The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 04081997 - C55-C62 Contra TO: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY .. Costa FROM: Phil Batchelor County Executive Director DATE: April 8, 1997 SUBJECT: Northtown Revitalization Strategic Plan - Bay Point Redevelopment Project Area SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Deputy Director- Redevelopment to execute a contract with John B. Dykstra &Associates for preparation of a Northtown Revitalization Strategic Plan (Bay Point) in an amount not to exceed $10,000. FISCAL IMPACT None. Bay Point Redevelopment Tax Increments are available for this purpose. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Redevelopment Agency has committed to a major infrastructure upgrade to the "Northtown" neighborhood in Bay Point. These major infrastructure improvements will be undertaken by the Agency over the next five years. The improvements to roads, drainage, water lines, sewer lines, and street lighting will be of significant value, but will only partly address neighborhood needs. The recommended contract will provide a framework for additional neighborhood and property improvements to be undertaken that support and build upon the major infrastructure investment. The Northtown area is a neighborhood targeted by the County Social Service Department's Family Support Program. The efforts of the Family Support Program are being coordinated with the Redevelopment Agency's efforts. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RECOMM DATION OF AGENCY _ COMMITTEE _ APPROVE _ OTHER I / SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF AGENCY ONCL,�l�`1 J APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_ OTHER VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS / I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A J UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Jim Kennedy 335-1255 ATTESTED OP-L cc: County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR County Counsel AGENCY SECRETARY Community Development Redevelopment Agency via Redevelopment Agency BY XL' &N , DEPUTY John B. Dykstra & Associates JK:Ih sra25/dykstra/bos C. 56, C.57, C.58, C.59, and C.60 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on April 8, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla, and DeSaulnier NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Correspondence C.56 LETTER, dated March 18, 1997, from Thomas W. Mayfield, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, 1100 H Street, Modesto, CA 95354, requesting support for SB1118 which would enhance intercity passenger rail ridership within the San Joaquin Corridor. *****REFERRED TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE C.57 LETTER, dated March 26, 1997, from Karl D. Diekman, Fire Chief, Dougherty Regional Fire Authority, 9399 Fircrest Lane, San Ramon, CA 94583, advising that effective July 1, 1997, the Fire Authority will no longer participate in the Contra Costa County fire Mutual Aid Agreement. *****REFERRED TO THE FIRE CHIEF, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT C.58 LETTER, dated March 25, 1997, from Geoffrey L. Robinson, Law Firm of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown& Enersen, 1331 N. California Blvd., Walnut Creek, CA 94596, representing Davidon Homes, the developer of the Reliez Valley Highlands Project, protesting the imposition of the Reliez Valley Road Corridor Fee. *****REFERRED TO THE DIRECTOR, GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (GMEDA) C.59 LETTER, dated March 25, 1997, from Reva Clark, Chair, El Sobrame Municipal Advisory Council's(MAC) Ad Hoc Committee on Garbage, advising of problems with Richmond Sanitary Service not including the collection of cardboard in its curbside recycling program. *****REFERRED TO THE DIRECTOR, GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (GMEDA) C.60 LETTER, dated April 1, 1997, from Larry Gaines, L & B Painting, 61 Delta Street, San Francisco, CA 94134, regarding a union issue with his company on the Merrithew memorial Hospital Project. *****REFERRED TO THE HOSPITAL PROJECT DIRECTOR IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above recommendations as noted (*****) are APPROVED. f hM*a r*titer tilde Is a has ane gonad eW of an action taken and ordered on the mfM10N of the Dowd of Su on on 00 date swn. ZYV ATTESTED: PHIL CHELOR,Clark of the board C.C. Correspondents (5) of Supervisors and County Administrator (j Transportation Committee .J 0911111111111! Fire Chief, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency (GMEDA) Hospital Project Director C.510 \ BOARD Of SUPERVISORS / \ (209) 525-4494 1100 H Street Modesto, California 95354 FAX (209) 525-4410 PAT PAUL, 1st District THOMAS W. MAYFIELD, 2nd District Rp C � W. BLOM, 3rd District F r c_i 1,yC RAY OND CLARK SIMON,4th District March 18, 1997 -- PA W. CARUSO, Sth District MAR 2 51997 Mark DeSaulnier, Chair CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. DeSaulnier: State Senator Dick Monteith recently introduced Senate Bill 1118 which would enhance intercity passenger rail ridership within the San Joaquin Corridor. Stanislaus County supports this legislation which would return the authority of the San Joaquin Corridor to the state, thereby providing for the more effective administration, coordination, and operation of our intercity rail passenger service. This legislation is important to the counties served by the San Joaquin Corridor, and your approval of a Board resolution would go a long way in communicating your support to your legislators. A copy of Senate Bill 1118 is enclosed. Thank you. Si4cerelThMayfield Chairman TWM:mhm Enclosure C p i� q {. G ,.�� d d °�• 3 c� piA 01 o p ~ y of .0.4) p ;° ~�" .O IDD '� <j ✓ G" , cQ .G 6j a4A 'O" ° �'.G r` �`+ °�+ �" "� fir• .pV• n �q'J��y ° .� JC yi �jQ 1, Mp!Qn ' °d�iyCr.y p y y r y $ U V. OU Ows cb s w O V VA vat aO •. ..sal o ., y o �a :+ C aee E+ m Mo° 8oaoZ X35 ^ 6 d , y y tn N G yffimI$✓:g0SO p1' NRS o �Q p. y $ sqA � d � �' ° o mod � sy'D .00 00 ST+ > w a� 0 4)•� V O r %p' �E+jCA O Otyl �y ail W °u .per d O ° u �gi.Ap� oce0 tor� H ��q�� Oat to ��, • d U�O `tj O � y�y •U . VA .e'� toy R1 �p ,f� 0• � ".S UP p* w °+ - ��' � 'y� aa,0 ' 'to^t¢ td V �° IeA R�,:�'°'$ `nom o ¢ ao^ �� r y °�a9 �n yu.6 a51 T � cJ� R4) 0 AN y Nw mty/� p *KdQd JwO� , N'��y� ?...+ .gyp+ its ..i v ? r+ N ✓ CA 0 coo a�}j %� p{ 0 -0 0.Cha w 6 tf� 4 ,4 0 y pN GCj �A Of �� A��^ rrrrrrr V) 'C S -d5l'O OV "5' ro ro � 'O 8 N O) Cn �PWt� r03'°OD "+70f Ch "' to 01rt 2 IV 10 0. go cr CD to ° »; o . �do73 y � ' mo Cil .. ro cr$� yo "' `&6 VO :* a ° o .b 'J P Q 7 �" E° ., `o' :fir m »,c CDD dOQ .� �sk' wrrr��yyyyyy *+ro••�� % � rooaa �C� o � ��a'� �' �.�' f(�� • roE °wm^y'" �_ �' °.� g-��r°"�"c� .7 o M � M (D �° ro OQ ° '* �}�ro �� rt '> A ° r cD O ILO p '� 'C �- .. b •, E CD o � `� cL Ky ro ooro a � oQ � -K � oCD .. o 44 F w CD g �R0-oR � ° ' °, "� �+ t)tiv'acr � 5' � a �rt ° ~ "°, vs . ro � to m � Er; " " .- o ° "o° roar °� acne o"t nti y o . oa ti c o .8a ' °�� c� CD co g ct � Mm � Sor .219 q aoro03y r��°. °Nm m5• � o ' � Eero ¢ pm� cGD {per�* ,� otD y o' o cop, ° 5 ° rL b0 o Rn GsO aItrtp .r., ro tz 0- ro LID- to� m fD aV} O HvaS Q. �0. »,0. ro ^• C � z 6375 Q & yrt �. ow �fh'Fn"'rlaWtW.