HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03121991 - 1.56 1 %;0V
7;0: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
1
FROM: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel `" '
Costa
�; s
County
' ,4p
DATE:
March 6 , 1991
SUBJECT: proposed County Norris Canyon Road Area Boundary Reorganization
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approve and authorize the Community Development Director and County
Counsel to prepare for Board Adoption (and thereafter file) the
requested Norris Canyon. Road Area Boundary Reorganization resolution of
application with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) after the
developer-requestor first enters an agreement to .pay and/or bear all
costs (including all of those of the County and of LAFCO as specified)
of the reorganization.
FISCAL IMPACT. None, providing the requestor-developer enters an
agreement committing the payment or reimbursement of any County costs
and holding the County harmless concerning the proposed application and
its subject (including LAFCO processing and the costs of defending a
LAFCO decision of approval) .
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AND BACKGROUND. This. responds to your
referral of February 5, 1991, which enclosed a copy of the letter from
Thomas Krehbiel, Vice President of HCV Pacific Partners, the developers
of the Wiedemann Ranch project . Mr. Krehbiel requests that on behalf of
his company's proposed development project the County file an
application with LAFCO for a boundary reorganization to annex the
project property to EBMUD, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
and the San Ramon Fire District and to form a police service area.
County staff (the Community Development Department and County
Counsel ' s office) has reviewed Mr. Krehbiel' s request and find that it
is consistent with the County' s recently adopted new General Plan. For
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON March 12, 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED y' OTHER
i
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
XX I I I 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.
(See second page for March 12 , 1991
CC: distribution) ATTESTED
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY 2Z=lf DEPUTY
M382 (10/88)
this reason, staff recommends Board approval of the request subject to
its requestor first entering an agreement to bear all County costs
(filing fees, CEQA documents, staff time, etc. ) and to hold harmless,
release and defend the County from any consequences of the application
(and similarly bear all costs of defending a Local Agency Formation
Commission decision approving the said. proposal) . It should be noted
that it will not be necessary to apply to LAFCO to form a policq. service
area since the provision of police service can be accomplished by the
formation of a zone within County Service Area P-6 .
It has not been past County practice to be the LAFCO applicant and
proponent for this type of developer reorganization since developers can
directly file their own LAFCO applications . For example, Blackhawk was
required to directly file and pursue its similar reorganization proposal
with LAFCO. It now appears appropriate to change this past practice.
From the filed request it is not clear that all of the public
entitles whose boundaries may be changed will accept this proposed
reorganization. In part, for this reason, staff recommends that the
Board approve this reorganization application request only on the
condition that prior to its filing the developer-requestor has entered
the above-noted written agreement to fully bear all the noted costs .
Such agreement should be in a form that meets with the County Counsel's
approval .
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION. Should the County refuse to
process this application, it could prevent or delay the implementation
of its General Plan provisions for the involved area . If the County
were to approve the request and apply to LAFCO, without an agreement
with the developer for the above-noted reimbursement and defense, the
County could incur non-reimbursable costs for the processing of the
subject reorganization.
cc: Dewey Mansfield, Executive Officer, LAFCO
Valentine Alexeef , Director, GMEDA
Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Director
Mark Armstrong ('P.O. Box 218, Danville, CA 94526
VJW:df
df10:vjw\memo\1afco
t