HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09141999 - D3 ffi
y Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS _ - Costa
FROM. DENNIS M. BARRY, AICA County
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: August 10, 1999
SUBJECT. REPORT ON PROPOSALS FOR MODIFYING THE URBAN LIMIT LIME
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUNDAND JUSTIFICATION
ACCFP"" the report from the Community Development Director and CONSJDER the following
proposals as addltional changes to the Urban Limit Line for inclusion in the General Pl r,
Amendment Study initiated by the Board of Supervisors on January 26, 1999:
1. As requested by Supervisor Joe C nciarnilla, consider including in the General Plan
Amendment Study proposed changes to the Urban Limit Line in East County as depicted in
the m apmarked as Exhibit "A."
2. As requested by Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, consider including in the General Pian
Amendment Study proposed modifications to the Urban Limit Line boundary to reflect the
acquisition of pa kiands and open space since 1991. This request involves placing parkland
or oper. space lard area,which is now set aside for non-urban use, outside the Urban Limit
Line for the following locations: Martinez Ridge to the west of the City of Martinez and John
.Muir rational Diatoric Site, C&H Properties neer Crockett, and the Shen (a.k.a. McNabney)
Marsh. See the map marked as Exhibit "B"for the locations of these proposed changes to
the Urban Limit Line.
Acknowledge the letter and reap from. the City of Clayton requesting modifications to the
U ban Limit Lire to place land area made the Urban Limit Line south of the city limit in the
Marsh Creek Road area, Irish Canyon area, and Mitchell Carryon area (see Exhibit "C").
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT., x YES SIGNATURE � t
�,*n —nim4ft
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE —OTHER
1ATUE 1
ACTION OF BOARDONe t ,b 14 dM APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED MOTHER.)M
SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (RESENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES; _ — NOES--- AND ENTERED ON TIME MINUTES T°E F THE
ABSENT.--ABSTAIN:-- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
HO .
Contact: Patrick Roche, DD-AP (510/335-1242) ATTESTED 3g�'��-
C4 Community Development Department (COD) PML BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
%,A THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY DEPUTY
REPORT ON PROPOSALS FOR MODIFYING THE URBAN LIMIT LINE
August 10, 1999
Page 2
FISCAL-IMEA-CT
A budget for the General Plan Amendment Study was approved by the Board of Supervisors on April
6, 1999, Which included$200,000 set aside for environmental review. In preparing this budget staff
anticipated that additional changes to Urban Limit Line might be included in the study at a later date,
The request from District 2 Supervisor to add a precising of the Urban Limit Line boundary parkland
and open space acquisitions since 1991 is within the current budget resources. The request from
District 5 Supervisor for changes to the Urban Limit Line in East County appears to be within the
current budget resources. The proposal from the City of Clayton could change and expand the scone
of the environmental review because the potential growth inducing impacts of placing land area
inside the Urban Limit Line would need to be evaluated.
BACKGROUMIREASONS E(LR-REQ0M-MM-EB-D—AT--1Q-N-a
On January 26, 1999, the Board of Supervisors authorized a General Plan Amendment Study for
consideration of changes or modifications to the Urban Limit Line contained in the County's General
Pian. The action identified four specific changes to the Urban Limit Line in severai locations in the
County, primadlyin Supervisorial Districts 3 and 5. As part of this action, the Board agreed to defer
the identification of specific Urban Limit Line changes in East County until July 1, 1999, pending the
outcome of a strategic plan review process with East County jurisdictions initiated by the District 5
Supewisor, In addition, the Community Development Department was directed to coordinate with
each Supervisorial District on a public outreach program to encourage public understanding and
participation in the Urban Limit Line review process, and provide input to the Board on changes to
the Urban Limit Line,
On July 27, 1999, the Board of Supervisors set a new deadline of August 10, 1999 to consider
proposals for additional changes for the Urban Limit Line as part of the General Plan Amendment
Study. The following is a report on both the public outreach effo-t and proposals for additional
changes to the Urban Limit Line for inclusion In the General Plan Amendment Study initiated by the
Board of Supervisors on January 26, 1999,
Public Outreach Effort
At the request of Supervisorial Districts 2, 4, and 6, a series of evening public workshops on the
Urban Llmit Line were conducted in various locations in each district. The purpose was to provide
the public with background on the Urban Limit Line, review the recent actions by the Board of
Supervisors in authorizing the General Plan Amendment Study, explain the study process, and
receive public input at the initial study stage. A total of eight workshops were conducted between
M-ay 19 and August 9. In addition staff has made individual presentations to several City Councils
and is scheduled to make a presentation at the August 11, 1999 meeting of LAFCO. The following
is a summary of the puNic workshops conducted so far:
held in Martinez (May '19), Lafayette (May 26), and
-$up : 'workshops were he; I I
Hercules (June 16). Public input from these workshops addressed both the study process
and overall concerns with growth and future development In the County. Members of the
public also ,Indicated continued support for the Briones Hift Preservation Agreement. There
were several suggestions to adjust the Urban Limit Lire boundary to include specific
locations were parklands and open space which have been acquired since ^1991. There was
also a suggestion to move the Urban Limit Line to create a buffer for certain industrial uses,
such as refineries.
