The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 04251995 - CA1 1" 1 1 1 N C!✓ - - Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier T" " County Supervisor Gayle Bishop DATE: April 25, 1995 SUBJECT: Report of the Pleasant Hill BART Annexation Ad-Hoc Committee SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPT REPORT. FISCAL IMPACT =r . None BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS. On March 21 the Board of Supervisors designated Chair Bishop and Supervisor DeSaulnier as the County's representatives to meet with elected representatives of the City of Pleasant Hill and BART regarding Pleasant Hill's desire to establish an annexation program for portions of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area. The Ad-Hoc Committee has met with Pleasant Hill and BART representatives on two occasions - March 30 and April 3 . Pleasant Hill was represented at both meetings by Paul Cooper and Sherry Sterrett. BART was represented by Dan Richards on March 30th. Both your County representatives were in attendance on March 30 and April 3. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER ��._ .. SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON APR APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Source: Jim Kennedy 646-4076 JK4/jb/phannex.bos ATTESTED ,SPR 25 1 Orig. Dept. Community Development PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF cc: County Administrator THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Redevelopment Agency AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel Public Works (Admin. ) GMEDA BY , DEPUTY via Redevelopment City of Pleasant Hill BART Contra Costa Centre Walden Improvement Assoc. The bulk of the March 30th meeting was absorbed by discussion of a revised City of Pleasant Hill Annexation Agreement presented verbally that afternoon. This revised proposal represented "the most they (Cooper and Sterrett, on behalf of the City) , think can be agreed to. " Attachment A summarizes the March 30th proposal and provides commentary. The April 3 meeting began with a presentation by County staff stating the basis of the County's position on various issues related to the City's Annexation program (Attachment B) . After limited discussion and inquiry, the Pleasant Hill negotiator requested a recess. Upon their return, a revised proposal was made. Attachment C provides a General Outline of Terms. This General Outline of Terms was shared with the City staff. By memo dated April 14, 1995 (Attachment D) , the City staff indicated general agreement with terms as outlined by the County, except as it relates to the timing issue, and the nature of the proposed improvements to the Oak Park overcrossing. The timing issue relates to when an Annexation Agreement would be entered into. We believe that the understood order was to first proceed with the traffic study, attempt to identify and mitigate traffic impacts in Pleasant Hill and elsewhere, and then proceed with an Annexation Agreement consistent with the General Outline of Terms (Attachment C) . The rationale for this order was to accomplish identification of "City Costs" associated with general plan amendments. In simple terms, it is our understanding that needed General Plan Amendments can't be identified until circulation improvements have been studied and chosen. The City wants the Annexation Agreement to proceed now. In reality, the positions may not vary dramatically because the amount of time necessary to complete traffic studies (six months) should roughly approximate the time necessary for the City to secure special legislation prior to filing an annexation application. The Pleasant Hill City Council heard a report from its Ad-Hoc Committee on Monday, April 17. As a result of that meeting the City Council directed their negotiators to continue to meet with County and BART representatives. ATTACHMENT A P 1 of 3 ISSUE CITY OF CITY COUNTY PLEASANT HILL COMMENTARY COMMENTARY PROPOSAL OF 3/30/95 PLEASANT HILL City would support following County proposed land use -Flexibility already exists BART SPECIFIC land use changes: changes are too flexible on BART site PLAN LAND USE and don't provide any -Need to clarify what AMENDMENTS A. Area 15 (Urban West): specificity isfis not acceptable land residential uses