� .W-' toOcroOro-40CrR04Gaw �►r•' Ot000yMCno9kWNr CD 14 CA m m cD «mmmI S1 .P m o W . Tao «t r 3783 W NOErg o. Gor+ C7rta"nrt W2, p ro'm 0419 orro � D'd 9 t°pc� rotp O ro M° rt dp Gaq 83i ro � ' . ��'� c.ac�5o c�a,ca�O o�p� �.`•� ��c G 10,CD . 'o CA 5m . 0g0 � 0° oleroa"c ` o ° o5' `d �' � c� kG '^ro �,� ro �' a, 5ro � �' cy c�'� �•oc � a "' � > 5rt . c. R5. 8x zroo G . `6timy0* cr5�. c' � 58arro cam' aco° yFL 94 0M CA tj CDG{D �CL � Cp/�1 �',�. .�.al"�. �• a. }(n�j pO'�� .Gp �. ��roii M "' T CD ro I"i' w p.:r ^J •s`"RC ^ er m M POR' „rot W T � C.57 DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY 9399 Fircrest Lane • San Ramon, Ca 94583 Office: (510) 803-8650 • Fax: (510) 803-8630 SERVING DUBLIN&SAN RANG. FRECE1\1r-' March 26, 1997 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors GContra Costa County . 651 Pine Street, #106 Martinez, CA 94553 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Attention: Phil Batchelor Dear Mr. Batchelor: This is to notify you that effective July 1, 1997, the Fire Authority will no longer participate in the Contra Costa County Fire Mutual Aid Agreement. This change is caused by the dissolution of the Authority after June 30, 1997. This notice applies to Fire Mutual Aid Agreements with the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority and its predecessor agencies; Dublin San Ramon Services District and Valley Community Services District. Please contact me if I can provide additional information. Sincerely, KARL D. DIEKMAN, Fire Chief KDD/liw g:\admin\chief\cccounty.ltr cc: Herb Moniz, CEO Richard Ambrose, City Manager - Dublin Allan Little, Fire Chief(Contra Costa County Fire) MCCUTCHEN,DOYLE,BROWN&ENERSEN,LLP March 25, 1997 .-.....Ducct 510 975-5335 R E C E I V E I�robinson@mdbe.com VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS W 2 61997 Honorable President and Members CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Reliez Valley Highlands Project Reliez Valley Road Fees Protest Our File 71599-116 Dear President and Members of the Board of Supervisors: This firm represents Davidon Homes, developer of the Reliez Valley Highlands project ("Project"), a residential development located within Contra Costa County ("County"). The purpose of this letter is to protest the imposition of the Reliez Valley Road Corridor Fee ("Fee") on this Project. The County has informed Davidon that the amount of this Fee is $6,880.00. Davidon has paid the Fee for 33 units in connection with issuance of building permits, for a total payment of$227,040. The amount of the Fee was apparently determined on the basis of a 1989 traffic study conducted by the County. However, the results of this study have never been adopted or approved by the County Board, nor has the County adopted a resolution or ordinance imposing a traffic mitigation fee that is applicable to this Project. For the reasons set forth below, it is our opinion that imposition of the Fee violates several provisions of the Government Code sections 66000 et seq. restricting the authority of local agencies to impose impact fees on development projects. This letter constitutes a protest, pursuant to Government Code §§ 66020-21 and other applicable law, against the establishment, imposition and collection of this Fee and a requests that all such Fees paid to date be refunded pursuant to Government Code § 66020(e) with interest at the rate of 8%. A T T O R N E Y S A T 1, A W 1331 N. California Blvd., P.O. Box V San Francisco Palo Alto Walnut Creek, California 94596-1270 Los Angeles Washington, D.C. Tel. (510) 937-8000 Fax (510) 975-5390 San Jose Taipei http://www.mccutchen.com Walnut Creek C,S� President and Members of the Board of Supervisors March 25, 1997 Page 2 A. The Fee Does Not Comply With Section 660161 Imposition of a fee requires legislative action pursuant to an ordinance or resolution. § 66016(b). The fee itself—as distinct from its imposition on specific developments—must be approved by a legislative action upon a duly noticed public meeting. § 66016(a). At least 10 days before the meeting, the agency must make available data indicating the amount of the cost required to provide the service for which the fee is imposed. Id. Thus, the fee may not simply be imposed under the guise of other approvals, such as vesting tentative maps. These procedures were not followed in imposing the Fee. While the County has apparently conducted a study, which may or may not support the fee, the Board of Supervisors did not adopt the study or its findings by legislative action. The County did not make the study available prior to imposition of the Fee on the Project, nor did it provide notice of the relationship between the study, the Fee and the Project. Nor can it be argued that the Board had delegated its authority to set fees to those preparing the study. See § 66016(b) (legislative body cannot delegate its authority to set fees). The County's failure to comply with procedures required to adopt the Fee preclude the imposition of the Fee. B. The Fee Does Not Comply With Section 66001 Prior to adopting or imposing fees to help defray the cost of public improvements, the agency must determine there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. § 66001(a)(3). The agency must also determine there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. § 66001(a)(4). Further, the agency must determine whether there is reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public improvements attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. § 66001(b). Here, the County has made no such determinations. There have been no findings made by the Board of Supervisors regarding the relationship between the Fee and the Project. Nor have there been any findings made by the Board of Supervisors regarding the relationship between the need for the improvements to Reliez Valley Road and the 1 All citations are to the Government Code, unless otherwise noted. President and Members of the Board of Supervisors March 25, 1997 Page 3 Project. Significantly, there has been no determination as to whether the relationship between the amount of the Fee and the Project's impact is reasonable. The County's failure to fulfill this requirement is an independent basis for invalidating the imposition of the Fee. C. The Fee Does Not Comply With Section 66005 Any fee imposed as a condition of approval of a development project cannot exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service or facility for which the fee is imposed. § 66005(a). However, as discussed above, the County has made no findings as to the impacts of the Project that would justify the amount of the Fee. For the foregoing reasons, Davidon Homes requests that the County rescind its requirement that a traffic fee in the amount of$6,800 (or any other amount) be paid for this Project. It further requests that all such fees paid to date be refunded, with interest at the rate of 8%, pursuant to Section 66020. Very truly yours, Geoffrey Robinson cc: Victor J. Westman R. Mitch Avalon E. ommunity Contra Harvey of ommun Director of Community Development Development Costa Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 945530095 - •' Phone: (510) 335-1214 " s o� sTq.COUN'� August 7, 1997 Geoffrey L. Robinson McCutcheon, Doyle, Brown, & Enersen 1331 No. California Boulevard Walnut Creek, CA 94596-1270 Dear Mr. Robinson: Re: Response to Protest of Parkland Development Fee Reliez Valley Highlands, Vesting Tentative Map 7151 This is in response to your letters of March 25 and May 14, 1997 protesting parkland development fees within the Reliez Valley Highlands project, Vesting Tentative Map 7151. Your letters contend that the County may not legally collect a park dedication fee because the park fee was not included as a condition of approval for the above project. We have reviewed the matter with our legal counsel. Attached is a copy of their memorandum dated June 10, 1997. The memorandum opines that because the county ordinance and related park land dedication fees were adopted pursuant to the Quimby Act, the County is authorized to collect the park land dedication fees for this project. Therefore, this is to advise you that the County will require payment of the applicable park fees for this project. Insofar as the vesting rights under the vesting tentative map approval for each of the phased final maps for this project have expired, the County will require payment of$2000 per lot (the current park fee) for any remaining parcels. Should you have any questions, please call Bob Drake of my staff at (510) 335-1214. Sincerely, DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Interim Community Developfnent Director Att. June 10, 1997 Memorandum from County Counsel cc: Members of the Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board V. Alexeeff, GMEDA Director Mitch Avalon Heather Ballenger, Public Works Dept. County Counsel -Diana Silver c:\wpdw\relie .ltr RDS -2- J;y !'US7� COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE CMART/ONTRA COSTA COUNTY Pt1 4: 07 NEZ, CALIFORNIA D VEL&'I"f i'NT DEPT Date: June 10, 1997 To: Harvey Bragdon, Director Community Development Department Attn: Bob Drake From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Diana J. Silver, Deputy Coun el Re: Park dedication fees: Government Code §66477 QUESTION: You have asked whether a developer may be required to pay in-lieu park dedication fees when payment of these fees was not made an express condition of project approval. You have also asked whether in lieu park dedication fees must be paid when an applicant has received notice in the formof an advisory note attached to the conditions of approval advising that county ordinance requires payment of such fees but the fee requirement was not made an express condition of approval for the project. SUMMARY: We have reviewed the applicable law (Gov. Code §66477, the "Quimby Act") and ordinance (C.C.C. Ord. Code §920-2.002 et seq.) and the materials submitted with your request, including the March 25, 1997 letter from the developer's attorney and the conditions of approval for the vesting tentative map for subdivision #7151. We conclude that although it may be better practice to inform the applicant that these or other fees may be payable, e.g., in "Advisory Notes" appended to the conditions of approval, fees mandated by ordinance are owed by the developer even though such notice was not included and the fee requirement was not made an express condition of approval for the project.. We further conclude, based upon the information furnished, that the amount of these fees will be determined by the current fee schedule because the rights conferred by the vesting tentative map have expired (Gov. Code §66452.6(g)). DISCUSSION: I. IN-LIEU PARK FEE IS DUE The developer, Davidon, through its attorney, contends that because the conditions of approval for the rezoning, final development plan and vesting tentative map for subdivision 7151 do not expressly require the developer to pay a parkland dedication fee, Davidon is not legally required to pay the fee (March 25, 1997, letter from Geoffrey Robinson to Robert Drake). Although it may be better practice to advise the applicant that fees other than those expressly stated in the conditions of approval may be due (e.g. in the advisory notes to the conditions of approval), the parkland or fee dedication requirement probably still is enforceable even without such advice. Such Bob Drake 2 Community Development June 10, 1997 requirements are mandated by county ordinance adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Quimby Act (Gov. Code, §66477; see C.C.C. Ord. Code Division 920 of Title 9 (Subdivisions)). Davidon contends that because both the Quimby Act and the County's park dedication ordinance refer to the park land dedication or in-lieu fee requirement as a condition to the approval of the map, development plan, etc, the dedication requirement must be included in the express conditions of approval for the project to be enforceable. This reasoning ignores the county ordinance which was adopted pursuant to the Quimby Act. The in-lieu park dedication fee is not an ad hoc fee imposed by the Board acting in its adjudicatory capacity to impose discretionary conditions of approval on a particular project. We note that although respected treatises and leading cases on this type of fees refer to ordinance requirements, none states that any or all such exactions imposed by the Board of Supervisors in its legislative capacity must be recited again in each set of conditions for each project (see CEB Subdivision Map Act Practice, Curtin, 1987 and 1997 Supp.; Associated Home Builders, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1971) 4 Cal. 3d 633). In fact, in Associated Home Builders, the case which challenged the constitutionality of the parkland/fee dedication statute, the court held that even where the city had failed to include specific standards for determining the amount of land or fee in the parkland/fee dedication ordinance, the omission was not fatal to enforcement because such standards were provided by a resolution which the court presumed to be valid (Id. at p.648). In Contra Costa County, all of the standards, procedures and precise amount of the fee are set forth in a codified ordinance available to the public like any other codified and published law or regulation (see C.C.C. Ord. Code Division 920, generally; §920-6.204: amount of in-lieu fee). As a general rule, it is not necessary to recite all the laws and regulations, including ordinances, which may apply to a particular project in order for them to be enforceable. Although it may be convenient for the applicant to have actual notice of all applicable fees at the time of project approval, e.g., in advisory notes to the conditions, such notice is not expressly required by the Quimby Act or county ordinance. Nor is there any provision for waiver of such in-lieu fees, which are required when park land has not been dedicated (see Gov. Code §66477; C.C.C. Ord. Code Division 920). H. AMOUNT OF FEE You have advised us of the following