Sunervisorial District 4: Workshops were held in Clayton (July 28), Pleasant Hili (August 3),
and Concord ',August 9). Public input from these workshops addressed both the study
process and overall concerns with growth and future development in the County. Officials
F
,rom the City of Clayton outlined a proposal to modify the Urban Limit south of the city
I i m it.
6 9-u9-er-VLso-e.al -strict 5: Workshops were held in Byron (June 17) and Pittsburg (July 12), as
well as a public meeting conducted in Antioch (July 29): Public input from these workshops
addressed both the study process and overall concerns with growth and future development
in East County.
A more compiete report summarizing the public input/comment received from both the workshops
and other meetings/presentations is now being prepared by staff and will be made a part of the study
record.
REPORT ON PROPOSALS FOR MODIFYING THE URBAN LIMIT LINE
August 10, 1999
Page 3
The department has received the fdliowing proposals for additional changes to the Urban Limit Line
to be included as part of the General Plan Amendment Study initiated by the Board of Supervisors
on January 26, 1999:
a42111LS-orial lei tri
�
As illustrated in the map marked as Exhibit "A," the proposed changes in Supervisorial District 5
would generally involve the inward movement of the ex'sting Urban Limit Line to the so-uthern
boundary of --:;y
limit line for the cities of Pittsburg, Antioch, and Sr ntwood, and would result in
placing a significant amount of acreage outside the Urban Limit Line.
aVRO-W122MLI 29d.,-,.'L2
The proposed changes to the Urban Limit Line in Supervisorial District 2 involve modifications in
specific locations adjacent to the Urban Limit Line boundary to reflect the acquisition of parklands
and open space since 1991. This request involves placing new parkland or open space 'mnd area,
whlch has now,been designated as a non-urban use, outside the Urban Limit Line for the following
locations: Martinez Ridge to the west of the City of Martinez and the John Muir National Historic Site;
txo land parcels near Crockett acquired by the East Bay Regional Park District from C&H Properties;
and. Shell (a.k.a. McNabney Marsh) Marsh, See the map marked as Exhibit "B"for the location of
these proposed changes to the Urban Limit Line.
CU gf Qlayton
the City of Clayton has submitted a letter to Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier (District 4), dated August
5, 1999, requesting consideration of changes to the Urban Limit Line in the vicinity of'C'layton. The
letter includes a map describing changes to place land area inside the Urban Limit Line, as follows:
1$ fharsh Creek Road Specfflc Plan area-Add the northern portion of the city approved Marsh
Creek Road Specific Plan area inside the Urban Limit Line (approximately 2&� acres);
2 fish Canyon area. Redraw the Urban Umit Line on the east 410 add approximately 800 acres
inside the Urban Limit 11-irie,The city intends to designate the majority of the acreage as open
space and set aside a smaller portion of the acreage on the southside of Black Diamond
'Way(a.k.a. Nort
,onville, Road!for residential development. There would be density transfers
from,the open space area to the residential development area to permanently hold the open
space and compensate land, owners;
Mitchell Canyon-Add approximately 340 acres, located on the southwestern corner of the
city and, inside the Urban 'Limit Line, 1 majority of this acreage is witnin the city's Sphere
of Influence boundary and they have notified Le FCO of their desire to bring the rest of the
acreage within the sphere. The city is also interested in deleting some 875 acres within the
Mount Diablo State Park that is within their sphere due east of Mitchell Canyon.
