Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 07182006 - D.1
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Resolution on July 18, 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. 2006/80 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN ELECTION ) ON NOVEMBER 7, 2006 ) FOR A VOTER-APPROVED ) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE. ) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: 1. In 1990 the voters in Contra Costa County approved Measure C, the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance No. 90-66). Since that time, the Urban Limit Line has been incorporated into both the County Ordinance Code and the General Plan to ensure preservation of identified non-urban agricultural land, open space, and other areas, by establishing a line beyond which no urban land uses can be designated through the year 2010. By its terms Measure C-1990 (Ordinance No. 90- 66) is scheduled to expire in the year 2010. The Board of Supervisors recognizes that there is a continuing need to protect agriculture and open space in this County. 2. In November 2004, the voters in Contra Costa County approved Measure J, a 25-year extension of the Measure C-88 local transportation sales tax measure previously approved by the voters in 1988. To be eligible for its share of the sales tax proceeds [Local Transportation Maintenance and Improvement funds (18% return to source funds) and Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities funds (5% TLC funds)], the County must have an Urban Limit Line, developed and maintained in conformance with the "Principles of Agreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line," attached and incorporated into Measure J. To comply with the Principles of Agreement it is necessary to extend the term of the County's Urban Limit Line beyond the year 2010. 3. Pursuant to the Principles of Agreement, the County participated in a public process with the nineteen cities in the County to establish a mutually agreed upon Urban Limit Line. This process was concluded in the summer of 2005 without agreement on a final proposal among all the jurisdictions. Under the aforementioned Principles of Agreement, if "no Countywide mutually agreed upon Urban Limit Line is established by March 31, 2009, only local jurisdictions with a voter approved ULL (Urban Limit Line) will be eligible to receive the 18% return to source or the 5% TLC funds." Prior to the enactment of the Principles of Agreement, the voters in San Ramon in March 2002 approved an Urban Growth Boundary for the City of San Ramon, and since the summer of 2005, the voters in the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg have approved Urban Limit Lines for those respective cities. The Board of Supervisors recognizes the need for Contra Costa County to remain eligible for its share of Local Transportation Maintenance and Improvement and Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities funds by securing voter approval of an extension to the Urban Limit Line before March 31, 2009. 4. On July 12, 2005, the Board of Supervisors directed and authorized staff to take steps to initiate the adoption of a new, voter-approved Urban Limit Line. These steps included conducting an environmental review and preparing an Urban Limit Line ballot measure to be placed before voters in 2006. If approved, the measure would amend the County's General Plan (2005-2020) and the County's Land Preservation Plan RESOLUTION NO. 2006/80 Ordinance to: (1) extend the term of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance from December 31, 2010 to.December 31, 2026; (2) require voter approval, in addition to four- fifths approval by the Board of Supervisors, to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres; (3) provide for periodic reviews of the Urban Limit Line, including a mandatory mid-point review involving an evaluation of housing and job needs; (4) adopt a new and revised Urban Limit Line Map that reflects the approvals of city Urban Limit Lines by voters in the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon and also reflectsother non- substantial boundary changes at various locations; and (5) retain the 65/35 land preservation standard and protections for the County's prime agricultural land. 5. The Board of Supervisors recognizes the value and need to continue the Urban Limit Line as an effective tool for planning the orderly growth and development within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. 6. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered an Initial Study on the proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line ballot measure, which was prepared by the Contra Costa County Community Development Department pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on the Initial Study it is determined that the proposed ballot measure will not result in any significant impacts on the environment. A Negative Declaration has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors concurrently herewith. 