time sequence: the project application was accepted as complete on May 30, 1989; three final maps for the three phases of development were recorded on August 18, 1993, June 7, 1994, and October 10, 1994. Although the project's "vested rights" include the right to be subject to the fees and other ordinances in effect on the date the application for the vesting tentative map was deemed complete, May 30, 1989 (Gov. Code §§66474.2, 66498.1), these rights expire a minimum of one year and a Bob Drake 3 Community Development June 10, 1997 maximum of two years after each final map is recorded, depending on the provisions of the local ordinance (Gov. Code §66452.6(g)).' As the County Ordinance Code does not specify an expiration date for the rights conferred by a vesting tentative map (other than the general expiration provisions for tentative maps 36 months after approval: C.C.C. Ord. Code §94-2.610), we have applied the two-year statutory maximum. This time period is automatically extended under certain circumstances for processing applications for a grading permit, or for design or architectural review; in addition, before the time has expired, the subdivider may request and be granted a one-year extension by the advisory agency (Gov. Code §66452.6(g)). You have informed us that no extension was applied for and you have not indicated that any circumstances existed which would have automatically extended the duration of the vested rights under the statute (e.g., grading permit application). Accordingly, the rights conferred by the vesting tentative map, including the 1989 fee schedules, expired two years after the last final map was filed, approximately seven months ago. Therefore, we conclude in-lieu park land dedication fees are due at the current rate of$2,000.00 per dwelling unit as established by a 1990 amendment to the ordinance (see C.C.C. Ord. Code §920-6.204). cc: Dennis Barry DJS/ds sWavidon.mm 1Davidon contends that the vesting tentative map, due to expire August 11, 1994, has been extended by automatic statutory extensions to at least the year 2000. As you have informed us that no further final maps remain to be filed, we find the rights conferred by the vesting tentatative map have expired in accordance with this section. mar. 15. IJ� I O:U31m mLhUIL$0(r N/l h0, ca la r• c MCCUTCHENI 1VtCCV WX,DOYLS,BROWN&ENUMN,LLP March 25, 1997 Direct:510 975.5335 Mr.Robert Drake Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, Second Floor North Martinez, CA 94553 Parkland Development Fees for Reliez Valley Highlands Our File No.71599-100 Dear Mr. Drake: Our client,Davidon Homes, asked me to respond on their behalf to the County's request for a$2,000 per unit parkland dedication fee for lots in the Reliez Valley Highlands Subdivision. I hope that this letter will clarify the law on parkland dedication and Davidon's understanding of its obligation to pay parkland dedication fees, I also briefly discuss the status of the subdivision's vesting tentative map,VTM 7151. The Quimby Act, Govemment Code § 66477, establishes limitations on counties' power to require developers to furnish land or money for parks and recreational fees. Under the Quimby Act, cities and counties may, by ordinance,require the dedication of land or impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both,for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative map or parcel map. [emphasis added] As this quotation indicates, county ordinances may Only require the dedication of parkland or the payment of an in lieu fee as a condition of approval. The Quimby Act does not authorize a county to require dedication or the payment of a fee for parkland in the absence of condition of approval. ATTORNEYS AT L A w 1331 N• California Blvd.. P.O. Box V San Francisco Palo Alto Walnut Creek, California 94596-1270 Los Angeles Washington, D.C. Tel. (510) 937.6000 Fax (510) 975.5390 San Jose Taipei http:ttwww.mccutchan.com Walnut Creek mai. Gu. I I u, u4un mwuiunen nig Au. GJJJ r. J Mr.Robert Drake March 25, 1997 Page 2 Pursuant to the Quimby Act, Contra Costa County has adopted Section 920-4042 of the County Code which provides that As a condition of approval of a preliminary or final development plan, tentative or final neap or parcel map. . . the developer of land for residential use.. shall dedicate land,pay a fee in lieu thereof, or do a combination of both, for neighborhood and community park or recreational purposes. [emphasis added) Consistent with the authority provided by the Quimby Act,this section of the County Code only requires dedication or payment of an in lieu park fee as a condition of approval. It does not require developers to pay parkland fees independent of such a condition. The conditions of approval for the final development plan and the vesting tentative map for the Reliez Valley Highlands Subdivision were combined as the"Conditions of Approval for Rezoning 2802-RZ,Final Development Plan 3029-88 and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 7151." There are no conditions in these Conditions of Approval that require Davidon to pay a parkland dedication fee. The only condition relating in any way to the dedication of parkland or recreational facilities is the required dedication of a hiking trail under Condition 7. Further,the omission of a condition relating to parkland fees is highlighted by the requirement under Condition 15(0) that the developer pay road improvement fees according to a specific, identified formula. Thus, under the Quimby Act,County Code section 9204.002,and the Conditions of Approval it appears that Davidon is not required to pay parkland fees for this subdivision. The fact that, at the County's request,Davidon has paid such fees in the past, does not entitle the County to future payments,unless there has been a legal basis for these requests. Finally,I understand that County Staff may be under the impression that Vesting Tentative Map 7151 has expired. As you might expect,the vested rights created by this map are very important to Davidon's overall development plans for the subdivision. Let me assure you that the map is still valid. While it was initially set to expire on August 11, 1994, two years after it was approved, it has been extended until at least the year 2000 by a combination of the automatic extensions provided in Government Code sections 66452.6(a), Wd', LJ. 10,11 J•VIIL't IUVLV i VRLN 11/ v wvv y l Mr. Robert Drake March 25, 1997 Page 3 66452.11 and 66452.13. If future discussions warrant, I would be pleased to provide the County with a detailed explanation of how these Government Code sections extended the life of VTM 7151. very truly yours, Geoffrey Robinson cc: Dennis Razzati may, 14. 