A2AQbMAQts j-3-j
Exhibit"A": changes to the ULL in East County, as proposed by Sup. Dist, 5
Exhibit "B": Changes to the ULL in Sup. Dist. 2
Exhibit "C": Letter to Sup. Mark DeSaulnier from the City of Clayton requesting consideration of
ULL changes in the vicinity of Clayton (date 9/5/99)
DB:PR\h:pro--h\advplan\L,!;Nj�!add.bo
i; €T"A": CHANGES TO THE ULL AS PROPOSED BY SUP. DISI.'.
�gipe:
tr. A } dka j+c4 i F�iS'4.
� ;
.iRM 4
'��„• p.�"..,.b��e # '4 P� 8 �� c g• • � �:i�"m., s 4 ���� �` � f �, �
�'�?•• � .� F' � .tai � ��� •t€ s�" ��' a
b� �� i a ,aa ..1 dP• � � Ssa,{'i' �.�'3 X.M �'t v'b t SSi'
.fti.} d•" � 4.162 `iii5��' � �,��� u"' 1.
Q, • yds �'y k:' S✓ p,Aa; _- E �.'°a•.4•� Y�v{ia`�E:'w"�" �. E @V<w ` �y��%r�P %& y B��`F SSS .. YYPf ` s ttrar_•y�.pyu,',�
� '�, e ...d�l3k a °,•- � s::• t rx�'i �,....'�� E' :4'"S mtr �,, ti��, e ,
� �" s �•'' b��.. ���$sa$ ' �.'d ti M
®..m..Q..��..•m s o ,�m.*�4, ..Fro:iq�F �,#.� �t: �'� ^^i'�b,�nX�-,n �:. ^� :�' �i'i
.rm.. .,— _ tro: f`Jx^Y"."'`� E � � i tq� '.4• t. 4/jjp�j
r> � {Fy}�tg. t ff 4 is � �: .. _• 2:+ :. Ei ! #:
SO
't. i 'r4 b' °# a �.9 i yY }•' , r.
13
Am
16
• .��" j . -Siw - .sit �ave��c _ m_.:,a� 6: 7ffi � a .. �^4 d �
. .. r ;q #F y> Yip ° ;p.t• xF^i a ,o . !z!z £ �(� .
O'
.
2 t97 sok "b'... # 4
Yui_,y 's 6y'.• �c r �,. 13 a'� <�' f gam..i°�'��•• �,dd �it1 �a
py pj/p+'�>jt �p .,,its� }Y.[rs . !��'! � �f•r�{p .dw.•F""�"+y'.���- �' a�• >, .;
;•,. F�5+� � �s a f`o,�' ?,p� •�� "�+"at' \ � �.d}F �f��"^' b e��d y&... a�,`•, �� '`��
,.,. 10� � � m.�� p ,f �P �d¢8 °$ {\�W�,� �"� r e •g b �r�.�a' S1�E4 4✓n• ..g��2�a
`� e .1 IN \ 8 q 9�'tom'°¢•B T
e '
XHISI7 "WPROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ULL IN SUP. DIST.2
'.✓ a. }d t
9� ems, k.i Y �/'6y' i • t�P'w^m. 4. �, t ,q tom. �y'e� fr. ,`'. ��'.,4.3� ;F� , •r4
d�`�yp• 6q ➢ t .,y � x a'.as' t'T �_1°+,d' 5
Al
C�d.���,� ara4 s' 9 +'r•51; tFi . .`.7� ,. ° a.. t ?�'4 .op �t
R�'. �� `St 5 .� i§�'"r�i �r"c",w'.- � �'� „Gc :j n � ••9 �f /'r '��,
� 71 "5
._ x
°s �" '� :� :' ��, 'fix,; � x � �r;,,,,�..,.✓ q• ,���.
