HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04021996 - C19 �i Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS `r Costa
'r^ c'uN .J. County Harvey E. Bragdon
Director of Community Development
DATE: April 2, 1996
SUBJECT: Settlement Agreement - City of Pleasant Hill v. Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County
Redevelopment, and BART
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
ACCEPT Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Judgment, and AUTHORIZE the Chair to
execute said Settlement Agreement with the City of Pleasant Hill and the San Francisco Bay
Area Rapid Transit District (BART) on behalf of the County and the County Redevelopment
Agency.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On October 24, 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved the Amended and Restated
Acquisition and Development Agreement relating to the BART property in the Pleasant Hill
BART Station Area. The City of Pleasant Hill filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the County
and Agency's approval of the Amended and Restated Acquisition and Development
Agreement on the grounds of alleged failure to comply with CEQA.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE:
�jIM/l
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR E MMEND ION OF BOA
COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON April 2, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_y OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X 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
335-1255
cc: County Administrator ATTESTED April 2, 1996
County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Community Development THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
via Redevelopment AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BART
Contra Costa Centre Association
Walden District Improvement Assoc. BY , DEPUTY
JKAh
sraMphbart.bos
Staff and attorneys for the City of Pleasant Hill, the County and BART have negotiated a
Settlement Agreement that includes the following items:
1. A Traffic and Land Use Study will be undertaken (already underway);
2. The Traffic Study will be jointly managed by the County and the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority (already happening);
3. The City will agree to be the lead agency for the Transportation Authority's
Measure C funding of the Study, and will seek the necessary appropriation
resolution from the Authority;
4. The City will enter into an agreement with the County, County
Redevelopment Agency and the Transportation Authority to ensure that 50%
of the Traffic Study costs are reimbursed to the County;
5. City agrees not to bring any future suit in the Specific Plan Area on the
grounds that the technical data and assumptions used in the Traffic Study
were incorrect;
6. The parties acknowledge that future actions (General Plan/Specific Plan
Amendments) will consider the results of the Traffic Study, and will be
processed in accordance with CEQA;
7. The existence of the Amended and Restated Acquisition and Development
Agreement between the County, the County Redevelopment Agency and
BART does not limit the discretion of the County in considering the General
Plan/Specific Plan Amendments under consideration.
The City of Pleasant Hill City Council has approved this Settlement Agreement. The Board
of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District is scheduled to consider this Settlement Agreement
on March 28, 1996.
+' 03,'15/96 09:52 $415 788 5347 GOLDFARB LIPMAN 002/004
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT
This Agreement is made as of this day of , 1996, by and among
the County of Contra Costa ("County"), the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency
("Agency"), the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid District("BART"), and the City of Pleasant Hill
("City") with reference to the following:
A. On or about October 24, 1995, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Amended
and Restated Acquisition and Development Agreement ("ADA") relating to
certain property owned by BART in the area ("Specific Plan Area")governed by
the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan ("Specific Platt"). On or
about November 22, 1995,the County, Agency and BART entered into the ADA.
The portion of the Specific Plan Area that is the subject of the-ADA is referred
to in the ADA and in this Agreement as the "BART Development Property."
B. On or about November 22, 1995, the City filed a lawsuit (the "Litigation")
against County, Agency and BART (Contra Costa County Superior Court Action
No. C95-05163) seeking to invalidate the County and Agency's approval of the
ADA on the grounds of alleged failure to comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").
C. The Parties wish to resolve the Litigation without resort to further court action.
Therefore, the parties agree as follows:
Section 1. Traffic and Land Usg Study. The County has begun and shall continue and complete
a CEQA level study of traffic,alternative circulation improvements and alternative land uses in
and adjacent to the Specific Plan Area (the "Study"). The Study shall include, as part of its
examination of the base case of development in accordance with the existing Specific Plan, the
construction of a four-lane arterial on the former Southern Pacific right of way, extending from
Monument Boulevard to the Pleasant Frill BART Station (the "SP Arterial") as shown in the
existing Specific Plan. The Study shall be jointly managed by the County and the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (the "Authority").' The Authority staff will.provide an independent
review and approval of the technical assumptions, standards and criteria of the Study including
but not limited to level of service calculations, trip generation, trip distribution, origin and
destination, and modal split. The Authority's staffs written approval of the Study will be
limited to certification that the Study has been carried out in conformance with the Authority's
adopted."Technical Procedures" dated August 1992 and including "Intersection Level of Service
Analysis Program, User's Manual" dated September 1992, as used for similar traffic studies.
Coordinating meetings between the traffic consultant and the County and Authority staff will be
held weekly, or as frequently as needed. To the maximum extent possible, direction to the
consultants for the Study and responses to the consultants questions will be by written
communication approved by both County and Authority representatives and copies will be
provided to the City. City agrees to be the lead agency for the Authority's Measure C funding
of the Study, will seek the necessary appropriation resolution from the Authority and will enter
into an appropriate agreement to ensure that fifty percent (50%) of study costs are reimbursed
to the County.
