Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10041994 - 1.57 154 through 1.57 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on October 4, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Smith, DeSaulnier, Bishop, Torlakson, and Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE Item No. 1.54 LETTERS dated September 21, 1994, from various citizens in Pleasant Hill opposing a four to six lane road along the Southern Pacific right-of-way from the Pleasant Hill BART Station to Monument Boulevard. ***REFERRED TO PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1.55 LETTER dated September 22, 1994, from The Reverend Curtis Timmons, P.O. Box 8213, Pittsburg 94565,urging support equal to that given to the Council of Churches for the Multi- Cultural Development Association for counseling services for minority youth and young adults in East Contra Costa County. ***REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 1.56 LETTER dated September 19, 1994, from R. Zwanziger, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Siskiyou County, P.O. Box 338, Yreka 96097, urging support for their opposition to the designation of Mt. Shasta as eligible for listing as an Historic District, and requesting support to amend provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. ***REFERRED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 1.57 LETTER dated September 23, 1994, from David A. Gold, Morrison& Foerster, P.O. Box 8130, Walnut Creek 94596, on behalf of the Contra Costa Centre Association, urging the Board to include the Southern Pacific Arterial as an alternate in the Pleasant Hill BART area traffic study and reject the proposal of the Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee to reduce land use entitlement of the Planning Area. ***REFERRED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY nereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors fn L Baty wn. ATTESTED: �� ll E, PHIL.BATCHELOR, cicrk of the Board of Supervisors and County 4d inistrator CC' Correspondents County Administrator Duty Public Works Director Deputy Director-Redevelopment Community Development Director - / .57 �► MORRISON & FOERSTER SAN FRANCISCO ATTORNEYS AT LAW NEW YORK LOS ANGELES WASHINGTON, D.C. SACRAMENTO PLEASE RESPOND TO: DENVER ORANGE COUNTY P. O. BOX 8130 LONDON PALO ALTO WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596-8130 BRUSSELS SEATTLE HONG KONG 101 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD, SUITE 450 TOKYO WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596-4095 TELEPHONE (510)295-3300 DIRECT DIAL NUMBER TELEFACSIMILE (510)946-9912 (510)295-3310 September 23, 1994 RECENED Honorable Tom Powers, Chair _ S0 77 and Members of the Contra Costa CountyRM Board of Supervisors CLERK BOARD OF SUPERIORS County Administration Building t CONTRA COSTA Loll 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Traffic Study for Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Dear Chairman Powers and Board Members: We are writing this letter on behalf of our client, the Contra Costa Centre Association, regarding the traffic study that is proposed to be conducted in and around the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan Area (the "Traffic Study"). We understand that the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") will vote within the next month or two regarding the scope of the Traffic Study, and specifically whether the SP Arterial will be included as part of the Traffic Study. The SP Arterial is a proposed roadway within the former.Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way from Monument Boulevard to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan Area (the "Planning Area"). We have been advised that the Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee (the "Steering Committee") has recommended to the Board that the SP Arterial should be eliminated from the Traffic Study and that the Board should consider mitigating the elimination of the SP Arterial by reducing the density of land use entitlements in the Planning Area. As.discussed below, adhering to the Steering Committee's recommendation would present significant legal problems. The Steering Committee's approach would lead to inevitable violations of the Contra Costa County General Plan (the "General Plan"), the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan (the "Specific Y e . MORRISON & FOERSTER Chairman Powers and Members of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors September 23, 1994 Page Two Plan"), the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), multiple development agreements entered into by the County in the Planning Area, and the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area (the "Redevelopment Plan"). Furthermore, eliminating the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study would result in uninformed decision-making. The qnly way to determine whether there are superior alternatives to the SP Arterial for mitigating traffic impacts in the Planning Area is to include the SP Arterial in the Traffic Study. Abandoning the SP Arterial would also waste $7 million of taxpayer money already spent on.acquiring the SP Arterial right-of-way. In addition, reducing development entitlements could jeopardize the County's ability to provide high density housing on property in the Planning Area that the County Redevelopment Agency has already spent approximately $4,000,000 to acquire. It is also generally recognized that the original long-term vision for the SP Arterial may be the most feasible traffic solution to ensure the continued success of the County's highly acclaimed Pleasant Hill BART Station project. Therefore, the only responsible course of action for the Board of Supervisors is to: (1) include the SP Arterial as an alternative in the Traffic Study; and (2) reject the Steering Committee's proposal to reduce land use entitlements in the Planning Area. A. The General Plan and the Specific Plan Require that the County Include the SP Arterial in the Traffic Study. 