1997 5:'L9rM MCCU'l UN Wn NO. 401 r. [/4 � * MCCD'PCNEI't,Dovt.E,BROWN A ENEMN,LU May 14, 1997 Directs 510 975-5335 grobinson@mdbe.com VIA TELECOPIER Honorable President and Members of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Reliez Valley Highlands Project Reliez Valley Parkland Development Fee Protest Our 1N`ile 71599-134 Dear President and Members of the Board of Supervisors: This fum represents Davidon Homes, developer of the Reliez Valley Highlands project, Tracts 7151, 7820 and 7821 ("Project"), a residential development located within Contra Costa County("County"). The purpose of this letter is to protest the imposition of a parkland dedication fee("Fee")on this Project. Davidon has paid the Fee for 34 units at the rate of$1,100 per unit and for five units at the rate of$2,000 per unit, for a total payment of$47,400. The County has informed Davidon that this Fee must be paid at the rate of$2,000 per unit for the remaining units in this Project. For the reason set forth below, it is our opinion that imposition of the Fee violates the Quimby Act, Government Code § 66477, and the provisions of the Contra Costa County Code governing imposition of parkland dedication fees, This letter constitutes a protest,pursuant to Government Code § 66020-21 and other applicable law,against the establishment, imposition and collection of this Fee and a requests that all such Fees paid to date be refunded pursuant to Government Code § 66020(e)with interest at the rate of 8%, ATTORN EYS AT LAW 1331 N. California Blvd., P.D. Box V San Francisco Palo Alto Walnut Creek, California 94596.1270 Los Angeles Washington, D.C. Tel. (510) 937-8000 Fox 0101975-5390 San Jose Taipei http://www.mccutchon.com walnut Creek May. 14. 1997 5: 29PM MCCUTCHEN W/C No. 44U1 Y. s/4 President and Members of the Board of Supervisors May 14, 1997 Page 2 The County Has No Authority To Impose The Fee The Quimby Act, Government Code § 66477,1 establishes limitations on counties' power to require developers to furnish land or money for parks and recreational facilities. Under the Quimby Act, cities and counties may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land or impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative map or parcel map. [emphasis added] As this section indicates, county ordinances may only require the dedication of parkland or the payment of an in lieu fee as a condition of approval. The Quimby Act does not authorize a county to require dedication or the payment of a fee for parkland in the absence of a condition of approval. Pursuant to the Quimby Act, Contra Costa County has adopted Section 9204002 of the County Code which provides that As a condition of approval of a preliminary or final development plan,tentative or final map or parcel map . . . the developer of land for residential use . . . shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or do a combination of both, for neighborhood and community park or recreational purposes. [emphasis added] Consistent with the authority provided by the Quimby Act,this section of the County Code only requires dedication or payment of an in lieu park fee as a condition of approval. It does not require developers to pay parkland fees in the absence of such a condition. The conditions of approval for the final development plan and the vesting tentative trap for the Reliez Valley Highlands Subdivision were combined as the"Conditions of Approval for Rezoning 2802-RZ, Final Development Plan 3029-88 and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 715 L" There are no conditions in these Conditions of Approval that require Davidon to pay a parkland dedication fee. The only condition relating in any way to All citations are to the Government Code. May. 14. 199'1 5: 'l9PM MCCUUM WA No. 44U1 Y. 4/4 President and Members of the Board of Supervisors May 14, 1997 Page 3 the dedication of parkland or recreational facilities is the required dedication of a hiking trail under Condition 7. Moreover, even if the Conditions of Approval had included a requirement of payment of a parkland dedication fee,the County could not collect the fee at the rate of $2,000 from this Project because Davidon obtained an approved vesting tentative map for the Project in 1992. It thereby obtained a vested right to proceed with development in accordance with the ordinances,policies and standards in effect at that time. Those ordinances, policies and standards did not authorize the imposition of a$2,000 per unit park fee, nor did they contain a fee escalation provisions that provided reasonable notice of the amount and method of calculation of the increase. See Kaufman and Broad Central Valley, Inc. v. City of Modesto, 25 Cal. App. 4th 1577, 1587 (1994)(Ordinances"must include not only a general fee escalation provision,but must also provide reasonable notice of the nature of the fee and the manner of its calculation" in order to impose new or increased fee on project with vested rights). Thus,the Project could not legally be required to pay the increased park fee even if its approval had initially been conditioned on payment of a park fee. Thus, under the Quimby Act, County Code section 9204.002, and the Conditions of Approval, Davidon is not required, and cannot be legally compelled, to pay the Fee for the Project at the rate of$2,000 or any other amount. It is also entitled to a refund of all Fees paid to date for this Project. For the foregoing reason,Davidon Homes requests that the County rescind its requirement that a parkland fee in the amount of$2,000 per unit(or any other amount)be paid for this Project. It further requests that all such Fees paid to date be refunded, with interest at the rate of 8%, pursuant to Section 66020. Very truly yours, GeoffreyZ. Robinson cc: Victor I Westman,Esq. David Schmidt, Esq. Robert Drake March 25, 192 ��' • LcL,E Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier, Chair 2 (9Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 9l 651 Pine Street _Martinez, CA 94553 OF"J E_i.��....,pC Dear Chairman DeSaulnier, At a meeting* on October 1 , 1996, at Richmond Sanitary Service offices, Mr. Varni said that RSS will take, and does take, cor- rugated cardboard in the curbside recycling program. However, that information has not been given to the public it serves. The County Board of Supervisors is hereby requested to issue an order compelling RSS to tell residents that it will pick up cardboard with other curbside recyclables . The Franchise Agreement, in Section 18 , gives the county authority to mod- ify the recycling program or add new programs. Also, see Section 13 (b) of the agreement. Please refer to Table B-id, copy attached, from the Contra Costa County Annual Report to the California Integrated Waste Manage- ment Board, 1995 . There is, oddly, a note at the bottom which states that the county is seeking a means of enforcing ordinance (County Ordinance 418-10 ) , requiring collection of categories of recyclables, including cardboard, by 1 /1 /96 . It appears that the county presently has the means in the franchise. The Contra Costa County Source Reduction and Recycling Element man- ual, in its Recycling Component, includes general references to expanding curbside collection of cardboard and specifies targeting cardboard for recycling. This policy document is being improperly ignored. See p. 11 , attached, from WCCIWMA report titled "Collection System Changes" , dated 6/19/96 . It uses the present tense to indicate (in bracketed sentences ) , that RSS can handle 600 tons per year of