7. The Board of Supervisors, having received comments from the public and having considered these comments, directs that the 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line, as set forth in Ordinance No. 2006-06 on file with the Clerk of the Board, be submitted to qualified voters of the County for their approval at the November 7, 2006 general election, in accordance with the requirements of the California Elections Code. The following ballot language for submittal of the ordinance to the voters is hereby approved: "Shall the voters amend the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) and the County's 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (County Ordinance Code, Chapter 82-1) to: (i) extend the term of the County's Urban Limit Line to the Year 2026; (ii) require voter approval to expand the line by more than 30 acres; (iii) adopt a new Urban Limit Line Map; and (iv) establish new review procedures?" 8. The Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters is designated as the Election Official for election, and the County Clerk, Elections Department, is hereby authorized and directed to provide all notices and take all other actions necessary to holding the election, including but not limited to providing notice of times within which arguments for and against are submitted. Orig.Dept: Community Development Contact Person: Patrick Roche,Adv.Ping cc:. Community Development I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an CAO action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Clerk of the Board Supervisors on the date shown. County Counsel Clerk,Elections Dept. ATTESTED: JOHN CULLEN,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: Deputy G:Wdvance Planningladv-planlULL Ballot MeasuretBallotMeasureBoard Resolution 2006-80(July 18,2006 BoS).doc RESOLUTION NO. 2006/80 0711812006 Final ballo f Measure Language Roard,Q"alahon No 2006180 2006 Voter Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Shall the voters amend the Contra Costa County General Plan and the County's 65135 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (County Ordinance Code Chapter 82-1) to: (i) extend the term of the County's Urban Limit Line to the Year 2026; (ii) require voter approval to expand the line by more than 30 acres; (iii) adopt a new Urban Limit Line Map; and (iv) establish new review procedures? TEXT OF PROPOSED MEASURE The People of the County of Contra Costa County hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. TITLE This measure shall be entitled the 2006 Voter Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line. SECTION 2. SUMMARY This measure amends the Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) and the 65/35 Contra Costa Land Preservation Ordinance in the following ways: (1) It extends the term of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance from December 31, 2010 to December 31, 2026. (2) It provides that, through December 31, 2026, the General Plan 07/18/2006 Final Ballot Measure Language Board Resolution No.2006/80 cannot be amended to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres without a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors and approval of the voters. (3) It provides for periodic reviews of the Urban Limit Line, including a mandatory mid-point review in Year 2016 involving an evaluation of land supply to satisfy 20-year housing and job needs in Contra Costa County. (4) It incorporates a new and revised Urban Limit Line Map that reflects the approvals of city Urban Limit Lines or Urban Growth Boundary maps by voters in the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon and also reflects other non-substantive boundary changes at various locations. (5) Finally, the, measure retains the 65/35 land preservation standard and protections for the County's prime agricultural land. SECTION 3. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND FINDINGS The voters approve this measure based on the following facts and considerations: A. In November 1990 the voters approved Measure C-1990, the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (Chapter 82-1 of the County Ordinance Code), which limited urban development in Contra Costa County to no more than thirty-five (35) percent of the land in the County and required that at least 65 percent of all land in the County would be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, and other non-urban uses. Measure C-1990 also established a countywide Urban Limit Line identifying non-urban agricultural, open space, and other areas 2 07/18/2006 Final Ballot Measure Language Board Resolution No.2006/80 beyond which no urban land use could be designated during the term of the General Plan. B. County Ordinance Code Section 82-1.028 currently provides that the Urban Limit Line will remain in effect until December 31, 2010. This measure would extend the duration of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan (which includes the Urban Limit Line) to December 31, 2026, thus extending the protection to the County's non-urban and open space areas for an additional 16 years. Because the factors contributing to the need to adopt the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan still exist, it is appropriate to extend these protections through the year 2026. C. The procedure by which the Urban Limit Line may be changed, either by the Board of Supervisors or by action of the voters, is described at page 3-9, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County General Plan, and in Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Section 82-1.018. To provide additional protection to the County's non- urban and open space areas, this measure would require that, through December 31, 20265 the General Plan cannot be amended to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres without a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors and approval of the voters. D. This measure would establish a procedure to allow the Board of Supervisors to review the Urban Limit Line on a 5-year cycle, 3 07/18/2006 Final Ballot Measure Language Board Resolution No.2006/80 commencing in 2011, to consider whether changes should be made to reflect changing times. This measure would also require a 10- year comprehensive review of the Urban Limit Line in 2016 to determine whether there is sufficient land available to satisfy housing and jobs needs for Contra Costa County for the following 20 years. Because housing and job needs, as well as social and environmental factors, may change over the years, it is appropriate to provide for this review procedure in 2016, which is the mid- point of the extended term, to determine whether expansion of the Urban Limit Line should be considered to meet the changing needs of the County. SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION To implement this measure, the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005- 2020) and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, are amended as follows: A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 1. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN MAP DIAGRAM At page 3-10, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), Figure 3-1, Urban Limit Line Map (black and white version sized 8"x 11"), and a color version of Urban Limit Line Map (11" x 17" insert to the General Plan) are hereby amended, as shown on Figure One: Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Map, which is attached to this measure. Each will be titled: "Contra Costa 4 0711812006 Fina!gallofMeasure Language Board Resolution No 2006180 County Urban Limit Line Map" and adopted to show the boundary of the Urban Limit Line, as approved by this measure. 2. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN TEXT The General Plan is hereby amended to revise the text of "CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE", at page 3-9 of the Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan, as follows. New text shown in bold italics and underline [example is added to the existing text while text in strikeout font [exaffiple] is deleted from the existing text. Text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure. CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE There shall be no change to the ULL that would violate the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. The 14LI= will only b ehanged by a 4" ve ., - H. .-te of the Beafd of gupefvisefs after helding a publie heafing and making atte or fnefe of t following fifid.-figs basedd an substantial evidenee in the reeefdl There will be no change to the ULL except in the manner specified herein. There will be no change to the ULL unless the Board of Supervisors first holds a public hearing at which it approves the change or changes, by a four-fifths vote, after making one or more of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: (a) a natural or man-made disaster or public emergency has occurred which warrants the provision of housing and/or other community needs within land located outside the ULL; 5 0711812006 Finahgallot Meawre 4anquage Board Resolution No.2006180 (b) an objective study has determined that the ULL is preventing the County from providing its fair share of affordable housing or regional housing as required by State law, and the Board of Supervisors finds that a change to the ULL is necessary and the only feasible means to enable the County to meet these requirements of State law; (c) a majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the County have approved a change to the ULL affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement; (d) a minor change to the ULL will more accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal boundaries; (e) an objective study has determined that a change to the ULL is necessary or desirable to further the economic viability of the east Contra Costa County Airport, and either (i) mitigate adverse aviation related to environmental or community impacts attributable to Buchanan Field, or (ii) further the County's aviation related needs; (f) a change is required to conform to applicable California or federal law. (g) a five (5) year per-iedie cyclica review of the ULL has determined, based on criteria and factors for establishing the ULL set forth above, that new information is available (from city or County growth management studies or otherwise) or circumstance have changed, warranting a change to the ULL. Any General Plan amendment that would expand the ULL by more than 30 acres shall require voter approval of the proposed General Plan amendment, following the public hearing and the four-fifths vote of the Board o Supervisors approvinz the General Plan amendment and 6 07/18/2006 Final Ballot Measure Language Board Resolution No.2006/80 making one or more of the findings set forth in subsections (a) through (g) above. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a proposed General Plan amendment to expand the ULL by more than 30 acres does not require voter approval if, after a public hearing, the Board of Supervisors by a four-fifths vote approves the General Plan amendment and makes either of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: fl) the expansion of the ULL is necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property; or (ii) the expansion of the ULL is necessary to comply with state or federal law. Expansions of the ULL totaling 30 acres or less do not require voter approval. [ADD THE FOLLOWING NEW PARAGRAPHS UNDER THE HEADING "CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE", at page 3-9 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as follows] The Board of Supervisors may conduct a cyclical review of the ULL every five years. The Board of Supervisors will review the boundary of the ULL in the year 2016. The purpose of the year 2016 review is to determine whether a change to the boundary of the County's Urban Limit Line Map is warranted, based on facts and circumstances resulting from the County's participation with the cities in a comprehensive review of the availability of land in Contra Costa County sufficient to satisfy housing and jobs needs for 20 years thereafter. This review of the ULL is in addition to any 7 0711812006 FimlRallot Measure Language Board Resolution No.2006180 other reviews of the ULL the Board of Supervisors may conduct. Any change to the ULL proposed as a result of any review authorized by this section must be adopted pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section. These provisions are effective until December 31, 2026. B. ORDINANCE CODE CHANGES 1. To be consistent with the amendments to the General Plan that change the boundary of the Urban Limit Line, the People of the County of Contra Costa hereby enact Ordinance No. 2006-06 as follows: TEXT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE Ordinance No. 2006-06 Section 1. Title. This ordinance shall be entitled the "2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line." Section 2. Summary. This ordinance amends Chapter 82-1 of the County Ordinance Code to extend the term of the County's Urban Limit Line to the year 2026, to establish new procedures to review the boundaries of the Urban Limit Line and to prohibit expansion of the line by more than 30 acres without voter approval. Section 3. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.010 is amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is shown in bold italics and underline [examlel, text in p 8 0711812OO6 Final Ballot Measure Language Board Resolution No.2006/80 strikeout font [exam] is deleted from the existing text and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure): "82-1.010 Urban limit line. To ensure the enforcement of the 65135 standard set forth in Section 82-1.006, an urban limit line shall be established, in approximately the location depicted on the it t t 65/35 Ge t,.,, f''r,nth County hand Preservation Ule 1\d., h -u4�tuv e.� a., r .1.ib t A t„ Or-QZISa'II'�v�r�,.TO. "Contra Costa ' S'P —' P90'D^66 County Urban Limit Line Map" adopted by the voters on November 7, 2006. The urban limit line shall be is incorporated into the county's open space conservation plan. The urban limit line shA limit limits potential urban development in the county to thirty-five percent of the land in the county and shall pr,.1,N4 prohibits the county from designating any land located outside the urban limit line for an urban land use. The criteria and factors for determining whether land should be considered for location outside the urban limit line should include (a) land which qualifies for rating as Class I and Class I1 in the Soil Conservation Service Land Use Capability Classification, (b) open space, parks and other recreation areas, (c) lands with slopes in excess of twenty-six percent, (d) wetlands, and (e) other areas not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development, unstable geological conditions, inadequate water availability, the lack of appropriate infrastructure, 9 07/18/2006 Final Ballot Neasure Language Board Resolution No.2006/80 distance from existing development, likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat, and other similar factors. (Ords. 2006-06 $3,91-1 § 2, 90- 66 § 4). Section 4. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.018 is amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is shown in bold italics and underline [example], text in strikeout font [e*afftle] is deleted from the existing text and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure): 82-1.018 Changes to the urban limit line. (a)There shall be no change to the urban limit line that violates the 65/35 standard set forth in Section 82-1.006. After-adoption of the new general plan, as Except as otherwise provided in this Section, as long as there is no violation of the 65/35 standard,the urban limit line can be changed by a four-fifths vote of the board of supervisors after holding a public hearing and making one or more of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: (1) A natural or manmade disaster or public emergency has occurred which warrants the provision of housing and/or other community needs within land located outside the urban limit line; 10 07/18/2006 Final Ballot Measure Language Board Resolution No.2006/80 (2) An objective study has determined that the urban limit line is preventing the county from providing its fair share of affordable housing, or regional housing, as required by state law, and the board of supervisors finds that a change to the urban limit line is necessary and the only feasible means to enable the county to meet these requirements of state law; (3)A majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the county have approved a change to the urban limit line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement; (4) A minor change to the urban limit line will more accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal boundaries; (5)A five-year period c clical review of the urban limit line has determined, based on the criteria and factors for establishing the urban limit line set forth in Section 82-1.010 above, that new information is available (from city or county growth management studies or otherwise) or circumstances have changed, warranting a change to the urban limit line; (6) An objective study has determined that a change to the urban limit line is necessary or desirable to further the economic viability of the 11 07/18/2006 Fina/Ba/iotMeasure Language RoardResoiution No.2006/80 East Contra Costa County Airport, and either (i) mitigate adverse aviation-related environmental or community impacts attributable to Buchanan Field, or(ii) further the county's aviation related needs; or (7) A change is required to conform to applicable California or federal law. (b) My sueh ehange shall be subjeet4e r-efer-endufn as provided by 1-a-manges to the wban lifnit line under-any othef 7 suuiirequirevote of the people. (b) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, any proposed General plan amendment that would expand the urban limit line by more than 30 acres will require voter approval of the proposed general plan amendment in addition to and following a fou r- f fths vote of the board of supervisors approving the general plan amendment and making one or more of the findings required by subsection (a) above. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a proposed general plan amendment to expand the urban limit line by more than 30 acres does not require voter approval if: after a public hearing, the board of supervisors by a four-fifths vote makes either of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: (i) the expansion of the urban limit line is necessary to 12 07/18/2006 Final Ballot Measure Language Board Resolution No.2006/80 avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property;or(ii) the expansion of the urban limit line is necessary to comply with state or federal law. Proposed expansions of 30 acres or less do not require voter approval. (c) The board of supervisors may conduct a cyclical review of the urban limit line everyfive years. (d) The board of supervisors will review the boundary of the urban limit line in the year 2016. The purpose of the year 2016 review is to determine whether a change to the boundary of the county's urban limit line map is warranted, based on facts and circumstances resulting from the county's participation with the cities in a comprehensive review of the availability of land in Contra Costa County sufAcient to meet housing and lobs needs for 20 years. This review of the urban limit line is in addition to any other reviews of the urban limit line the board of supervisors may conduct. (D Any change to the urban limit line proposed as a result of any review authorized by this section will not be effective unless it is approved pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section. (Ords. 2006-06.$4,,91-1 §2, 90-66 §4.) 13 0711812006 Final Ballot Measure Language Board Resolution No 2006180 Section 5. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.028 is amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is shown in bold italics and underline rexam p ] while text in strikeout font [exem*] is deleted from the existing text and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure): 82-1.028 Duration. The provisions of this chapter shall be in effect until Deeembef 31, 2010 December 31, 2026, to the extent permitted by law. (Ords. 2006-06 0, 91-1 § 2, 90-66 § 4). SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE This measure shall become effective immediately upon approval by the voters. Upon the effective date, Section 4.A) 1. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN MAP DIAGRAM and Section 4.A) 2. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN TEXT of this measure are hereby inserted into the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), as one of the four consolidated general plan amendments for calendar year 2006 allowed under state law. Upon the effective date, Ordinance No. 2006-06 is hereby enacted as a County ordinance, amending the County Ordinance Code. SECTION 6. -SEVERABILITY If any portion of this ordinance is hereafter determined to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, all remaining portions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. Each section, subsection, sentence, phrase, 14 0711812006 Final Ballot Measure Language Board Resolution No 2006180 part or portion of this ordinance would have been adopted and passed regardless of whether any one or more section, subsections, sentences, phrases, parts or portions was declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 7. AMENDMENT OR REPEAL Except as otherwise provided herein, this measure may be amended or repealed only by the voters of Contra Costa County at a countywide election. GAAdvanm Planning\adv-pWAULL Ballot MmsumNULLBallotMmsureNo%,2()06Rcs2U06-80(071806Bo$).doc 07/18/2006 Fina/Ballot Measure Language Board Resolution No.2006/80 FIGURE ONE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE MAP r e 6 t N � — �k• ^x O VIM s A cz 1 w�f d�a 7 n a O � o n ¢ w e4 i n O156 a q p `/ f.5 k CCS 6 �T (V CCS W \ 3 L) � . u [ 1z a aye o 8 o v 72 = U — I `fir' •�X � �^ F d (Note:Map is sized for the voter pamphlet) 16 Attachment "B": Re-circulated Notice of_' Public Review and Intent To Adopt Negative Declaration and Initial Study/Checklist, November 7, 2006 General Election, Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure Sponsored by Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors J'.S..t,. lu ERG I � t c W - �er.,x.,•_.err.,+ .. - a: - .,n .,.... , .: 5;'r of ,. d �•,� E 'rv• 1 v Y lair ti AV , yr � �r O d Jh � v �s ��. n)j �~ 1"r��� .ld�riri 'C .K'7J •� C r i � � ""•r I • ` �h .��y.� � ' �,�^ !P a ��• � � V7 • , uc- ,M ,� 1 f `�';�. �� 3 S � ;� � C I 3 is� 3? t � ,n�• c l�'x, t.�,�,. T�ar-� � ^`" � :Y� }.� r .rte..,.,,,,�e'. ..,�V �� i' 1-• sai t �°'� air ) T" '•E � �. ro �•� ' ''' `t, Y i* A; a + x � iV Rig- l11 as -61 i�;b•- i� «v�ff k L'� "fix�n„� �' � � t r, si�,�. ,;dar 5i i�zx'r 5�ow �w� � `A1"a aft .s#' tfic.� `; "o. n ,,..o - • � >�S �� n Itr��,_.'i�{��,y,� 4�.G.+:4&°;, �q �rr,r� .l,�v.t; 4�'�„r'�'h"a�"�'}''�A:.V� ,mow' ;1 `� 1�'�'F' ✓ # ����s � � '.>� -- ,v�wy,�``�`�''�' ”>�` p JJ k •�I {6�'�:'t�yE` 7 Y# e t��a� �$ �., �6 r r S° e �t 3� 3' � r ��„xg �rU� ft z'r 'r�k;. Z �y Rkl,r r�,�,S: Bv "�t t�` cMd�� �s'� ����t. i�{g�. '- s .Nin " , ,{ se��� �•"�'��t°'�k;r:'��z'''a'�"•�`u�� +{°rovi��(�$+� f. ���"� ��`�'����� � ��"-�s.a�� �'� �" t �' .,, � '��f ,i,•rr '4�'kF�^:�'�+'"��:�f!3�`€'sF�.,'�'";fv'�at'�{+�t'�'�iF�:l�.'�� K, ;'�a�`.'��"e,,,rx7E>'at�_...r. t:a•�.-a,a��e",��.'.�s.. �t•, i3.�..f...- ..�.,.,.ssJ.:.. -. a• ._.,, f5^�: €. �... -- W CC MSM rr b A$ � la LL a ca ca LO [V � O N m �y�. yw�� v❑CC v mCa ,:a � N �- r �� f I �' j ,' 1.4 lu le �+ LL t 't{ o CEJ *+ � 4w y V D y a n ° w a ° O NV 11U, �"4 S U / ,J r O �a O ','3 h�'1�? //ji`�t t r �> zG spl t�'G�i O r1y� /J rl • '¢ � n a J � Y G E €�{ _y'. N \ � �.�\ti f\v�� {°�G(�'M� cc c jr s q, 3 i syxi+azar+� $, , �,.'� y +; �+ � [ � � �:. � r �4 yF�t�{pit ��. •tP ..+L"'� i *Y I Hyj 1 t �� 1i { q � .d 5q�w° aw�J �i ' o� rvxtc� ` Pap (D O mi �. �� 'O to it ff' '�`k5s-a�.,t•�t+i i' ^� cu \4„$p` Jr',E � t'.slt C..gJ (� �crVw ?te O J 6 r ' Y/ C ' } �y J roc r J C J (� a '�-t ryni�ri4 ZY. lid } 4 p Ril v O I . O rL .� Q N y '{ .� Q c N lti� e cc s� i „ � r U> K "I-, 1 L� )La Os\ L n �+ off [ ( y1U�p7� .^.� L'�1 v iw` is t'ill v �t�i rv. 1 �''✓. 1141 �1 ? , rr CO Otiggaa I .. ;� W°\ vt 1•� ,,;r� t% ��$ CL yq� frt^' � j f M tl'�l.-._,+_�• I A W3 1.x', 1'-'.`1 C- f �k_M' jN`- ` ■jai t t �1' z »F s'!; a�. u �, CD ji% x ` L OccCLi co CL cc c O CL C13cdL' V s NO. v � � Z j NAMWAra�ivirn 7 , y O Q r I co U Q 1VC� " { f� CD co = Q coo �� �%' � �,� i .� � ,r � � � a • to OOL y S � Q f ' - -.—_D.ennisJfA.,,Bac�A1C�.