Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01311995 - 1.58 1.58 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on January 31,1995, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Bishop NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE Item No. 1.58 LETTER from A. Bowie, 4920 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660, attorney representing the Liberty Union High School District,requesting the Board to defer approval of the final map for Subdivision 7837, Oakley area. (Consider with Item 1.3) ***REFERRED TO DIRECTOR, GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND COUNTY COUNSEL i hereby certify that this is a true and correct copyof an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of SuperXisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: 3 PHIL BAT HELOR, Jerk of the Board o�f S`u'pervi ors and County Administrator B/ hJA1M10�� Deputy CC : Correspondent County Counsel Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency A&H PACIIA/LL 28541428311 USE THIS AIRBILL FOR SHIPMENTS WITHIN THE CONTINENTAL U.S.A.,AlASIfAAND HAWAII. PACKAGE ® USE THE INTERNATIONAL AIR WAYBILL FOR SHIPMENTS TO PUERTO RICO AND ALL NON U.S.LOCATIONS. - TRACKING NUMBER Federal Express QUESTIONS?CALL 800-238-5355 TOLL FREE. 42� t:n 285414283 Date RECIPIENT'S COPY M From(Your Name)Please PrintYour Phone Number(Very Important) To(Recipient's Name)Please Print Recipients Phone Number(very Important) !(7i >jj51-130 _�..G�...__ i. �Oslo &_ P2© Company Department/Floor No. Company ��1,s^ DepartmenUFloor No. •1.CJW1 _ t`4RNE'aQN ET L �/s � e*17i cit•+ l 057V_k..� Street Address v �� Exact Street Address(We Cannot Deliver to P.O.Boxes or P.O.Zip Codes.) CAMPUS, OR City '- State j/pRequired City State j/pRequired NEwP",RT i3E acH CA 9 z b 6 0 Po(-/7 nem YOUR INTERNAL BILLING REFERENCE INFORMATION(optional)(First 24 characters will appear on Invoice.) IF HOLD AT FEDEX LOCATION,Print FEDIX Address Here Street �.r ber1� iJnt o� �5.A. ,/���� Com• �-9 Address ` AYMENT. 1 Bill Sender 2❑BiII Recipient's F x Aad.No. 3❑Bill 3rd Parry FedEx Acct,No. 4❑I3 I C can Cad . City State j/p Required s❑CaShlCheck SERVICES DEL/VERYAND SPECIAL HANDLING vecxACEs WEIR YOUR DECLARED Emp.No. Date h' Federal Express Use VALUE (Check only one box) (Check services required) onn (S—W— ❑ Cash Received Base Charges PdoftOv—ght Standard Overnight Weekday Service ❑ Return Shipment (funny by ma wercss moraewq l� rosam de mroon 1 ❑HOLD AT FEDEX LOCATION WEEKDAY _____.r_� _...____...__ Third Parry ❑Chg.To Del. Chg.TO Hold (Fill in Section H) ❑ ❑' Declared Value Charge 11❑OTHER 51❑ACKAGING 2�DELIVER WEEKDAY. Street Address -_---.-__-____—_ __-___--_—_,_ --__ _— —- 16❑FEDEX LETTER'56®FEDEX LETTER' Saturday Service �ry Oth ii 1, 12F]FEDEX PAK' 52❑FEDEX PAK' 31 [:]HOLD AT FEDEX LOCATION SATTUURD AFY.. ' ry _ — Y City. State Zip (Fill inOther 2 13❑FEDEX BOX 53❑FEDEX BOX 3❑DELIVER SATURDAY Total Total Total (Extra charge)(Not available Received By: 14❑FEDEX TUBE 54❑FEDEX TUBE 9❑SATURDAY PICK-UP to an locations) ( ) X Total Charges EconomyTwvDay GovernmentOvemight -----._____ _____--------------------.:---- DIM SHIPMENT(ChargeableWeight) (Deh"bysec Mh massd,yr) (ResftxhxJorauemdieduursonty) Special Handling DateRme Received FedEx Employee Number REVISION DATE 4/94 DANGEROUS GOODS charge), lbs. PARTe145412 FXEM8/94 30❑ECONOMY` '' ❑LETTER GOVT 4❑ ❑ +Ecoiimny tatter Rate nblavaieela.41❑GDV7 6 DRY ICE FORMAT p160 Minimum MBige: -. One pouts E mte. PACKAGE Dangerous Goods Shipper's Declaration not required AU XCX kg.904 Ill Recanted At1❑Re ular.Sto 3❑Dro Box ®1993-TO OVERNIGHT BO❑ TWO-DAY ❑ RE$:r;.>ir,l- 9 P P PRINT ❑FREIGHT" FREIGHT" u.s.A. IConrvmed resnvetlon iepned) 4 p B.S.C. .. mnxam,nn may •Declared vane Lure ssoo ❑HOLIDAY DELIVERY(11 oeeradl Release .:Modred dred Valu,ndt S,� 12 (Extra charge) z[D—On-Call Stop 5 O Station Signature: BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES &. GIANNONE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE ALEXANDER BOWIE* NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 AREA CODE 714 JOAN C.ARNESON TELEPHONE 851.1300 WILLIAM J.KADI FAX(714)851.2014 WENDY H.WILES PATRICIA B.GIANNONE tiff.OUR FILE ROBERT E.ANSLOW ERIC R.DOERING 11047 KENNETH S.LEVY ARTO J.NUUTINEN January 24, 1995 JANET L.MUELLER KIMBERLY A.McMURRAY •A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Via Facsimile & FedEx -- Board of Supervisors RECEIVED County of Contra Costa 651 Pine Street, Room 106 ,SAN 2 51995 Martinez, California 94553-1229 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Re: Subdivision No. 7837 - Hofmann Company CONTRA COSTA CO. Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors: This law firm represents the Liberty Union High School District ("District") and is providing this letter in response to the significant school facilities impacts which the above- referenced project ("Project") will have on the District. We are requesting that the County of Contra Costa ("County") continue the matter of the approval of the final map application for the Project, as the conditions of approval applicable to the Project require the applicant to reach an agreement with the District to ensure the mitigation of school facilities impacts resulting from the Project. In 1992, the County adopted a General Plan, which, with respect to schools, provides several "Schools Policies" which include the following : 7-141 "To the extent possible, new residential development General Plan Amendments or Rezonings shall, in the absence of the Planning Agency's satisfaction that there are overriding considerations (e.g. provision of low or moderate cost housing), be required to adequately mitigate impacts on primary and secondary school facilities." 7-143. "The hearing body in reviewing residential projects shall consider the availability of educational facility capacity." 7-146 "Adequate provisions of schools and other public facilities and services shall be assisted by coordinating review of new development with school districts, the cities, and other service providers through the Growth Management BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, Wu ES &. GIANNONE Board of Supervisors County of Contra Costa January 24, 1995 Page 2 Program...and the environmental review process and other means." In addition, the General Plan provides for several "Schools Implementation Measures", including the following: 7-cv "The [School Implementation Measures] procedures...are to be applied to those school districts which notify the County that they may have inadequate facilities to handle additional residential development and which provide both evidence of diligent participation in all State and/or Federal funding programs for school facilities and sufficient district facility information so that the County may determine the impact of a proposed residential project on a district and determine any appropriate facility mitigation." Additionally, Condition No. 25 of the Revised Approved Permit for this Project requires the applicant to secure a "will-serve letter" from the District prior to final map. School districts do not have any statutory authority to issue will-serve letters. Based on the language in the County's General Plan, there is a requirement that school facilities impacts from the Project be mitigated prior to approval of the Project by the County. This requirement was imposed at the time of the legislative approvals for the Project, to be performed at a later specified date. Government Code Section 65300.5 requires the County to make a finding of consistency between the Project and its General Plan. Absent a condition requiring the developer to mitigate the Project's impacts on the District such a finding could not have been made at that time by the County, and cannot be made at this time. The most current information available to the District reveals that the cost per residential dwelling unit DU averages $4,726 to house the additional students needed to serve the Project. This figure is based upon the average square footage of 1,550 square feet per DU (which falls under Land Use Class 10 in the most current "Rate and Method of Apportionment for Liberty Union High School District Community Facilities District No. 95- 1" (the "RMA") prepared on behalf of the District by David Taussig & Associates, Inc., multiplied by the District's current residential school fee of $0.52/square foot, plus $3,920 per DU, representing the amount of the "Supplemental Prepayment of One-Time Special Taxes" for Land Use Class 10 of the RMA, the sum of which amounts totals $4,726 [i.e. BOWIE, ARmsom KADI, Wrns & GIANNDNE Board of Supervisors County of Contra Costa January 24, 1995 Page 3 $0.52/square ft./DU x 1550 square ft./DU = $806; $806 + $3920/DU = $4,726/DU]'. By contrast, using an average of 1,550 square feet per DU and the District's current share of $0.52/square foot.of the residential school fee of $1.72 per square foot per DU, the District would collect $806 per DU, or less than 18% of the total cost of schools required for the Project from residential development alone, not including the number of students to be generated from commercial-industrial development. Based on the information available to the District, it can be clearly seen that school fees alone will not provide the District with