The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 06031997 - C122 C.119, C.120, C.121, C.1222, C.123, and C.124 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 3, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla, and DeSaulnier NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Correspondence C.119 LETTER, dated May 14, 1997, from M. B. Ketter, Chair, El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Committee's Ad Hoc Committee on Garbage, recommending that the County obtain the amount needed to complete the audit of the Richmond Sanitary Service (RSS) from the General Fund and of their opposition to adding a surcharge to residents' monthly garbage bills to finance the audit. (Considered with Item D.4) C.120 LETTER, dated May 12, 1997, from Nick and Margaret Young, 31 Corte Encanto, Danville, CA 94526, requesting a review of Article 416-46 of the Contra Costa County Code to provide for increasing the penalty on individuals who dispose of unwanted pets by dumping them in isolated areas to fend for themselves. *****REFERRED TO THE ACTING ANIMAL SERVICES DIRECTOR C.121 LETTER, dated May 16, 1997, from Thong Le, Pinole Key and Gift Shop,. 1213 Tara Hills Drive, Pinole, CA 94564, requesting a refund for a business license paid to the County for the following years: 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996. *****REFERRED TO THE TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR AND COUNTY COUNSEL FOR RECOMMENDATION C.122 LETTER, dated May 14, 1997, from Geoffrey L. Robinson, Law Firm of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown& Enersen, LLP, 1331 N. California Blvd., Walnut Creek, CA 94595- 1270, protesting the imposition of a parkland dedication fee on the Reliez Valley Highlands Project being developed by Davidon Homes. *****REFERRED TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR C.123 LETTER, dated May 14, 1997, from Stan Norman, Interim Chairman, Contra Costa County Human Relations Commission, 2020 North Broadway, Suite 203A, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, submitting recommendations relative to the membership and function of the Commission. *****REFERRED TO THE INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C.124 LETTER, dated May 20, 1997, from Gordon Nathan, Chairman, Moraga Fire Protection District Board of Commissioners, requesting that Chief Allen Little, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District(CCFPD), be authorized to enter into discussions for transitional support services to the Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District for approximately six months. *****REFERRED TO CHIEF, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above recommendations as noted (*****) are APPROVED. c.c. Correspondents (6) I hereby ceNfy that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the oVmActing Animal Services Director Board of su rs on ehe date ..q7 Treasurer-Tax Collector Ar�sn:a PHI TCM0.0R,Clerk oto County Counsel of a*Wvbm& Community Development Director Internal Operations Committee By Chief,Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 14, 1997 5: 24PM MCCUTCHEN W/C No, 4401 U, 2/4 MCCUTCHENI MCCUTCHEN,DOYLE,BROWN&ENERSFN,LLP May 14, 1997 Direct: 510 975-5335 grobinsonr'?amdbe.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 File 71599-134 Dear President and Members of the Board of Supervisors: This firm 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 Pees 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 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) 937-8000 Fax (510) 975.5390 San Jose Taipei http://WWW.mccutchen,com Walnut Creek Mair, 14. 1997 5:25PM MCCUTHEN W/C No, 4401 P. 3,/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 920-4002 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 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 All citations are to the Government Code. 14. 1997 5: 25PM MCCUTCHEN W/C No, 4401 P. 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 Palley, Inc. v. City of Modesto, 25 Cal. App. 4th 1577, 15$7 (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 S%, pursuant to Section 66020. Very truly yours, Geoffrey . Robinson cc: Victor J. Westman,Esq. David Schmidt, Esq. Robert Drake