cardboard. But then the last sentence says the Authority will request the cities and county, starting 1 /1 /97 , to request RSS to start picking up cardboard a year later, on 1 /1 /98 . It doesn' t seem reasonable that it will take a year for the IRRF to get into position to accept 50 tons of card- board a month. We can' t understand the delay in implementing this part of the recycling program. IRRF management reported receiving an average price of $95 a ton for cardboard during the first eight months of 1996 . Surely that should be sufficient in- centive to expand the recycling effort. Sincerely, (W76G� M. B. Ketter, Chair, E1 Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council ' s Ad Hoc Committee on Garbage cc: Reva Clark, Chair, E1 Sobrante MAC Supervisor Joe Canciamilla Supervisor Jim Rogers *Attemdees : D. Varni, RSS J. Corona, RSS S. Granzella, RSS M. Fleming, CDD, CCC R. Gulledge, ESMAC M. Ketter, ESMAC Garbage Comm. 18. RECYCLING. County grants to Contractor the right and obligation to operate recycling programs, including curbside pickup of recyclable materials, as determined and designated by County. Contractor has instituted and is implementing a recycling program including regular curbside pickup at all single family residences of at least aluminum, tin, newsprint, glass bottles, cardboard (currently understudy), non- colored HDPE and PET. This program is currently operating to the satisfaction of County; however, Counly bu thgri ht at anytime to modif sal or require new programs, as provided in Se o this Agreement. T— _ Contractor shall maintain and provide to the County records relating to its recycling programs as directed by the Director of Community Development. Contractor's provision of recycling service shall be reviewed within three (3) years of the effective date of this Agreement. If County determines that continuation of such service by Contractor is not consistent with the County's ratepayers best interest, but not as a result of Contractor's failure to satisfactorily provide recycling services, Contractor shall be allowed to recoup its unamortized capital expenditures as follows. Contractor shall make a good faith effort to sell all disposable assets acquired in furtherance of the program for their fair market value. If income derived from the sale is insufficient to cover the unamortized costs of such assets, Contractor may transfer those losses together with net operations profits or losses to its general account and submit a rate application to cover such losses. 19. FREE SERVICE FOR COUNTY. Contractor shall, without charge therefor, perform the Solid Waste collection and disposal services, set forth on Exhibit B, hereto at no charge to the County. Contractor's expenses in performing services for the County described in this Section shall be recoverable through the rates allowed by the County hereunder, 20. FRANCHISE AREA-WIDE COLLECTION. In addition to its regular collections, Contractor shall provide two annual Franchise Area-wide collections. Said collections shall be made each year throughout the term of this Agreement in accordance with practices and procedures established by Contractor and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Contractor's expenses in performing the Franchise Area-wide collections described in this Section shall be recoverable through the rate allowed by the County hereunder. r**\Fno-Agr.RSS Franchise Agreement 9/30183 FiSS, inc. & Contra Costa County 12 October 12, 1993 Development. Upon commencement of service and upon changes in collection day schedules, Contractor shall provide each customer with notice of the scheduled collection day. Contractor shall not collect Solid Waste from an inhabited dwelling or dwelling unit between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m., except that if a dwelling unit is part of a collection route that predominately serves commercial accounts, collection may begin as early as 3:00 a.m. 13. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION, AB 939 AND EFFICIENCIES IN OPERATION. (a) From time to time, at its discretion, County may examine Contractor's operation in order to evaluate whether or not the Contractor is operating at a satisfactory level of efficiency and customer satisfaction. Contractor agrees to cooperate in any such examination and shall permit County representatives to inspect, at Contractor's principal place of business, such information pertaining to Contractor's obligations hereunder as County may require, including, but not limited to, such things as customer inquiry records, collection routes and equipment records. Access to Contractor's records shall be subject to Section 8 (Contractor's Duty to Maintain Records; County's Right to Examine Records). (b) Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Agreement, the County shall have the right to direct Contractor to manage collected Solid Waste and recyclable material, for the purposes of meeting the source reduction, recycling and composting requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act, and any other applicable federal, state or local laws regarding Solid Waste collection, recycling and disposal, including, without limitation, the County's Materials Diversion Ordinance. If Contractor fails or refuses to manage the collected Solid Waste and recyclab a ma net ams directed at a reasonable price, based onprevalring prices for similar services-as reasonably determined by the County, the County shall have the right to direct ContractQrto- deliver the collected Solid Wastes to another So I ase aci I y of the ounty s c of e. Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold the County harmless from and against any and all liability to the State of California for the County's noncompliance with the requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act due in whole or part to the material failure of Contractor to properly carry out the reasonable directives of the County to Contractor regarding collection and disposition of Solid Waste and recyclable material; provided, however, that Contractor shall not be obligated to carry out any such directive (and shall not indemnify nor hold the County harmless from any naVru AQr.R59 Franchise Agreement 9/30/93 RSS, Inc. & Contra Costa County 9 October 12, 1993 TABLE B-Id J PROGRAM STATUS REPORT FOR UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DIVERSION PROGRAMS SRRE or HHWE Component:Recycling Program: Residential Curbside Collection Date: 6/96 �7 Program Location Service ImplementationNotes Provider Planned Actual West County Kensington BVR 1993 1993 Planning to add additional materials in 1997 Rodeo BFI 1993 1991 Crockett PRR 1993 1994 Port Costa BFI 1993 1989 WCCIWMA RSS 1993 1990 Will add OCC in 1997 Central County Canyon OMD 1993 1995 Tassajara VWM 1993 1995 CCCSWA VWM 1993 1991 Program expanded 3/96 to include additional materials; materials now commingled. BFT Service Area BFI 1993 1991 Drop-off only in Clyde East County West PittsburgBaypoint BFI 1993 1991 West Pittmburg/Baypoint GE 1993 1989 Oakley 1993 1989 Discovery Bay 1993 1989 Byron 1993 No recycling program in Byron County-Wide Notes: County is seeking means of enforcing ordinance requiring collection of twelve materials by 1/1/96: UBC, Glass, ONP, PET, Clear and colored HDPE, Tin cans, OCC, Polystyrene, Plastic film, Yardwaste, and Mixed paper. b a a i o a y U N a+ J C r cC3 N U S0 OO ODW Ocn G U C m G O to bU y U 4CZ R U O 63 t63.