the funds required to adequately house the students to be generated from the Project, and are inadequate to mitigate school facilities impacts. The District has no funds to mitigate these impacts. In addition, State funding to make up for the shortfall is unlikely. In the past, the State has provided funding for the shortfall after fees are collected. However, the State has clearly delineated its position with respect to the future of state funding, having indicated repeatedly that it intends to have schools increasingly built through local funding mechanisms, as demonstrated by the Governor's veto messages relative to SB 97 and AB 2580 of the 1994 Legislative Session. Furthermore, the school bond measure on this year's June ballot failed to receive voter approval, and there were no school bond measures on the November 1994 statewide ballot. While the District certainly intends to pursue State funds, the District cannot safely embark on its planning with the assumption that such funds will be forthcoming. Under these circumstances it would not be appropriate or prudent for the District to assume receipt of any state funds. Moreover, it is currently estimated that there is a backlog of four billion dollars in unfunded school facilities needs state-wide.. All of the money from past state-wide school facilities bond measures has been allocated. There is currently no additional state-wide bond measure scheduled to be placed on the ballot. Accordingly, the State is not a reliable source of alternate funding for the school facilities needs of the District. With respect to alternative funding sources such as general obligation bond measures, Proposition 170, which was on the ballot in November of 1993, would have lowered the vote required to pass a school district general obligation bond measure from two-thirds to a simple majority. However, Proposition 170 failed, and a two-thirds majority is still required in order to pass a general obligation bond measure within the District. Therefore, the District cannot rely on the passage of a general obligation bond measure to make-up the shortfall in school facilities needs resulting from these Projects and other projects within the District. In the absence of available State 'There is also an annual special tax per DU set forth in the RMA. BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WELES & GIANNONE Board of Supervisors County of Contra Costa January 24, 1995 Page 4 funds the District must seek local funding sources in order to address the fiscal liability for existing and future residents who would otherwise face the prospect of their children attending overcrowded, substandard schools. Unless the applicant enters into a mitigation agreement with the District, school impacts will not be mitigated and will remain significant. Accordingly, we are requesting that the County continue the applicant's request for a final map for the Project, in order to allow time for the applicant to enter into a mitigation agreement with the District to provide for the funding of the school facilities impacts from the Project as required by the General Plan. The District would be pleased to provide the County with any additional information it may require. Enclosed is the most recent judicial expression on this matter. Very truly yours, BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE By: Alexander Bowie cc: Dan Smith Dan Cox Val Alexeeff James Cutler Art Beresford George Cardinale Laird Neuhart David Taussig X14 d-5l 2u14:- 2i1 ` z NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 0, �. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX SANTA MARIA BONITA SCHOOL 2d Civil No. B078572 DISTRICT, etc. , (Super. Ct. No. 78558) (Santa Barbara County) Plaintiff and Appellant, v. p►5i. 40VK1 or n•r-AL•JG�.VI'�N PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY F I L E D OF SANTA MARIA, et al. , JAN 4 1995 Defendants and Respondents. C1efk p. LANE. C erk KELLY JOHNSON LTD. , etc. , et al. , JOSEPH Deputy Real Parties in Interest. A school district petitioned for a writ of mandate, injunctive, and declaratory relief on the grounds that the rezoning of a parcel of land violated the City' s general plan and the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. , hereinafter "CEQA" ) . The school district ' s objection was that the rezoning would have an adverse impact on school facilities, and that development fees authorized by state statute would not adequately mitigate. the impact . The City demurred on the ground that Senate Bill 1287 (Stats. 