31141%
71a:1ap511Pkawtl8dtie.G31
' 03/ 5.96 09:52 $415 788 5347 GOLDFARB LIPMAN 19/003/009
Section 2. Effect of Study. Provided the Authority staff reviews and approves of technical
assumptions, standards and criteria of the Study, then the City shall not bring any future suit
to invalidate any permit or approval for development in the Specific Plan Area on the grounds
that the technical data and assumptions used in the Study or the technical conclusions of the
consultants arising from the data and assumptions were incorrect or mistaken in any respect or
aspect. However, the foregoing shall not preclude the City or any interested person or party
from challenging an approval for development in the Specific Plan Area on grounds other than
that the technical data assumptions used in the Study or the technical conclusions of the
consultants arising from the data and assumptions were incorrect or mistaken.
Section 3. ADA Land Uses and Densities, The following provisions of the ADA relate to land
use standards for development and development densities:
a) Recital K;
b) Section 1(c);
c) Section 4.2;
d) Section 4.3;
e) Section 4.5;
f) Section 4.7, except for acknowledgement of completion of certain
mitigation measures as reflected in the fifth sentence of said section;
g) Section 4.8;
h) Section 4.15, last three sentences; and
i) Section 6.2, first sentence.
Section 4. Plan Amendments. After completion of the Study and consideration of the results
of the Study, the County may amend the Specific Plan and the County General Plan as it relates
to the Specific Plan Area and adjacent areas. Any such amendment shall be processed in
accordance with CEQA and after consideration of the results of the completed study, and BART
agrees that the ADA shall not limit the discretion of the County or the Agency in considering
any such amendment.
Section 5. ADA Amendments. Nothing in this Agreement prevents BART, the County and the
Agency from amending the ADA at any time following execution of this Agreement. Any such
amendment shall be processed in accordance with CEQA and after consideration of the results
of the completed Study.
Section 6. Effect of the ADA. In considering any application relating to development of the
BART Development Property, including but not limited to an application made by Western
Development Group or any other entity, the County and BART agree that those specific
provisions of the ADA which are identified in Section 3 above and which vest development
densities and land use standards for development shall not limit the discretion of the County or
the Agency in considering any such application. Any such applications shall be processed in
accordance with CEQA and in consideration of the completed Study.
31141%
?1c 1ay511FkwuuttiSstlk+da 2
03/f5.96 09:53 $415 788 5347 GOLDFARB LIPMAN Q004/004
Section 7. Pj=sition of Litigation, Enforcement. Promptly following approval and execution
of this Agreement by all the parties, the City shall dismiss the Litigation with prejudice. This
Agreement shall be deemed to be a judgment entered in the Litigation which may be enforced
in the same manner as an entered judgment by a party claiming that another party has breached
this Agreement. Such rights of enforcement shall include the right to apply to and obtain from
the court an order and/or issuance of a writ of mandate enforcing this Agreement.
Section 8. Miscellaneous, Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys fees in
connection with the Litigation. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
California and represents the entire agreement of the parties as to the subject matter of this
Agreement.
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA-
BY:
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDBVELAPMHN'T
AGENCY
BY:
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID
TRANSIT DISTRICT
BY:
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
BY:
3
The Law Offices of
CosI
GOLDFARB & L.IPMAN
056 One Montgomery Street 19AY — 3: 19
Twenty-Third Floor
San Francisco DE v OP�" t��T t�
Califoniia 94104
EPT
415 788-6336 May 2 , 1996
415 788-0999 FAX
Steven H.Goldfarb Jim Kennedy
Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency
M David Kroot 651 pine Street .
Lee C.Rosenthal Martinez, CA 94553
Roger A.Clay,Jr. Re: Settlement Aqreement and Stipulaticjn for
John T.Nagle Judgment
Polly V.Marshall Dear Mr. Kennedy:
Lynn Hutchins
At the request of Lee C. Rosenthal enclosed is a copy.
Richard A.Judd of the final executed settlement agreement with Pleasant
Karen M.Tiedemann Hill.
Thomas H.Webber If you have a question, please give Lee a call.
John T.Haygood
Sincerely,
Dianne Jackson McLean
Michelle D.Brewer
Andrew Z.Shagrin Diane Coleman--Bates
Lisa L.Lm Legal Assistant to
LEE C. ROSENTHAL
David M.Robinson
jdcb
Enclosure
Of Counsel
Barry R.Lipman Our File: 320/1
555 South Flower Street
Twenty-Eighth Floor
Los Angeles
California 90071
213 627-6336
3200RU.P50
� , C • I(-/mow/J�
I
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT
This Agreement is made as of this a —s day of \ , 1996, by and among
the County of Contra Costa ("County"), the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency
("Agency"), the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid District("BART"), and the City of Pleasant Hill
("City") with reference to the following:
A. On or about October 24, 1995, the Board of Supervisors authorizdd the Amended
and Restated Acquisition and Development Agreement ("ADA") relating to
certain property owned by BART in the area ("Specific Plan Area") governed by
the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"). On or
about November 22, 1995, the County, Agency and BART entered into the ADA.