+ U En �" p A CL O .y w FF.' •� U 'O .i O `2' r� G �'' •to O O czm o U E N C pp y, C w cO �y U r l O O Q Q p to V1 Q u v cn 0 r-' 1995 1996 COMMODITY LOW AVG HIGH LOW AVG HIGH NEWS $35 $107 $210 $10 $34 $70 MIXED PAPER $5 $36 $80 $0 $10 $25 OCC $55 $151 $249 $70 $95 $124 SWL $130 $290 $430 $100 $138 $180 UBC $1 ,077 $1 ,248 $1 ,460 $979 $1 ,029 $1,080 SCRAP AL $160 $277 $430 $194 $547 $900 CLEAR GL $21 $46 $48 $37 $39 $41 GREEN GL $13 $21 $23 $5 $21 $23 BROWN GL $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 MIXED GL $5 $9 $13 $0 $8 $10 HDPE $160 $365 $660 $190 $214 $270 COLOR HDPE $80 $147 $320 $60 $83 $100 MIXED PLASTIC $0 $0 $0 $0 $10 $80 PET $160 $536 $660 $327 $360 $424 TIN $25 $28 $30 $25 $25 $25 STEEL $65 $78 $179 C) L & B Painting Industrial, C6zumercia1c&Resid6n6&J Lead Ahafement, Painting & Wafer Proofing License #639747 61 Delta Street 1919 Yarket Street, Suite 242 San Frandsco, C4 94134 Oakland, Cd 94607 Phone (415) 467-9665 Phone (510)835-5844 Fax ('115) 'f67-3130 RECEIVED Fax (510)835 5845 NPR - 3 1997 CLERKBOARD CONTRAOCOSTA CO SUPERVISORS April 1, 1997 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Supervisors: L & B Painting is a small minority subcontractor currently working on the Merrithew Memorial Hospital Project in Martinez. Over the past several weeks I have encountered harassment from Painters Union District Council No. 16, Martinez Painters Local 741 and the Bay Area Painters and Tapers Trust Fund, regarding alleged fringe benefits and union violation charges against my company for work completed on a prior project. I have been threatened with substitution on the Merrithew Memorial Hospital Project for non-payment of benefits that were not part of my union agreement. I am currently attempting to resolve these issues with the union with no success (see enclosed letters). All payments for the Merrithew Project have been made. Please be advised that L & B Painting is in compliance with the work schedule that has been set forth. I would like the opportunity to address the Board regarding their decision to make this project all union and the negative impact that decision has placed on my company. Sincerely, .-2� ?L. Games Owner LG/apf cc J. Link, Centex Golden Construction S. Swanson, Ronald Dellums Congressional Office B. Robinson Esq.,White, Courts, Mitchell&Johnson M. Thierman Esq., Thierman Law Firm B. Aaron, Bay Area Black Contractors Association W. Timmons, General Vice President District Council No. 16 A. Lawrence, Bay Area Painters and Tapers Trust Fund C. Davenport, District Council No. 16 wo istrict Council No. 16 organizing Office •t -F')\. SANTA Ct.ARA.SAN fi!A7F.0.SANTA CRUZ-SAN 6I`SNti0,MONTEREY Nil y�SpP� ALAMMA.CONTRA COSTA,NAPM SOCA NO ez rx)kAD().VOLO.PL ACM I ACA A sINMY.WEVA DA ANnclruaA rnuuTW� PAb OGprtFCb• of We lAkr CorvJ Hmthn ood of Pajne And Allied Tr.Jc , 1021 t Street,Suite 3 Bc%licia.�Califo a,94510 Fhone(707)747-6182 Fax(707) 747-6X77 THE FOLLOWING IS HEREBY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN ADDITION TO THE MASTER C.B.A. 1. FOR A 30 DAY PERIOD BEGINNING WITH THE SIGNING OF THE C.B.A. THE INITIATION FEES FOR ANY NEW MEMBERS WILL BE WAIVED. 2. ANY WORK BID BY L&B PRIOR TO THE SIGNING DATE OF THE C.B.A. WILL NOT BE BOUND TO THE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF THE C.B.A. 3. THE EMPLOYER, L&B, WILL AT ITS CHOICE, DESIGNATE EMPLOYEES FOR THE APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM. 4. /'9 S AND 1 AWWa S OF L&B WILL BE MLOM) TO WOM ALL JOBS,' E U rUC t+ AND NON-E CrSTING_ S 5 .J' .t m 1''2 �6.<� .4-..e/ i=nr a.✓.... C�p.LL ��- G. J�'��' �r✓�-,�"_� MARK R. Vi ERN LARRY GAMES ORGANIZER OWNER L & B Painting Indus6441, Commercial&Residential Lead ALtement, Painting & w4ter Proofing License #639797 61 Delta Street 1919 Market Street, Suite 242 San Francisco, C4 94134 Oakland, C4 94607 Phone (415) 467-9665 Phone (510)835-5844 Fax (415) 467-3130 Fax (510)8354845 March 5, 1997 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Supervisors: L & B Painting is a small minority subcontractor currently working on the Merrithew Memorial Hospital Project in Martinez. Over the past several weeks I have encountered harassment from Painters Union District Council No. 16, Martinez Painters Local 741 and the Bay Area Painters and Tapers Trust Fund, regarding alleged fringe benefits and union violation charges against my company for work completed on a prior project. I have been threatened with substitution on the Merrithew Memorial Hospital Project for non-payment of benefits that were not part of my union agreement. I am currently attempting to resolve these issues with the union with no success (see enclosed letters). All payments for the Merrithew Project have been made. I would also like to bring to your attention that the General Contractor, Centex Golden Construction, is currently not paying us according to schedule. Please be advised that L & B Painting is in compliance with the work schedule that has been set forth. I would like the opportunity to address the Board regarding their decision to make this project all union and the negative impact that decision has placed on my company. Sincerely, es Owner LG/apf cc J. Link, Centex Golden Construction S. Swanson, Ronald Dellums Congressional Office B. Robinson Esq., White, Courts, Mitchell & Johnson M. Thierman Esq., Thierman Law Firm B. Aaron, Bay Area Black Contractors Association W. Timmons, General Vice President District Council No. 16 A. Lawrence, Bay Area Painters and Tapers Trust Fund C. Davenport,District Council No. 16 L & B Painting Indus(ria1, Commercial& Residen(ial Lead Ab4(emen4 Painting & Water goofing License #639747 61 Delta Street 1919 Market Street Safi 242 San Frandsen, C4 94134 Oakland, G4 94607 Phone (415)467-9665 Phone (5 10)835-5844 Far (415) 467-3130 Fax (510)835.5845 RECEIVED MAR 2 41997 March 10, 1997 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Rm. 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Supervisors: Please be advised that our payment issue with Centex Golden Construction, General Contractor for the Merrithew Memorial Hospital Project, has been resolved. Thank you in advance for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, Larry Gaines Owner LGtapf cc J. Link, Centex Golden Construction S. Swanson,Ronald Dellums Congressional Office B. Robinson Esq., White, Courts,Mitchell& Johnson M. Thierman Esq., Thierman Law Firm B. Aaron,Bay Area Black Contractors Association W. Timmons, General Vice President District Council No. 16 A. Lawrence, Bay Area Painters and Tapers Trust Fund C. Davenport, District Council No. 16 C, , 61 Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa f FROM: Mark DeSaulnier, Chair County DATE: April 8, 1997 SUBJECT: Authorize Filing of Notice of Interim Trail Use in Connection with Abandonment of Union Pacific Rail Road Port Chicago Industrial Lead Line SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the Director of Community Development, in consultation with County Counsel, to file a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) in connection with the proposed abandonment of the Union Pacific Railroad's Port Chicago Industrial Lead line, which is located near Clyde. 