1992 , ch. 1354, hereinafter "S.B. 1287") , amending Government Code sections 65995 and 65996 , prohibited the City �F\l E� 114 b3l 2014:= 3--11.1 2. from charging locally imposed development fees or denying the rezoning for lack of school facilities. ) S.B. 1287 became effective after the rezoning was approved. Nevertheless, the tria2 court sustained the demurrer. In November of 1993 , while ~ the matter was on appeal, the amendments contained in S .B. 1287 were repealed and sections 65995 and 65996 were returned to their original forms. on appeal the City concedes its arguments based on S.B.. 1287 were rendered moot by its repeal. Nevertheless, the City ' argues neither current law nor its general plan nor CEQA require the City to deny the proposed rezoning or impose mitigation measures . we reverse. Zl&= In 1991, Kelly/Johnson Ltd. ("Kelly" ) submitted an application to the City of Santa Maria (the "City") to approve a residential development of 100 single family homes and 50 condominiums on 18 . 5 acres. The project required, among other matters, a zone change. The project was located within the boundaries of the Santa Maria Bonita School District (the "District") . The City is a general law city, which is required to have a general plan. (§ 65300 . ) The general plan of the city provides that, "It is the policy of the City to insure [sic] adequate public services and facilities are provided in a timely and adequate manner. " The general plan further states an objective " ' [tlo establish a pattern of residential densities which do not overburden the sewerage [sic] , drainage, 1 All code references are to the Government Code unless otherwise stated. ,Y: 1- -9� �:U3P11 i14 8.51 ''u14:= 4.." 3 . transportation and utility systems or schools and recreational facilities of the community, ' and to provide an ' adequate level. of public services and facilities for the present and future residents of the City. ' Further, the General Plan states as objectives to [c] oordinate future land use with the Santa Maria Bonita School district . . . to ensure adequate school sites are reserved to support future growth' and to ' [e]nsure that development pays its own way . . . implement Developer Fees and Improvement Districts assuring adequate Community Facilities are provided as development occurs. " The City prepared an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the project. The BIR recognized significant impacts of the project on the District 's school facilities. It estimated that 150 residential units in the project would generate approximately 76 new students for the District. Development fees were a mitigating factor which the District is allowed to charge by law (H 65995 and 65996) . The EIR also discussed other school facilities mitigation measures: (1) require the developer to pay the District mitigation fees over and above those specified in state statutes; (2) require the developer to enter into a mitigation agreement with the district; (3) create a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District; (4) limit the project to non- student generating households, and (5) other broad measures such as seeking a change in current state funding priorities. The District submitted a report showing that fees allowed by state statutes fell far short of the amount of money necessary to provide school facilities for the -students generated by the project . The District also reported that it had no available funds for school facilities. ,,ENT BY: 1- .3-9.5 ; 5:03P11 4,14 b-3l -')014;= -5:'12 4 . The City certified the BIR and adopted a statement of , overriding considerations. The City found that the mitigation measures identified in the EIR were not feasible because imposition of any of the measures would place first-time buyers out of the market. Thus, the ultimate goal of the project would be unachievable. The City also found that the responsibility of providing school facilities rests with the State and not the City. The City adopted an ordinance changing the zoning of the parcel. The District filed a petition for a writ of mandate and request for preliminary and permanent injunctions. The first cause of action alleged that the City violated its general plan by approving the zone change without adequate provision for school facilities. The second cause of action alleged that the City violated CEQA. The petition alleged that the EIR is deficient in that it fails to identify which mitigation measures will be implemented; fails to identify feasible measures, and fails to require adequate mitigation. The petition also alleged the statement of overriding considerations is deficient in that the finding that cumulative impacts are mitigated to the extent reasonably feasible, the finding that mitigation is not within the jurisdiction of the City, and the finding that the expected benefits of the project outweigh the environmental impacts are not supported by the evidence. The District asked the court to grant a writ of mandate, injunction, and declaratory relief requiring the City to vacate its decision approving the project and to undertake no further action without• complying with the general plan and CEQA. GF\T BY: 1- -03 . 