The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 12061994 - 1.149 1.144 through 1. 149 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on December 6, 1994,.by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Bishop, Torlakson, and Powers NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisors Smith, DeSaulnier ABSTAIN: None - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- -------------------------- SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE Item No. 1.144 LETTER dated November 4, 1994, from Congressman George Miller III, 7th District, 367 Civic Drive,#14, Pleasant Hill 94523, advising of his support for the Superfund Program, of the failure of Congress to pass legislation to set a nationwide standard for clean-ups, and of his interest in addressing the reauthorization of this matter in the next Congress. ***REFERRED TO HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 1.145 LETTER dated November 1, 1994, from Scott Kennedy, Mayor, City of Santa Cruz, 809 Center Street-Room 10, Santa Cruz 95060, transmitting a copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council relating to Gulf War related illnesses. ***REFERRED TO HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR 1.146 LETTER dated November 9, 1994,from J. W. Callaway,Jr.,45 St. Timothy Court,Danville 94526, advising of the exceptional assistance he received from Ms. Jill Martinez of the Contra Costa County Veterans Service Office. ***ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT 1.147 LETTER dated November 8, 1994, from R. Simon, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Stanislaus County, 1100 H Street, Modesto 95354, urging the Board to support Federal legislation providing for the regulation of ultra-light aircraft. ***REFERRED TO PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 1.148 LETTER dated November 17, 1994, from V. Johnson, Housing Coordinator, Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency, 100 Gregory Lane,Pleasant Hill 94523, commenting on the review procedure of Community Development Block Grant applications. ***REFERRED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 1.149 LETTER dated November 21, 1994, from M. Green, Superintendent, Byron Union School District, 14401 Byron Highway,Byron 94514-9251, commenting on certain issues raised in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Discovery Bay West General Plan Amendment. *** REFERRED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR cc: Correspondents Corr Administrator i neroby acrtify that tha is a true and correct copy of County an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Health Services Director Board of Su iwzvisors on the late shown. Community Development Director ATTESTED � Public Works Director PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board ��of Supervisors and County Administrator Ry NN' j ' .Deputy Byron Union School District ~ CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 14401 BYRON HIGHWAY, BYRON, CALIFORNIA 9=4514-9251 (510)634-6644 FAX (510) 634-9421 Peggy Green. Superintendent RECEIVED November 21, 1994 NOV 2 3 1994 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Board of Supervisors CONTRA COSTA CO. and East County Regional Planning Commission_ County of Contra Costa 651 Pine Street, North Wing - Fourth Floor Martinez, California 94553 Re: EIR on Discovery Bay West General Plan Amendment Dear Sirs: On behalf of the Byron Union Elementary School District ("School District") , I am writing to address certain issues raised in the Final EIR for the Discovery Bay West General Plan Amendment ("FEIR") . The EIR suggests that the Byron Union School District will be educating all elementary students generated by the Discovery Bay West development.' This is incorrect. The agreement which the Hofmann Company and the School District entered into did not in any way contemplate such a shift of boundaries or responsibilities. In fact, the Agreement expressly recognizes that a portion of the development will be outside Byron's boundaries. Paragraph 6 states that 11 [t3he boundaries of the Mello-Roos District shall be the same as those of the Discovery Bay West project within the District . . . . " I would also like to point out the discussion of the County's ability to require mitigation of the effects of development upon school facilities makes an erroneous assumption about the County's powers. Page 44 of the FEIR . states: . [T3he County cannot impose school impact mitigation measures other than the designated fees which are $1. 65 ' See page 57 of the Draft EIR, which states "The Hofmann Company has an agreement with the Byron School District to provide adequate facilities for all of the children to be generate by the project . . . . " (Emphasis added. ) CC,•. ln�.r.�c� C A� Board of Supervisors East County Regional Planning Commission November 21, 1994 Page 2 per square foot of assessable space for residential and $0. 28 per square foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space for commercial or industrial developments. The per-square-foot fees which unified school districts can themselves charge for residential space is now $1. 72 per square foot, rather than $1. 65 per square foot.2 Furthermore, counties do have the power to require developers to mitigate the effects of their residential development by ensuring that the affected school districts receive value in excess of $1.72/square foot. You are undoubtedly aware of the decisions in Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal.App. 3d 1201, William S. Hart Union School District v. Regional Planing Commission (1991) 226 Cal.App. 3d 1612 , and Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside (1991) 228 Cal.App. 3d 1212, which state that cities and counties may require mitigation above and beyond the statutory developer fee limit set forth in Government Code sections 53080 et seq. and 65995 et seq. (the "developer fee laws") when development will require "legislative" decisions, such as general plan amendments, adoptions of specific plans, or rezoning. In Grupe Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 4 Cal.App.4th 911, the California Supreme Court was asked to review the enforceability of a special tax on new residential construction, enacted in order to fund school construction. In so doing, the Court reviewed the developer fee laws, to determine whether they prohibited the voters from enacting the tax. In that decision, the Court very clearly stated that Mello-Roos Community Facilities Assessment Districts remain a viable option for mitigating the effects of even "developments" when the effects will cost the affected school districts more than $1. 72 per square foot of the residential development: If the Legislature had intended that subdivision (a) of section 65995 exclude all special taxes, it would not 2 When separate elementary and high school districts each collect fees, they must split the $1. 72 between them. (Gov. Code § 53080. 2 . ) l�l yq Board of Supervisors East County Regional Planning commission November 21, 1994 Page 3 have expressly excluded one class of special taxes, i. e. , Mello-Roos taxes, in the same statute. (Grupe, supra, at 921, emphasis in original. ) Therefore, we see that the County is empowered to impose mitigation in excess of $1.72 per square- foot. In light of the foregoing, the School District requests that the County omit comment #4 from page 44 of the FEIR. As I previously stated in my letter which was included in the comments to the Draft EIR, the School District does not oppose the Hofmann Company's development of Discovery Bay West, as the Hofmann Company has entered into a mitigation agreement with the School District. I note these facts because there are portions of this General Plan Amendment which govern properties which will not be developed by the Hofmann Company. If you have any questions about these issues which I may answer as you make this decision, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, Ma garet Green Superintendent byron/dbweteir.10