/ ed�,. Y,jt,�,g' 3 a 'v.. { �•� �": b,a-a� +� a E �: t� �. $ ..
A r 0 .y. Ia 4 S L�t1 -.✓ °l r y q •9��j F� •
°,ham.'¢ i �."'E`-' •4 "g t ;sa 'a...,
Y � '
amIr
t
�.},
�
e.,. �.,. � ,�do�x 4` � �° � . .. •� °� ,,,;� �p p°
�'y� .� �•at p�W<� s\ y� e�/, Ia i`S� t t .'"�$y�'"
XHIB;' °' "C": LETTER TO SUP. MARK DESAULNIER FROM THE Cl TY OF
CLAYTON REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF CHANGES
TO ULL IN THE VICW Y OF CLAYTON
f
°0, .3.; /
y�, t-�,
4w
` c. d�`•GM6lL�,� � p6�4'BG�d� dA ,"�G',,. �J�vbde TdlSl
a ,a P3YffiR Ag AL;F. mu,MAYCA
t�apeesvxrr IL'CkAADA.LITTOcvy
(925) 672.6690 6000 HUITACt` PAIL x QAYToN, CR3.iroR A 94517-1250 GXICOXry. Agw;XG
<9251, 672.9700 `F.Lt?Ho.NF (925) 672-3622 FAX (925) 672-4917
August 5, 1999
Mark De.Saulnier
Supervisors District TV
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
2425 Bisso fie, Suite 110
Concord, CA 34520.4808
Rex Amendments to Urban Limit Line
Dear Super- sor DeSaulniera
L-1 response to the Count's invitation for suggestions on amendments of theCounty's urban limit
line z,TTI L), the City of Clayton requests that the following amendments he made in the vicinity of
Clayton, The enclosed map shows the location of the a ected areas. For your reference,we have
also enclosed a snap recently forwarded to the Local Agency Formation Corn nissior: C )
showing suggestions by the City for additions and deletions to the sphere of influence,
rah CreekThe Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan, which was
adopted by the i ity in 1995, designated. a range ofsingle family (3a0 units/sere, and rural
residential (1.1 units/acre) uses on the southeastern edge of the city. The ULL currently
includes the southern portion of the Specific pian area. Tbe City re nests that the U'Ll he
amended to include the nor°.hern portion of the Speen Plan area(approximately 250 acres)
in order to allow full development of the Specylic Plan area.
Irish Canyon Art& ° 21us area, which is located directly north of the Spedric alar: area,
involves approximately 800 acres. The majority of the area would he retained as open space
for protection of ride lines and agricultural g&. . A sr.all portion of the area.,located on
the south side of Blanch Diamond `may (a k.a. Nortonville Road), would be designated for
residential development. Density transfers would take glace from the open space area to the
development area. phis process would permanently protect the open space values and would
compensate landowners for density transfers. The open spm am would he connected with
ing laird located east of the City.
lchel1 C yo_ This 340 acre area,located on the southwestern comer of the city,
is in the vicinity of the existing quarry. As shown on the enclosed sphere of influence map,
the exisffing sphere encompasses the majority of this area. The City has notified LAFCO that
the City is interested in a minor amendment of the sphere in order to achieve consistency
with this amendment of the ULL. The City is also interested in deleting approximately 875
acres within Mount Diablo State Park brom the City's sphere directly east of the Mitchell
Canyon Area.
SEP-e7-1999 10:27 CITY OF Q_RYTC-N 925 6724517 F.03
Super,,risor DeSaulnier
ternher L 199-2 -_TAgt2_
As you are aware,the City,public,and property owners have expended considerabletime and energy
in planning residential development and protection of resources in this area. P maration of the
Sped jic Flan was initiated in 1990. For the next five years, the City held 42 public meetings,
prepared and certified an EM aid coordinated with the County and other agencies to address
nt=, ,erous concerns. This process culminated in adoption of the Specific Plan in 1995. The Specific
Plan dem gnattes approxiziately two-thirds of the area north of the existing sphere line for open space,
and resects residential development to the ran ining third. Gbien these proportions,the ULL shift
is consistent", 6555 urban/open space ratio of.Measure C. The Specci&Plan provides stringent
protection for ridgelines and viewsheds. The LML shift is also consistent with the Measure C criteria
for changes to the TALL since the northern boundary of the Spec�flc Plan area was drawn to follow
the ridgeline of'Keller Ridge and adjacent prop boundaries. As a result, this am ent of the
LML works to implement the ecjflc Plan and is consistent with Measure C.