5:O4P11 X 11 del ul�;- t,:l_' The City demurred on the ground, among others, that , S .B. 1287 amended sections 65995 and 65996 to prohibit the City • , from imposing development fees for school facilities or from rejecting the zone change on the ground that school facilities were inadequate. The District argued that S.B. 1287 did not apply to projects approved prior to January 1, 1993 . The trial court sustained the demurrer and the District appeals. pISCU99= I. The City contends that in spite of the repeal of the amendments contained in SB 1287, SB 1287 continues to offset this case by overruling prior interpretations of sections 65995 and 65996 . Prior to the enactment of S.S. 1287, sections 65995, subdivision (a) , and 65996, subdivision (a) prohibited local agencies from assessing other than state authorized fees for school facilities "against a development project as defined in Section 53080 . . . . " Section 65995, subdivision (e) , further provided: "The Legislature finds and declares that the subject of financing of school facilities with development fees is a matter of statewide concern. For this reason the Legislature hereby occupies the subject matter of mandatory development fees and other development requirements for school facilities finance to the exclusion of all local measures on the subject. " Section 65996, subdivision (b) provided, "No public agency shall, deny approval of a project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities . . . . " Courts interpreted the prohibition against denial of a development project 's approval contained in subdivision (b) of LEN E`; 1- 3-93 : 3:04PNI 714 851 ^014.= 7:'12 6. section 65996 as applying only to administration actions . Thus, `• o Mira Develonment Car;. v. City of Raniego (1988) 20S Cal.App.3d , 1201, 1217-1218 and Wi 1 ; rn R . Wart, TTninn Nigh School nisr V. i Regional Planning Com. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612 held that local governments could refuse to rezone land, a legislative action, based on the inadequacy of school facilities. Similarly, Murrieta Val 1 ey_Uaifi d S hodl n; ,tet v. county of (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1212, 1229-1234, held that sections 65995 and 65996 did not deprive the county of authority to specify mitigation measures that ameliorate the adverse effects of development on school facilities in connection with an amendment to its general plan. Effective January 1, 1993, S.B. 1287 amended sections 65995 and 65996 . Subdivision (a) of both sections was amended to specify that legislative as well as administrative actions were covered. Subdivision (c) was added to 65996. It provided that, "This section shall have prospective application only, and shall not affect any action taken by a local agency prior to the effective date of this section. " S.B. 1287 provided, however, that the amended sections would be repealed if Assembly Constitutional Amendment 6 of the 1991-92 Regular Session (Proposition 170) failed to receive voter approval. S.B. 1287 also re-enacted sections 65995 and 65996 with their original language to become effective if the amended sectiones were repealed by lack of voter approval of Proposition 170 . The voters failed to approve Proposition 170 at the November 2, ' 1993, election. Thus sections 65995 and 65996 were returned to their original form, SENT BY: 1- 3-93 . 5:03PM - 714 831 2014:= 6!1'L. 7 . The City concedes the law as it now exists should control on appeal and its argument that the amendments enacted -in'.. S.B. 1287 control this case is moot. The City contends, however„ `«- that in enacting S.B. 1287, the Legislature intended to overrule Mira, Hart, and Murriz,„, the cases interpreting sections 65995 and 65996 as not applying to legislative acts. But in enacting S.B. 1287 it is obvious the Legislature was well aware of how the cases interpreted the original language of sections 65995 and 65996. The Legislature would not have re-enacted those sections in their original language on the failure of Proposition 170, had it intended to overrule the cases interpreting that language. The City characterizes the District ' s first cause of action as essentially a lawsuit over fees and its second cause of action as addressing financial rather than environmental impacts. The City points out that nothing in Mira, fiat, or Mures ri=ta authorizes the imposition by local governments of fees to mitigate the impact of a legislative action on school facilities. The City also cites nrw P nom:mer,j- Campnn . v, Sun -ri orl` ,rt (1993) 4 Cal .4th 911 for the proposition that the state Legislature has preempted the field of school facilities financing. ,n - concerned whether a local special tax was a charge within the meaning of section 65995 . The court held that subdivision (e) of the section expressed the intent of the state Legislature to fully occupy the field of school facilities financing, including special taxes. 