1. General Plan. In addition to land use policies and objectives that apply on a County-wide basis, the General Plan contains more detailed development policies for a number of specific areas in the County, including the Planning Area. Since the General Plan is the "constitution for all future development" in the County, any decision by the Board that is inconsistent with the General Plan may be invalid. See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (1990). The policies in the General Plan relating to the Planning Area generally incorporate the development standards contained in the Specific Plan. In addition, the General Plan specifically provides that "[i]n cooperation with Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, and transit operators, [the County shall] determine the feasibility of establishing bus service along the SPRR right-of-way between Concord and Rudgear Road." General Plan Policy 3-122, page 3-65. Thus, it is clear that the General Plan requires the County to determine the feasibility of implementing the SP Arterial. This is exactly what the Traffic Study is designed to do: determine the feasibility of traffic alternatives, such as the SP Arterial, in the Planning Area. Therefore, a decision to eliminate the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study would directly conflict with the General Plan. MORRISON & FOERSTER Chairman Powers and Members of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors September 23, 1994 Page Three 2. Specific Plan. The Specific Plan also contains a number of requirements and policies relating to the SP Arterial. The Specific Plan provides that: "[w]hile it is beyond the boundaries of the Specific Plan Station Area, it is recommended that the SP ROW [right-of-way] between the Station Area and Monument Boulevard to the north be acquired and a new 4-lane arterial roadway be incorporated into the ROW connecting Coggins Drive with Monument Boulevard." Specific Plan, page 31. The Specific Plan further provides that: "[a] new exclusive busway shall be incorporated into the BART station area and a portion of the SP ROW to facilitate an improved north-south bus route in the subregion." Specific Plan, page 35 (emphasis added). Finally, the Specific Plan provides that "[a] minimum 20' wide ROW shall be maintained within the SP ROW with interconnecting routes to the BART station reserved to provide for regional pedestrian and bicycle circulation." Specific Plan, page 36. Thus, the goals, policies and implementation measures of the Specific Plan call for the SP Arterial to be included as an important traffic improvement in the Planning Area. Just as planning decisions by the Board must be consistent with the General Plan, so must its decisions be consistent with the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is just below the General Plan in the land use approval hierarchy and is used for the systematic implementation of the General Plan for specific areas. Gov't. Code § 65450. Thus, zonings, subdivision, public works projects and development agreements all must be consistent with the Specific Plan. Gov't. Code § 65455, 65867.5. Eliminating the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study would be inconsistent with the express policies and implementation measures of the Specific Plan. Accordingly, such a decision could constitute an unlawful act. B. Eliminating the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study Would Violate CEQA. The decision whether to eliminate the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study is discretionary and therefore would be subject to the CEQA review process. Public Resources Code § 21080(a). CEQA requires that environmental review be conducted "as early as feasible in the planning process," CEQA Guidelines § 15004(b), and at a point "where genuine flexibility remains." Mount Sutro Defense Committee v. Regents of the University of California, 77 Cal.App.3d 20, 34 (1978). Adopting the recommendation of the Steering Committee could set the County on a course of action i Y MORRISON & FOERSTER Chairman Powers and Members of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors September 23, 1994 Page Four ultimately reversing existing policies and plans, and would effectively eliminate any flexibility for the County to implement the SP Arterial in the future. Therefore, CEQA mandates that the County conduct appropriate environmental review prior to making a decision to eliminate the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study. The EIR and Supplemental EIR prepared for the Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan could not be relied on as the environmental documentation for such a decision by the County. These EIRs, which were based on extensive studies of traffic and circulation in the Planning Area, concluded that major road improvements would be necessary in the SP right-of-way north of Coggins Drive to mitigate localized and regional traffic impacts. Eliminating