With regard to the Irish Canyon area, the City is agree-able to withdrawing its re pet for amendment
of the ULl— Ibis is based upon the understanding that theunincom. orated tenitory east of Clayton
to the ridgelime will remain in permanent open space or agriculural Uses.
We also wish to express Lhe City's coneinued long-term interest in annexing and providing municipal
services to izban develo the City's long term plans
pment in the Mitchell Canyon area. Recognizing
for the arep,Cl*rton's sphere of influence includes the majority of this area. While present quany
operations mate some interim constrabits to development in this area,portions of the area are well-
suite.d for uxban uses. T.he City also recognizes the ongoing benefits the quarry provides to the
commum-ty and building industry in the County. Therefore the City is agreeable to holding off on
amendment of the ULL in this area antil local conditions make residential development more
suitable.
We appreciate the opporturdly to work with the County on Uns important matter. Please co-ntact me
if you have any questions or need flaffier infbrmation.
Sincerely,
Jere 4 CP
Commurdty Development DL-ector
Enclosures:
proposed Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan Urban Limit Line Amendment(19gure)
Sphere of Influence(figure)
C: Mayor and Coun-cilTnembers
Richard FWI, City Manager
Dennis Barry, County Community Development Director
. rr �yi. £ .. ^,. � ".fad. �v � yr,, okf, [t\ �t ��. ,� a• �} �'� � �� `"`S..' J� 7�fti�t
�y ,�• �V •�, ,-��c �/1y� $� 4`'`��j �"��\3Uti��.���r-'r-- �� t�}� � ( ° �� �"`a��,I 1 +�" > p,
g,°�' t. �� q� /'°t��^' 4ii'." 9d tj� ✓'a"`.J.`l,3if�fk�� "!�`�''r' is r_ w '. Z7L�33 �� `r t�.. v,L:,,,,, Ff2N
r� � ���' �.t Y 1 i�E',,,,}� r��(, �^•�4'. J�'��$ �f�{ ! �j��. iwlr �. ,��� '�'� � '� ts*��,,. 1•'lif
✓ �°' .,,�� � {t fl ur...+�� ���b�td� �� �� T���!e ..,...,.,,i d 1 C�r� 1�'•r._ �/}��,'� a * 'h t
''^C j��:�� `..r. €` J i �+y xw i r �) �Pr.��1 T s ""9 E - 3 f}f+'f' r,�.,✓1✓ i
AM i jt a
�W �i-.£t'j! 2v�g,_.1 y'•'•�`tLy[/ �'i 1�-�•+"x. T 1 .,I�}'� i :J Wry��• fg_r �t iiV�.�, y('t� r! � �i
°` r IV�*, �{Vis,. lir,1t� �.��•�r,'.t�,y�v.ES�`{a,�,��.. �,,�,''.f rLey; �,.�i I t. '''��.,.. ,�' W ��"'.�'`3�il �gp�t�'"'3.. r
�3as r l� �: " �r � fit, �""r�:+ � �.✓ f�£ �'�" l� i � t` � � ' v
'`"•� � \ „ �i `r`��.- � _ r°,d g+ t'1 i "�1'`#�;,e,✓,��'( t�� ;��.+� .�t e,^�� p a,
aY� ,,,,.,a A��( yL� f�" .:.�'.'�� )}�'V°��t'""r''...>�`"'"",,,j ,� +„�� '. ,.{`+`ya, a".+ 1. a„✓
two
W
11,
a�{yy�'{{ttk +�S4, ,.,7�,`�i.•�..a� ;1 �u t°w`�.'-'`.^' � t .-jj��..'Ai '�� ,y. ,,.,,rw.+ y �}' .�µ,:Y.'C
r%'7,I L,1-7,nffl,
60
t
�. � �� s Lam, � . _ � ��°�. � g ,• f
�.b.,+ / tea, � }` "" - �..,1✓ 'i\t ''ti t*
t
a
ADDENDUM ITEM D.