B. Area 10A(Wallace-Olson/ -Some property owners Kajima): office or retail developmentplans could C. Area 7/8(HOMART): be clarified in near future residential,commercial- -City isn't land use recreation, retail planning agency! CIRCULATION City suggests removing SP 1.City views removing -Removal of traffic IMPROVEMENTS Arterial, Buskirk,S Oak Park SP Arterial will divert mitigations could Overcrossing from plans. traffic to N.Main/Contra impair development City wouldn't challenge plan Costa Blvd.to Oak Park rights by: amendments&CEQA impacting South 1.Exposing land use documentation accomplishing Pleasant Hill plan to CEQA this litigation from parties other than City; 2.Reduce accessibility of area,thereby reducing development interest and diminishing BART accessibility. -No traffic studies upon which to base assertions that mitigations will/will not work,or magnitude of impacts -City has requested Measure C funds for widening of Buskirk -Only CCTA has ability to reprogram Measure C funds -Agreeing to annexation in advance of concluding concluding plan review/ CEQA and escaping litigation could leave the County and property owners'interests impaired. (Dan Richards' perception of what City is saying-"We won't kill you,but we won't feed you either. Same effect" ATTACHMENT A P 2 of 3 ISSUE CITY OF CITY COUNTY PLEASANT HILL COMMENTARY COMMENTARY PROPOSAL OF 3130195 ANNEXATION Cherry stem down Coggins Cherry stem down Use of Coggins puts them AREA south to BART tracks;include Coggins would be immediately abutting BART tracks, platform,garage "shorter and more Area 4 and Development Area 11 defensible" -Inclusion of Area 11 puts City immediately abutting abutting all Development Areas north of Treat except 1, 10A and 7A BART City would support extension of DEVELOPMENT BARTs Development RIGHTS Agreement SPECIAL County would support LEGISLATION CITY GENERAL County Redevelopment Agency -City asserts$300,000 PLAN AMENDMENT pay costs associated with City cost to amend General amending General Plan to Plant remove SP Arterial -City amendments would parallel those of County, i.e.,removing SP,there- fore,issues and CEQA documentation should be very similar TAX TRANSFERS Sales tax split 50/50 from area Tanner clarifies that -No prior willingness on regardless of whether properties County retains property part of County have been annexed tax;TOT to County -Why would we share in advance of actual annexation -Do we want to engage in any revenue sharing FUTURE City not be prohibited from -"Thin edge ofthe wedge" ANNEXATIONS future annexations is significantly wider CITY DOWNTOWN County/BART agree not to sue -What are they hiding; on City's Downtown what do we really know Redevelopment Plan about this JKlh =181phwnexthl CA ATTACHIMEN'T A P 3 of 3 pro C17Y OF PLEASANT HILL PLEASANT HILL �� ANNEXA 77ON CITY LIMITS 5�� ' I �� tMAYHEW WE 1 �` _By. WFS Scale 1'=400' P.W. POINT OF C' NHD. ate: 1-13-94 Sht 1 of 1 BEGINNING f McGILL- MAR TIN oSELFtnc. CIVIL ING LAND PLANNING GASURVEYING C;4, i 4 89 DAVIS MAD SUITE 200 DRINDA CA 94563 o E'LY LINE FORMER LAND OF W'LY LINE FORMER LAND OF V SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD p ELY UNE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY N'LY LINE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ' RE–DEVELOPMENT AGENCY RE–DEVELOPMENT AGENCY r V 12606 OR 19 12606 OR 19 S'LY LINE OF L22 CONTAINING AN AREA OF 15 ACRES± SUBD. 6115 C4 N D J = ANNEXATION AREA IABLO OAKS L21 GOGGJN ,•' - --- EXISTING CITY LIMIT R=130 - — — PROPOSED CITY LIMIT N'LY PROLONGATION OF LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE E'LY UNE SUED. 5802 L1 EASTERLY 1011± L2 SOUTHERLY 2600'± h 5 y�` 0 L3 SOUTHWESTERLY 1270'± 9Q L4 S 11'3829' W 120'± L5 WESTERLY 235 ± L6 NORTHERLY 242 ± L7 NORTHEASTERLY 860'± S.F. BART DIST. L17 C3 ��O L8 N 44'12'29' W 192'± 12002 OR 266 P• L9 S 894236' W 35.00' LAS JUNTAS L16 L10 S 89'42'36' W 203.99' WAYS 112' L13 _ L11 N 04'5455' E 165 ± :: .. _ - L12 EASTERLY 400'±' L 13 SOUTH 15' .............. _ , L14 N 89 42'36' E 131.99' ,�6 L10 5S• == L15 N 0017'24' W 40' �• °' �9g�9 9� L16 EASTERLY X04` L _= = L17 NORTHERLY o4��6g L18 N 00'30'04' W(R) L19 N 08 45'16' E 868.18' �o_ L20 NORTHERLY E'. J L21 SOUTHEASTERLY p _ O L22 S 88'18'58' E 11.50' o = �1SD� P�� 2 L23 N 08'45'16' E 1288.6 ± CURVE