the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study would significantly alter the analyses contained in these EIRs. Thus, it would be necessary for the County to conduct additional environmental review under CEQA to determine the environmental impact$ of a decision to eliminate the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study. Furthermore, if the Traffic Study is ultimately intended to be used in an environmental impact report ("EIR") to analyze the environmental impacts of the approvals that would be necessary to abandon the SP Arterial (i.e., General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment, etc.), the Traffic Study must include the SP Arterial as an alternative to satisfy CEQA. CEQA requires that an EIR analyze a "reasonable range of alternatives" that could feasibly attain a project's basic objectives, and must evaluate the comparative merits of each alternative. Public Resources Code § 21100; CEQA Guidelines § 15126(d). The discussion in the EIR must focus on alternatives capable of either eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if such alternatives would be more costly or would impede to some degree the project's objectives. CEQA Guidelines § 15126(d)(3). One of the alternatives that must be addressed in the EIR is the "no project" alternative, which must "describe what condition or program preceded the project." CEQA Guidelines § 15126(d)(2); County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 201 (1977). In this case, the program currently in place that must be analyzed in the EIR includes the SP Arterial. Accordingly, if the Traffic Study does not include the SP Arterial as an alternative, the Traffic Study could not be used in an EIR to analyze the environmental impacts of abandoning the SP Arterial because it would not satisfy the requirements of CEQA. 1 MORRISON & FFOERSTER Chairman Powers and Members of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors September 23, 1994 Page Five C. Eliminating the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study and Reducing Land Use Entitlements in the Planning Area Would Violate Development Agreements Entered Into by the County in the Planning Area. The County has entered into numerous development agreements that provide landowners in the Planning Area with vested rights to develop their property in accordance with the General Plan, the Specific Plan and, in certain cases, preliminary development plans, final development plans and the Redevelopment Plan. Specific Plan Subareas with land use entitlements vested by development agreements include Subareas 7A, 7B, 8, 10A, 10B, 11, 12, and 15. A number of other Subareas that do not have development agreements are already developed. Thus, a substantial amount of property within the Planning Area is either protected by development agreements or is already developed. As discussed in other sections of this letter, a County action at this time to eliminate the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study would be inconsistent with the General Plan, the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan. Accordingly, such a decision would violate the development agreements that vest the landowners' rights to develop their property in compliance with these documents. Moreover, the development agreements provide vested rights regarding the use, height, density and setback standards for development of property in the Planning Area. Following the Steering Committee's recommendation to reduce land use entitlements in the Planning Area would be in clear violation of these vested rights and would subject the County to numerous legal challenges. D. Eliminating the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study Would Violate the Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan was adopted by the County Redevelopment Agency as a mechanism for financing infrastructure improvements necessary to support the development of the Planning Area. Although arguably the Board of Supervisors may not be directly bound to comply with the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan, the County agreed in at least one development agreement (the BART development agreement) to vest the right to develop property in the Planning Area in a manner consistent with the terms of the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan. BART Development Agreement, pages 4-5, 25. Additionally, as a practical matter, a decision by the Board to eliminate the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study would impact the ability of the Board sitting as the Redevelopment Agency to comply,with the terms of the Redevelopment Plan. MORRISON & FOERSTER Chairman Powers and Members of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors September 23, 1994 Page Six The Redevelopment Plan contains a number of overall goals and objectives specifically relating to the SP Arterial. The transportation and circulation section of the Redevelopment Plan states that it is the objective of the Redevelopment Agency to "[p]rovide for the integration of proposed regional rail systems within the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way into and through the Project Area." Redevelopment Plan, page 4. Additionally, the SP Arterial is specifically designated as a public improvement anticipated by the Redevelopment Plan. Redevelopment Plan, pages 11-12. Thus, abandoning the SP Arterial would be inconsistent.with the Redevelopment Plan and would therefore violate the BART