September 14, 1999 Agenda.
On Aust 10, 1999, .he Board of Supervisors continued to this date, consideration ofthe
report on proposals for modifying the 11 an Limit Line(ULL).
Dennis Bary, Comm, unity Development Department Director,presented the staff report
and recoinmendations. Mr. Barry note'that attached to the September 1, 1999, letter
received from Jeremy Graves, Corr unity Development Director for the pity of Clayton,
were two maps showing Clayton's proposed Specific Plan.ULL amendment and Sphere
of Influence.
Supervisor DeSaulnier related the results of his meetings with Clayton's representatives.
As a result of those meetinu he stated there were tree proposed.recornmended actions
regarding the I'LL:
a. The "no project" alternative, leave the ULL the way it is;
b. Staff's recommendations to add 4€1 acres and move the ULL out to the Sphere
of Influence; and
c. View the wbanized area within the Specific Plan, which would be
approximately 125 acres.
Supervisor Canciamilla discussed proposed options that resulted from his m.eetinizs with
the various city representatives from District 5, He stated that he was not,in support of
expanding the ULL in any of the jurisdictions, that there was arnple opportunity for the
cities to grow within the current and modified ULL. He presented his proposal and a
second proposedmap ap as an alternative to study. He stated that the two proposals present
an opportunity for the Board to look at the enviro=.ental impacts of moving the ULL.
The Board discussed the issues,
The public hearing was opened, and the following people offered comments:
Federal Glover, Mayor, City of Pittsburg, 2(,20 Railroad Avenue,Pittsburg;
Mary Rocha, "payor, City of-Antioch, 3022 Rio Grande Drive, Antioch;
Quintin Kidd,Mayor, City of Brentwood, 700 Winding Creek Terrace,
Brentwood;
Pete Laurence, Mayor, City of Clayton, City Hall, Clayton;
Jeremy Graves, Comm.unity Development Director, City of Clayton;
The Board farther discussed the issues, the public hearing continued;
Pete Petrovich, Council Member, City ofBrentwood;
Jeff Kolin, City Manager, City of Pittsburg, 202€1 Railroad Avenue,Pittsburg;
Sanford Skaggs, Esq., West Coast Hom.ebuilders, Box V, WaLnut Creek;
Jim jakel, Contra Costa Council, 877 Y ,n.acio Valley Road, #202, Walt-ut geek;
Martin Vitz, East Bay Regional Park District, 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland;
Bill Hill, 11 80 Breakwater Way,Brentwood;
'Taney Chir, Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce, 2£110 Railroad Avenue,Pittsbur. ;
Henry Alker, Southport Land—Commercial Company, 155 Montgomery Street,
#304, Sari Francisco;
Jew Duarte,Farin Bureau, 2860 Tule Lane,K i htsen;
Tom Mooers, Greenbelt alliance, 1372 N. Main Street, 203, Walnut `reek;
Jim J. Moita, Clayton Estates,L.L.C., 8117 Marsh geek.Road, Clayton;
Seth Adams, Save Mount Diablo, 1.196 Boulevard Way, #10, Walnut Creek;
Mary Metz, S.H. Cowell Foundation, 9 Regents Court,Alameda;
John Dalrymple, Central Labor Council, 1333 Pine Street,Martinez;
Kathleen Nirmr, Sierra Club, 2204 Olympic Drive, Martinez;
Guy Bjerke, Home Builders association, P.O. Box 5160, Sart Ramon;
Pete Laurence,rebuttal;
Fete Petrovich, rebuttal;
Mia Alegna,Mayor, City of Pinole,
Quintin Kidd, rebuttal.
Those desiring to speak having been heard,public consent was closed.
'the Beard continued to discuss the matter.