The portion of the Specific Plan Area that is the subject of the ADA is referred
to in the ADA and in this Agreement as the "BART Development Property." -
B. On or about November 22, 1995, the City filed a lawsuit (the "Litigation")
against County, Agency and BART (Contra Costa County Superior Court Action
No. C95-05163) seeking to invalidate the County and Agency's approval of the
ADA on the grounds of alleged failure to comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").
C. The Parties wish to resolve the Litigation without resort to further court action.
Therefore, the parties agree as follows:
Section 1. Traffic and Land Use SW&. The County has begun and shall continue and complete
a CEQA level study of traffic, alternative circulation improvements and alternative land uses in
and adjacent to the Specific Plan Area (the "Study"). The Study shall include, as part of its
examination of the base case of development in accordance with the existing Specific Plan, the
construction of a four-lane arterial on the former Southern Pacific right of way, extending from
Monument Boulevard to the Pleasant Hill BART Station (the "SP Arterial") as shown in the
existing Specific Plan. The Study shall be jointly managed by the County and the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (the "Authority"). The Authority staff will provide an independent ,
review and approval of the technical assumptions, standards and criteria of the Study including
but not limited to level of service calculations, trip generation, trip distribution, origin and
destination, and modal split. The Authority's staffs written approval of the Study will be
limited to certification that the Study has been carried out in conformance with the Authority's
adopted "Technical Procedures" dated August 1992 and including "Intersection Level of Service
Analysis Program, User's Manual" dated September 1992, as used for similar traffic studies.
Coordinating meetings between the traffic consultant and the County and Authority staff will be
held weekly, or as frequently as needed. To the maximum extent possible, direction to the
consultants for the Study and responses to the consultants' questions will be by written
communication approved by both County and Authority representatives and copies will be
provided to the City. City agrees to be the lead agency for the Authority's Measure C funding
of the Study, will seek the necessary appropriation resolution from the Authority and will enter
into an appropriate agreement to ensure that fifty percent (50%) of study costs are reimbursed
to the County.
5ft
7%c:%wp51\efaun&%ck-*4t 1
c9
Section 2. Effect of Study. Provided the Authority staff reviews and approves of technical
assumptions, standards and criteria of the Study, then the City shall not bring any future suit
to invalidate any permit or approval for development in the Specific Plan Area on the grounds
that the technical data and assumptions used in the Study or the technical conclusions of the
consultants gising from the data and assumptions were incorrect or mistaken in any respect or
aspect. However, the foregoing shall not preclude the City or any interested person or party
from challenging an approval for development in the Specific Plan Area on grounds other than
that the technical data assumptions used in the Study or the technical conclusions of the
consultants arising from the data and assumptions were incorrect or mistaken.
Section 3. ADA Land Uses and Densities. The following provisions of the ADA relate to land
use standards for development and development densities:
a) Recital K;
b) Section 1(c);
c) Section 4.2;
d) Section 4.3;
e) Section 4.5;
f) Section 4.7, except for acknowledgement of completion of certain
mitigation measures as reflected in the fifth sentence of said section;
g) Section 4.8;
h) Section 4.15, last three sentences; and
i) Section 6.2, first sentence.
Section 4. Plan Amendments. After completion of the Study and consideration of the results
of the Study, the County may amend the Specific Plan and the County General Plan as it relates
to the Specific Plan Area and adjacent areas. Any such amendment shall be processed in
accordance with CEQA and after consideration of the results of the completed study, and BART
agrees that the ADA shall not limit the discretion of the County or the Agency in considering
any such amendment.
Section 5. ADA Amendments. Nothing in this Agreement prevents BART, the County and the
Agency from amending the ADA at any time following execution of this Agreement. Any such
amendment shall be processed in accordance with CEQA and after consideration of the results
of the completed Study.
Section 6. Effect of the ADA. In considering any application relating to development of the
BART Development Property, including but not limited to an application made by Western
Development Group or any other entity, the County and BART agree that those specific
provisions of the ADA which are identified in Section 3 above and which vest development
densities and land use standards for development shall not limit the discretion of the County or
the Agency in considering any such application. Any such applications shall be processed in
accordance with CEQA and in consideration of the completed Study.
4/05/96
7%c:%wp5IU4c&u&f%4dHc.AO '2
•Jelf
Section 7. Disposition of Litigation. Enforcement. Promptly following approval and execution
of this Agreement by all the parties, the City shall dismiss the Litigation with prejudice. This
Agreement shall be deemed to be a judgment entered in the Litigation which may be enforced
in the same manner as an entered judgment by a party claiming that another party has breached
this Agreement. Such rights of enforcement shall include the right to apply to and obtain from
• the court an order and/or issuance of a writ of mandate enforcing this Agreement.
Section 8. Miscellaneous. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys fees in
connection with the Litigation. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
California and represents the entire agreement of the parties as to the subject matter of this
Agreement.
COUNT O
BY:
J f , Chariperson
CONTRA COSTA CO REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
BY:
Je rson
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID
TRANSIT DISTRICT
BY:
Richard A. White, General Manager
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
BY:
J ph M. Tanner, City Manager
4/06/96
7%cAwp51U4e...n+sar1c.A0 3