Legislation Details

File #: RES 23-638    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Consent Resolution Status: Passed
File created: 11/17/2023 In control: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
On agenda: 12/5/2023 Final action: 12/5/2023
Title: RESCIND and SET ASIDE the Board of Supervisors’ July 13, 2021 certification of the environmental impact report and land use approvals for the Tassajara Parks Project in the Tassajara Valley area; ADOPT Ordinance No. 2023-22, rescinding an ordinance that approved a development agreement for the Tassajara Parks Project; ADOPT Ordinance No. 2023-23, rescinding an ordinance that rezoned land in the Tassajara Valley area for the Tassajara Parks Project; and take related actions.
Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. 2023-22, 2. Ordinance No. 2023-23, 3. Resolution setting aside approvals.pdf, 4. Signed Ord 2023-22.pdf, 5. Signed Ord 2023-23.pdf, 6. Signed Res 23-638.pdf

To:                                           Board of Supervisors

From:                                          Thomas Geiger, County Counsel

Report Title:                     Rescission of the Environmental Impact Report and Land Use Approvals for the Tassajara Parks Project and Adoption of Ordinances.

Recommendation of the County Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

1.                     ADOPT a resolution vacating, rescinding, and setting aside the Board of Supervisors’ July 13, 2021 certification of the environmental impact report (State Clearinghouse No. 2014052089) and land use approvals for the Tassajara Parks Project in the Tassajara Valley area.

 

2.                     ADOPT Ordinance No. 2023-22, rescinding an ordinance that approved a development agreement for the Tassajara Parks Project.

 

3.                     ADOPT Ordinance No. 2023-23, rescinding an ordinance that rezoned land in the Tassajara Valley area for the Tassajara Parks Project.

 

4.                     AUTHORIZE County Counsel, or designee, to file initial returns to the peremptory writs of mandate issued in East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Contra Costa County, et al. (Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. N21-1274), Sierra Club, et al. v. Contra Costa County (Case No. N21-1509), and Town of Danville v. Contra Costa County, et al. (Case No. N21-1525).

 

FISCAL IMPACT:

 

None to rescind and set aside the environmental impact report certification and land use approvals.

 

BACKGROUND:

 

On July 13, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved the Tassajara Parks Project and certified a final environmental impact report under CEQA for the project (State Clearinghouse No. 2014052089).  The Tassajara Parks Project is a 125-unit single-family residential development in the Tassajara Valley area.  The Board approvals included: a 30-acre modification to the Urban Limit Line (“ULL”); General Plan land use designation changes; adoption of an ordinance (Ordinance No. 2021-24) that rezoned land from A-80 (agricultural) to P-1 (planned unit); adoption of an ordinance (Ordinance No. 2021-23) that approved a development agreement; a vesting tentative map; and a development plan for the project.  The Board also approved a preservation agreement between the County, the City of San Ramon, and the East Bay Regional Park District providing for the dedication of 727 acres of land outside the ULL from the developer to the park district.  

Following the Board’s approval of the project and certification of the EIR, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, Sierra Club, and the Town of Danville each filed a lawsuit challenging the approvals (Contra Costa County Superior Court Case Nos. N21-1274, N21-1509, and N21-1525).  The cases were consolidated for litigation purposes. 

On August 16, 2023 and August 22, 2023, the Superior Court entered judgments in the consolidated cases.  The Court granted each petitioner’s petition for writ of mandate, in part, and concluded that the EIR provided inadequate information and analysis regarding the project’s water supply, EBMUD’s annexation policies, and the feasibility of proposed offsite conservation measures on which the availability of the project’s water supply will depend.  The Court also held that the EIR should have been recirculated after EBMUD’s Board of Directors adopted a resolution on June 8, 2021, declaring that EBMUD did not have adequate water supplies to serve the project.  The Court issued peremptory writs of mandate ordering the County to void the certification of the project EIR and to vacate and set aside all project-related approvals, except for the 30-acre modification to the ULL and the preservation agreement.  The Court found that the 30-acre modification to the ULL and the preservation agreement were severable from the remainder of the project and that leaving those approvals in place would not prevent the County from complying with CEQA.

The recommended actions will result in the County’s compliance with the writs.  The County Counsel or his designee will file an initial return in Case Nos. N21-1274, N21-1509, and N21-1525) stating that the County has complied with the writ.

 

CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:

 

The County would not be in compliance with three Superior Court writs.