S-uDervisor Gerber advise the Beard that the T-T falls w—'&in the Town of Danville. If
that is a problem, the Town of Danville would he willing to withdraw the request to study
Pan adjustment of the�.'I�L. She noted that such a request may na e it easier for the Il�oard
to have consistency relative to Clayton's and Pittsburg's proposals.
Supervisor Desaulnier commented that he would like to incomorate language in the
<roticn that encourages the ILL discussion process be continued in City/County
Relations.
Sumervisor Canciamilla moved that the Board accept the staff report as modified:
In recd=endation No. I< At the end ofthe paragraph following the words,
°'E hibit "A", add the words "as the project, and include the alternate plan as a
preferred alterative to be studied equally,. (The altem ate plan receive this day).
Include the economic development impacts and the analysis as requested by the
City of Antioch, and the comments of the Contra.Costa Council as appropriate.
Recommendation No. 2 would rem-, ain the same;
In recommendation No. 3, add a new sentence at the end of the paragraph, "But not to
include the modification as part of the Environmental Impact review".
Sul
ervisor Uilkema seconded the motion.
Supervisor Gioia requested amending the motion to i:�c"ude directing the Conuunity
Development eparrnent staff to begin the necessary work to coordinate with the cities
the analysis of appropriate infill opportunities as presented by the City/County Relations
Com. mi
tteee
Supervisor Ca. c arnilla stated he had no objection to the amendment. supervisor
U,i'lkema concurred.
Supervisor Gioia noted that analysis was separate from the EIR study,but was a parallel
process. supervisor Uilkema agreed.
Supervisor Canciarnilla inquired if Mr. Barr had any questions regarding the
amendments. Dennis Barry responded there were two points to clarify: First, did the
Board need a four- .hs vote to add supervisor ioia!s amendment to the agenda, since it
was not on the regular agenda. Second,with regard to supervisor Canciamilla!s notion,
whether the reversal of the previous direction to eliminate the change for the Danville
portion is included in the motion.
The Chair acknowledged Mr. Barry's remarks, and asked supervisor Gerber if she was in
agreement with r. Barry's remarks. supervisor Gerber stated that she was. Supervisor
Canciarnilla modified the motion eliminating the E'lworthy parcel in Danville. He
inquired if supervisor Uilkema agreed. she state she was aware of three;parcels and was
its agreement.
Su,
ervisor Canciarmilla noted the agreement was for the Elworthy property. He inquired.
ir*.A,1`. Barry had additional comments, Dennis Barry advised that if the motion include
the City/County Relations Committee's review of vacant land inventories and the urban
limit lire, a separate vote might be required since that subject was not on the agenda.
2
Following farther discussion., Supervisor Gioia requested that County Counsel comment
on allowing the discussion of infill development corabined with the urban limit line.
Silvatno Marchesi, Chief Assistant County Counsel,responded that because the agenda
item related to just the proposed urban limit line, it would cleaner to separate the items.
Supervisor UilIke a suggested coming back at a later date with that discussion.
Supervisor 0anciami.11a meed,
Supervisor Gerber disagreed. She rioted that the Board should look at the City/County
Relations Comm-ittee's discussions today, and state the Board's interest in hither analysis
and discussion,but not make them a part ofthe Environmental impact Review study,
Supervisor C&,ic-..am. illa clarified his motion, which was to include the development
impacts and the analysis as suggested by the City of Antioch, and the commants of the
Contra Costa Council as appropriate, and to request staff to return to the Board and
indicate wrhich par Ys they feel are appropriate based on the parameters set today,
Supervisor Gioia stated that the City/County relations recommendations, could come
back 'later, as a parallel to today`s process,
Supervisor Canciarnilla restated his motion, which would approve the staff
recommendation adding his original proposal as the project, include the a'lternate as a.
preferred alternative to be studied equally, not to include the request of Clayton as a
m, odification.to the EIR, and not to include the modification as originally requested by
the City of Danville for inclusion of the Elworthy proper�y, vahich is currently outside the
urban Limit Line.
Supervisor Uilkema agreed,
The Chair called for the vote, and the motion was approved unanimously,
3