development agreement (and possibly other development agreements) entered into by the County. Such an action would also compromise the ability of the Board sitting as the Redevelopment Agency to lawfully carry out the policies and objectives of its adopted and vested Redevelopment Plan. E. Eliminating the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study Would Result in Uninformed Decision-Making and Would Sacrifice Paramount Regional Interests. By eliminating the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study,'the Board would preclude itself from being able to make a fully informed decision as to the relative benefits and impacts of various traffic and circulation alternatives in the Planning Area. While there may be alternatives that are superior to the SP Arterial for mitigating local and regional traffic impacts in the Planning Area, the only way to make that determination.is by including the SP Arterial in the Traffic Study. The exemplary planning process that resulted in the adoption of the Specific Plan and associated development approvals in the Planning Area has been a model for transportation-centered master planned business community development throughout the Bay Area. The Planning Area is home to approximately 3,000 jobs and represents infill development and infrastructure improvements along a transit hub valued in excess of$26.8 million. The SP Arterial is a significant element of the highly integrated circulation plan for the Planning Area that was designed to mitigate both local and regional traffic impacts. As a matter of sound land use planning, the Specific Plan should not be picked apart in a piecemeal fashion without fully examining the broader regional consequences that are at stake. To examine these regional consequences, the Traffic Study must compare the SP Arterial with other traffic and circulation alternatives in the Planning Area. MORRISON & FOERSTER Chairman Powers and Members of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors September 23, 1994 Page Seven F. Following the Steering Committee's Recommendation Would Waste Millions of Dollars in Taxpayer Money and Jeopardize County Efforts to Provide High Density Housing in the Planning Area. Over the past several years, the identified priority for funding of infrastructure improvements in the Planning Area has been the SP Arterial. Reflecting that priority, the Redevelopment Agency has spent approximately $7 million of taxpayer money to acquire the former SP right-of-way for the SP Arterial, and to preserve the right-of-way for future transit use. The Redevelopment Agency has also sold bonds, and has the funds necessary to construct the SP Arterial at this time. By abandoning the SP Arterial, the Board would effectively be throwing away the $7 million already spent by the County on the SP Arterial project. In addition, abandoning the SP Arterial could jeopardize the County's ability to retain state and federal funding commitments. In short, a decision to abandon the SP Arterial would be fiscally unsound. Reducing development rights in the Planning Area could also jeopardize County efforts to provide high density housing in the Planning Area. The Redevelopment Agency has already spent approximately $4,000,000 to acquire Subarea 4 (South) of the Planning Area with the intent of developing a high density housing project on the property. At least 15% of the housing units would be reserved for very low and moderate income households. The Redevelopment Agency has not entered into a development agreement to vest its right to go forward with this project. Accordingly, reducing development rights in the Planning Area could jeopardize the ability of the Redevelopment Agency to proceed with this housing project. Such a result could threaten the viability of the highly integrated, mixed-use concept of the Planning Area. It could also pose potential problems with the County's ability to meet housing element requirements of the General Plan. G. Conclusion The Steering Committee's recommendation to eliminate the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study and reduce development rights in the Planning Area would lead to the inevitable violation of the General Plan, the Specific Plan, CEQA, numerous development agreements entered into by the County, and the Redevelopment Plan. In addition, following the Steering Committee's recommendation would result in uninformed decision-making, come at the expense of paramount regional interests in reducing traffic congestion, waste over $7 million of taxpayer money and jeopardize County efforts to provide high density housing in the Planning Area. The County has f M J MORRISON& FOERSTER Chairman Powers and Members of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors September 23, 1994 Page Eight endured short-term political pressure in favor of preserving the vision of the Pleasant Hill BART Station project since its inception. Therefore, we strongly urge the Board to "stay the course" and: (1) include the SP Arterial as an alternative in the Traffic Study; and (2) reject the proposal to reduce land use entitlements in the Planning Area. Very truly yours, David A. Gold cc: Victor Westman, County Counsel Silvan Marchesi, Assistant County Counsel Valentin Alexeeff, Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency Dennis Barry, Deputy Director, Community Development Department Jim Kennedy, Deputy Director, County Redevelopment Agency Lynette Tanner Robert Russell V/Clerk, Board of Supervisors 315524[25075-1]