21:1= did not consider Via, Hart, or Murrieta. Nor did it consider the effect of S.B. 1267 in which the express reference to legislative action was removed from the existing version of 65995 . -SF\T BY: 1- 3-93 ; 3:03P19 714 831 2014;= 9'1" 8 . In any event, we do not agree with the City' s . z characterization of the .District ' s action as a lawsuit for fees or financial compensation. Instead, the District is seeking to require the City to follow its own general plan and CEQA. That does not require the imposition of fees . should the trial court ultimately decide in the District' s favor, it may issue a writ requiring the City• to vacate its decision to rezone the property in question. The City may also consider non-financial mitigation measures, such as phased-in development; or it may require the formation of Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (5 53311, et seq. ) , an action expressly approved by section 65995, subdivision (f) . II. The City next claims its general plan does not require mitigation of the impact of the zone change on school facilities. Thus the District cannot state a good cause of action for failure to comply with the general plan. The City relies on Corona-Norco. Unified school-Dint . v. city of Corona (1993) 17 Ca1.App.4th 985, 996-997, for the proposition that general policy statements and goals contained in a general plan are insufficient to require compliance. Government Code section 65860, subdivision (a) (ii) requires that City zoning ordinances be consistent with the City' s general plan. In order to be consistent with the general plan the section requires that land uses authorized by ordinance must be "compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in iauch a plan. " Here the City' s policies and objectives stated in the general plan are to ensure adequate public facilities, to establish a pattern of residential densities which do not BEV BY: 1- 5-95 : 3:06P11 714 051 9 . overburden schools, and to ensure that development pays its own ' z way. These are precisely the policies and objectives the District alleges the City violated. T These policies and objectives are clearly stated. • Nothing authorizes the City to ignore them. To the contrary, section 65864 expressly requires that the land uses authorized by a zoning ordinance must be consistent with them. To hold otherwise would reduce the plan to a series of empty platitudes, of interest only to wishful thinkers. We decline to follow Corona-Norco to the extent it can be read to support the City' s position that it need not comply with its general plan' s policy statements and goals. The District has stated a good cause of action for violation of the general plan. III. We must also reject the City' s contention that the District cannot state a good cause of action for violation of CEQA. The contention is based on the theory that CEQA itself confers no power on the City to impose school facility mitigation conditions. Corona-Norco Uni±±ed School nisi . V. City of enrona (1993) 13 Ca1 .App. 4th 1577, 1587 properly held that where the City lacks the power to impose mitigating conditions or reject the project the environmental impact report need not consider such matters. In contrast to the circumstances in Corona-Nord, here the City has the power, indeed the duty, to impose school facilities mitigation measures or deny the project pursuant to its general plan. The District stated a good cause of action under CEQA. IV. �F_NT BY: 1- 3-93 ; 3;06PM 71.1 8-31 '?014;=11!1 ' 10 . Finally, the City requests that if we decide against 7 it, we not award costs to the District, but require each party to,, bear its own costs. The request is made on the ground that the trial court's decision was correct when it was issued. Even assuming the City is correct that the trial court properly sustained the demurrer under S .B. 1287, the City pursued its right to appeal on other issues. The City lost. Instead it continued to contest the District ' s position by raising other , issues. There is no reason not to follow the usual rule and award costs to the District as the prevailing party. