that a water shortage emergency condition or a lack of service capacity exists, in accordance with the above provisions, to make findings of fact related to the quality, quantity, and reliability of current services and service capacity, as well as the projected demands on and the ability of the special district to provide service within the existing service area in the future. 3 . Allows a city or county to request the State Water Resources Control Board to make a determination of whether a lack of service capacity exists when a special district refuses to serve an area within its boundaries, claiming that it lacks the necessary service capacity. 4 . Requires that the costs incurred by the State Water Resources Control Board shall be borne by the city or county requesting the determination. In turn, the requesting city or county would be authorized to recover the costs by levying appropriate service charges, fees or assessments on applicants for proposed developments in the area that has been designated for urban growth. 5 . Requires the State Water Resources Control Board, before making its determination, to hold at least one public hearing. After considering any testimony at the hearing, the State Water Resources Control Board would be required to determine, based on written findings, whether the special district has service capacity to serve the territory. The State Water Resources Control Board would be required to make its determination within 60 days after it receives the request from the city or county. The State Water Resources Control Board's determination could be enforced by a writ of mandate issued by any court of competent jurisdiction. 6 . Defines "special district" for purposes of this bill and excludes the state, any city, county, city and county or school district from being considered a special district. 7 . Requires a conducting authority, in the case of a district annexation where the affected territory has been designated for urban growth by a measure adopted by the voters that adopts urban limit lines or other growth boundaries, to either terminate the annexation proceedings or order the annexation. -3- 8 . Provides that all provisions of the bill apply only to Contra Costa County. The County Administrator and the County' s legislative representative in Sacramento believe that it would be worthwhile to use the next few weeks before the Legislature reconvenes to explore with EBMUD whether it is possible to agree on a definition of the availability of water service which will be satisfactory to both parties . If so, the time will have been well spent and it will not be necessary to pursue the pending legislation. The Board may also wish to reiterate its support for statewide legislation which would provide a mechanism through LAFCO to resolve differences of opinion .regarding the ability of a utility to provide service to an area which has been designated by the appropriate city or county as appropriate for development. The Board may also wish to ask this County' s LAFCO to sponsor and seek the co-sponsorship of its statewide organization (Cal-LAFCO) for legislation along the lines proposed above which would strengthen the ability of a general purpose local government to insure that a special district which provides utility service does not arbitrarily withhold its provision of utility service without having to defend its decision before an appropriate hearing body, like LAFCO.