RADIUS LENGTH • -�Q C1 60.00' 106.37' C2 60.00' 78.36' C3 40.00' 56.37' ATTACHMENT B P 1 of 2 BASIS FOR COUNTY POSITION ON PLEASANT HILL BART ANNEXATION PROPOSALS ISSUE COUNTY POSITION WHY REVENUE PROTECTION * Support limited annexation 1. County will be investing with public facility properties $50 million in the PH BART only; Redevelopment Program over *Future annexations only if 40 year life, and deserves a County consents and receives return on that investment. all revenues, or an amount County diversion of revenues equal to, pursuant to written is approximately 40% of the Agreement. redevelopment revenues. By contrast, City of Pleasant Hill is contributing .49% of the revenues to its downtown redevelopment program($1.6 million). CIRCULATION * Evaluate(traffic study) 1. To responsibly mitigate n\dPROVEMENTS feasibility and performance of development impacts as preferred alternatives of required by CEQA; Buskirk Ave. widening prior 2. Traffic study required to to proceeding; assess performance and * Maintain funding for Oak impacts of improvements; no Park overcrossing. current traffic study addressing these projects; 3. Enhance regional accessibility to BART, including from Pleasant Hill; 4. Oak Park overcrossing modification desirable for Breuner's site redevelopment in City of Pleasant Hill; 5. City has requested the TRANSPAC TAC to include Buskirk widening in CCTA's Strategic Plan update for future Measure C funding @ $15.5 million. 6. Failure to mitigate impacts could jeopardize "return-to- source" funds(non- compliance to Growth Management standards). This situation can apply to County and City. ATTACHMENT B P 2 of 2 PROTECTION OF * Proceed under growth 1. Transit Based DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS management principles Development is the outlined in Pleasant OR economically and BART Specific Plan, i.e., environmentally sound mitigate growth impacts; approach for development in * Development Agreement/ this location; Disposition&Development 2. Continued vesting required Agreements (DA/DDA's) to reflect extended build- provide legal protection of period; development rights for BART 3. BART provided and others. opportunity to recapture some of the real estate value it created by building the system and the Pleasant Bill Station both in terms of ridership and joint development lease revenues. PLANNING/LAND USE * County Redevelopment 1. No dispute on primacy of Plan will prevail; County Redevelopment Plan * County proposed land use land use controls; amendments to be tested in 2. County proposed traffic study; amendments reflect market conditions in the mid to later 1990's, not the early 1980 perception of unlimited office demand. Flexibility of use proposed for all sites, rather than just BART site as current Specific Plan provides. ANNEXATION AREA * Assist City in its stated 1. Political accommodation; desire to have the BART 2. Secure sphere of influence Station that carries its name boundaries to Treat. Current in the City; boundaries are not entirely * Support BART tracks, logical because Walnut Creek platform, and SP right-of- surrounds PH BART Station way, or island annexation as on 3 sides; an alternative, not Coggins, 3. March 30 alternative area BART tracks/platform, and (Coggins cherry stem with Development Area 11 BART and Area 11)would alternative. place City territory immediately adjacent to almost every development piece north of Treat Blvd. nem 4Ws smifthb tM ATTACB= C P 1 of 1 GENERAL OUTLINE OF TERMS- PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA ANNEXATION AGREEMENT (4/3/95) General Comment Regarding Timing: We will first proceed with the traffic study,with amended scope;will attempt to identify and mitigate traffic impacts in Pleasant Hill(and elsewhere). Once done,proceed with an Annexation Agreement structured along the lines of this 4/3/95 Outline of Terms. Annexation Area: Coggins cherry stem;BART Parking Garage; BART Platform; BART Tracks; and Oak Rd.south from BART tracks to Treat(conceptually the area shown in City's map entitled"BART ld';this will need to be reviewed by BART and County to conform to business arrangement). Future Annexation: No prohibition of future annexations;terms of such future annexations will have to be negotiated at that time. Tax Transfers: Annexation Area: County receives all(negligible). Future Annexation: Subject to future negotiations. Special Legislation: Agreement will need to specify material terms of legislation. County and BART will support if consistent with Agreement. Circulation Improvements: Parties agree to proceed with traffic study of Buskirk, Oak Park, and Wayne Drive flyover alternatives. City willing to consider the circulation improvements (if applicable,i.e.,in the City)in good faith once the traffic study results are in. Oak Park Overcrossing: City agrees to lead and pursue implementation through CCTA. Buskirk: City agrees to cooperate with studies. City maintains discretionary approval authority. Wayne Drive Flyover. City agrees to cooperate with studies. DDA/DA: City will not oppose any Area DDA/DA exercise,amendment,or extension. Planning/Land Use: City costs associated with general plan amendments that may ultimately be required to effect circulation improvements to be covered by project fiords [this may be more appropriately restated to reflect inclusion of City amendments as part of project description for CEQA documentation]. Parties: Contra Costa County City of Pleasant Hill BART JV-1h =18iphte mist 0.1/17!95 15:11 ,'$510 256 8190 PLEASANT HILL CH _ 10008/009 ATTACB= D P 1 of 2 City of Pleasant Hill MEMORANDUM TO: James Kennedy, Deputy Director Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency FROM: Richard T. Bottarini, Community Development Director DATE: April 14, 1995 SUBJECT: BART Station Annexation I discussed your outline of the points of agreement on the business deal with Paul Cooper and Joe Tanner to determine if there were any perceived inconsistencies. The following is our response to your memorandum of April 3, 1995. Issue One - Timing;it appears,by the way you drafted your memorandum, that the annexation will only proceed after a traffic study has been completed and City has commitment to construct the improvements as specified in the traffic study. I do not believe that is what we agreed upon. We believe it was agreed that the annexation would proceed at this time with our support for the traffic studies and that we would in good faith review the results and commit to appropriate improvements. Generally, we do not believe we have complete agreement on this point. Issue Two - Annexation Area; we are in agreement. Issue Three - Future Annexation; we are in agreement. Issue Four- Tax Transfers;we are in agreement. Issue Five - Special Legislation; we are in agreement. Issue Six - Circulation Improvements; This appears to be in conflict with issue one - timing. The County wants to wait until the study is complete before we proceed with the agreement and the annexation. The City wants to proceed with the annexation now. It appears that the County doesn't want to proceed with the annexation without some assurance of actual construction of necessary improvements. The City doesn't want to have to make capital improvements that are too costly to the City, such as the loss of the Black Angus or a significant portion of the Montgomery Ward shopping center. We APP-1^-1995 14:16 510 1276 8190 P.003 04;17!95 15:18 $510 256 8190 PLEASANT HILL CH 004/009 ATTACHMENT D P 2 of 2 Memo to James Kennedy re: BART Station Annexation page 2 also have concerns about how the residents will react to some of the proposed improvements in their neighborhood. The City agreed to the studies, but not to the construction at this time, thus we need some clarification to the Oak Park Oven3ossing statement. Issue Seven- DDAIDA;we are in general agreement,but what we said is that we will support and not litigate extensions and amendments. We will comment on each proposal as they are being reviewed. It was also stated that the county and BART would not litigate with the City over it's Redevelopment project. Issue Eight - Planning/Land Use; we are in general agreement, but it should be indicated that the fields will be available to the City to amend its plan,and we can cap the amount of funding to fix our general plan. We assume that the funding would come from the CCTA, and if so they will need to agree to these expenditures. Issue Nine - Parties;we are in agreement. Generally we are close, but we need a little more work. RTB/jf APP-17-1995 14:17 510 256 8190 P.004