2. Request County Service Area M-16 to reimburse the County for the $150 cost of the NITU filing fee. FISCAL IMPACT $150 filing fee. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) has petitioned the National Surface Transportation Board, U.S. Department of Transportation for authorization to aba CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE: �Mark eSaulnier _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON AprITAPPROVED AS RECOMMENDED A OTHER X IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Community Development staff is AUTHORIZED to include in the Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) public use purposes for the right-of-way. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 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. Orig Dept: Community Development ATTESTED April 8, 1997 Contact: Ernest Vovakis, 335-1243 PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF cc: County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works Dept. AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Harvey E. Bragdon, CDD BY '�i/'! , DEPUTY Union Pacific Abandonment April 8, 1997 Page 2 a 1 .8 mile segment of rail line known as the Port Chicago Industrial Lead, which extends from the unincorporated community of Clyde to Port Chicago Highway. There has been no freight traffic over the line for at least two years. Federal regulations provide that in the event that a public agency or qualified private organization wants to acquire or use a right-of-way proposed for abandonment, it must file a notice of interim trail use within 10 days of publication in the Federal Register of a notice of exemption. According to the Surface Transportation Board, this notice has not yet been published in the Federal Register, but is expected in the very near future. Federal Regulations allow for late filings under certain circumstances. The County General Plan calls for a trail along this right-of-way and members of the Clyde community have indicated an interest in this right-of-way for public use. Filing a notice of interim trail use would protect the public interest in these proceedings. A $150 filing fee is required to file a NITU. It is recommended that this fee be paid by the County and reimbursement requested from County Service Area M-16. The Director of Community Development is requested to consult with County Counsel to ensure that the NITU is consistent with the County's intent and with Federal Regulations. The intent of the NITU is to enable the County to negotiate with the UPRR to determine if the right-of-way is suitable for trail and open space uses consistent with County General Plan policies. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra �,. Phil Batchelor, County Administrator „ J i FROM: Costa cl. i County April 8 1997 $ DATE: p � SUBJECT: Authorization for Indemnification of West Contra Costa Unified School District for the Use of Olinda School SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)a BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Approve and authorize the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to hold harmless and indemnify West Contra Costa Unified School District from liability resulting from the use of Olinda School for an E1 Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council Meeting on April 9, 1997 . BACKGROUND: West Contra Costa Unified School District will allow the E1 Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council to meet on April 9, 1997 at the Olinda School . However, before doing so they require hold harmless protection so that they will not incur any liability associated with the activity. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE: L�&La-) RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —RECOMMENDATION OF 80 D C MMITTIE APPROVE _OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON April 8, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS �� I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X 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. Contact: Joseph J. Tonda - 335-1450 CC: CAO Risk Management ATTESTED April 8, 1997 West Contra Costa Unified PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF School District SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR M082 (10188) BY DEPUTY Ob2l The Board of Supervisors Contra �erkat eBoae Costa and County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (510)335-1900 Martinez,California 94553-1293 County Jim Rogers,1st District Gayle B.Ullkema,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSaulnier,4th District f Joe Canelamilla,5th District ni - gid., J T'r C UNC April 8, 1997 Gary Freschi West Contra Costa Unified School District 1108 Bissell Richmond, CA 94801 Dear Mr. Freschi: Re: E1 Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council Meeting of April 9, 1997 at Olinda School The County of Contra Costa has a comprehensive self-insurance program to cover its general and automobile liability exposure, as well as its obligations under the Workers ' Compensation laws of California. The County's self-insurance program provides for the legal defense of officials, employees, and volunteers pursuant to Government Code Section 825 and for the payment of all sums that the County is obligated to pay by reason of liability imposed by law and arising from acts or failures to act, excepting punitive damages. This protection covers services performed by officers, employees, and volunteers within the scope of their official duties in accordance with the conditions of their employment or service. The self-insurance program is funded to provide payment of claims . Indemnification. The County shall defend, indemnify, save and hold harmless the West Contra Costa Unified School District, its officers and employees from any and all claims, costs and liability for any damages, sickness, death, or injury to person(s) or property arising directly or indirectly from or connected with the operations or services of the County or its officers and employees, save and except claims or litigation arising through the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the West Contra Costa Unified School District, its officers or employees. County will make good to and reimburse the West Contra Costa Unified School District for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys ' fees the West Contra Costa Unified School District may make by reason of such matters and, if requested by the West Contra Costa Unified School District, will defend any such suits at the sole cost and expense of the County. Sincerely, Mark DeSaulnier Chairman, Board of Supervisor MD:py Form approved by County Counsel .