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 26 . ) The judgment is reversed. Costs are awarded to the District. NOT TO BE PTTRLISHED. GILBERT, J. We concur: STONE, P.J. YEGAN, J. SENT BY: 1- 3-93 : 3:06PM 714 851 2014:=1^!10; 11 . zel Canter, Judge Superior Court County of Santa Barbara Bowie, Arneson, Kadi, Wiles & Giannone, Wendy H. Wiles, Kenneth S. Levy, and Janet L. Mueller for Plaintiff and Appellant. Arther R. Montandon, City Attorney for the City of Santa Maria, and Wendy Stockton, Senior Deputy City Attorney for Defendants and Respondents. _ CO&SIDF.wrT14 � 0.N CAJIro ?° 7 BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 5160 200 PORTER DR., SUITE 200 I R SAN RAMON, CA 94583 BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (510)820-7626 • Fax (510)820-7296 January 27, 1995 Via Facsimile & Airborne Express R EC IVE Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County .SAN 3 0 1995 County Administration Building 6CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 51 Pine Street, Room 106 CONTRA COSTA CO. Martinez, CA 94553-1229 RE: Agenda Item 1.3. 1.58 - Meeting of January 31, 1995 Subdivision No. 7837 - Hofmann Company Liberty Union High School District Dear Board Members: The law firm representing the Liberty Union High School District("District") has asked you to continue your consideration of.Subdivision No. 7837; an 81 unit project located in Oakley. The District's request is replete with half-truths and material omissions of fact. It should be rejected. It is startling that in a dense, 4 page letter,.the District could tell you so little. The District did not tell you that according to its own documents, it currently has capacity for an additional 200 students. The District did not tell you that when completed, Subdivision No. 7837 may generate an additional 16 students. The District did not tell you that in April 1994, its voters passed a$25 million general obligation bond to build the fust phases of the Oakley High School. It also did not tell you that the first phases of the Oakley High School will have a capacity of 1,600 students, and is scheduled to open for the 1996 school year. The District did not tell you that its request for matching state funding has been approved by the State Allocation Board and that upon passage of the next state-wide school facility bond it will receive $12.8 million. The District did not tell you that Governor Pete Wilson's 1995 Budget calls for a legislatively adopted revenue bond to fund school facilities. The District did not tell you that after meetings in Supervisor Torlakson's office in 1993, the District and building community reached an agreement regarding the establishment of a fee at building permit program to fund the $9 million needed in the future to finish the Oakley High School and add capacity of 600 students. The District also did not tell you that it has impeded the implementation of that agreement and is now reneging on it. EASTERN SOUTHERN NORTHERN DIVISIONAL OFFICES: (510)820-7626 (408)977-1490 (707)584-9133 San Ramon San Jose Rohnert Park AFFILIATED WITH NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS AND CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION Board of Supervisors 2 Contra Costa County January 27, 1995 Much.of what the District cites to you about the County's General Plan is accurate; primarily because they are direct quotes. It is the District's interpretation of the General Plan (to say nothing of its statement of needs) that is erroneous. The District would like you to rely on their "expertise" and give them veto power over development approvals. That is why the District did not tell you that under state law and your General Plan it is you - the Board of Supervisors, not the District, that determines appropriate mitigation. We ask you to reject the District's request regarding Subdivision No. 7837, and to reject similar future requests that will undoubtedly occur. In 1993 the District gave its word on a school mitigation agreement with the home building community. The home building community has lived up to, and exceeded, its obligations under that agreement. We urge you to not allow the District to break it. Best regards, Building Industry Association of Northern California (, / �,z PL Guy Bjerke Paul Campos Staff Vice-President General Counsel Please note: The court case enclosed with the District's letter is an unpublished decision which cannot be cited in any California court. C. Val Alexeff Jay Corey Hofmann Company