-_ Community � . Contra '��� � L Comim�flit�'Deve�lo�t Director Development - , Costa Department ��- County County Administration Building MAY 2 G 2006 L E / 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing - 4OAr'11— 'COUNTY Ca'rERK mom- Martinez, California 94553-0095 SO!.Jf,?TV925 335-1210 ` BYDEPPhone: ( � �� :4 1 � DEPUTY sra cooN'� DATE: May 26, 2006 NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 County Files: GP#06-0001 and ZT#06-0001 State Clearinghouse No. 2006012134 Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the"Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"as amended to date,this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study on the following project: November 7,2006 General Election, Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure Sponsored By Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors A proposed countywide ballot measure for the November 7, 2006 General Election to extend the term of the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line to 2026 and establish new procedures for voter approval on expansion of the County Urban Limit Line,as sponsored by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors(County Files: GP#06-0001 and ZT#06- 0001). The proposed ballot measure if adopted by the voters will not result in any significant impacts. A copy of the Negative Declaration and all documents referenced in the Negative Declaration may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, and Application and Permit Center at the McBrienAdministration Building, North Wing, Second Floor, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, during normal business hours. [More on Next Page] 1. A Notice of Public'Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Negative Declaration was previously issued on January 27, 2006. This new notice revises and supersedes the 1/22/2006 notice because of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors postponement of the election on this matter until the November 7, 2006 General Election,instead of the June Primary Election,and to reflect minor revisions to the ballot measure as approved by the Board of Supervisors, which are more fully described in the revised Initial Study/Environmental Checklist accompanying this notice. Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month Public Comment Period-The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extends to 5:00 P.M,Monday,June 26,2006. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Patrick Roche E-mail address: prochkcd.cccounty.us It is anticipated that the proposed Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a meeting of the Board of Supervisors tentatively set for Tuesday, July 11, 2006. It is anticipated at this meeting that the Board of Supervisors will adopt this Negative Declaration when they consider a proposed resolution submitting the Urban Limit Line ballot measure to the County Elections Oficial for the November 7, 2006 General Election. The Board of Supervisors meetings are held at the McBrien Administration Building,Room 107, Pine and Escobar Streets, Martinez. Patrick Roche , Principal Planner cc: County Clerk's Office (2 copies) O:Wvure PWu.g.dvT1.WLM1N M.1MNm .f Ne 1w1 Dxlamim3W6U11Mlldme.airt.doc ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot Measure To Extend the Term of the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line to 2026 and Establish New Procedure for Voter Approval on Expansion of the County Urban Limit Line, as sponsored by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (County Files: GP#06-0001 and ZT#06-0001) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4`''Floor North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Patrick Roche (925) 335-1242 4-. Project Location: all of Contra Costa County 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street, Main County Admin. Bldg. Martinez,CA 94553 6. General Plan Designation: Since the proposed action applies countywide the General Plan designations are multiple and various. 7. Zoning: Since the proposed action applies countywide the Zoning Districts are multiple and various. 8. Description of Project: A November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot Measure asking the voters of Contra Costa County to amend the Land Use and Conservation Elements of the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) and the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (County Ordinance Code, Chapter 82-1)to': I. Extend the term of the 65135 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (County Ordinance Code, Chapter 82-1) and the County's Urban Limit Line to the Year 2026. 11. During the extended term of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (County Ordinance Code, Chapter 82-1) and County's Urban Limit See Exhibit One:Contra Costa County Board of Super-visors Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure attached to this Initial Study/Environmental Checklist for the complete text amendments to both the County General Plan and County Ordinance Code,Chapter 82-1. [ 1 Line, require voter approval to expand the County's Urban Limit Line by more than thirty (30) acres based on a schedule of review of the Urban Limit Line boundary every five (5) years, commencing in Year 2011, and require that in the tenth year of extended term of the County's Urban Limit Line, in Year 2016, the County shall participate with the cities in a comprehensive review of the availability of land to meet a 20-year housing and jobs needs for Contra Costa County in order to determine if adjustments to the County's Urban Limit Line of greater than 30 (thirty) acres would be necessary to meet these needs. III. Incorporate into both General Plan and County Ordinance Code the requirement that a 4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors is necessary to place a measure on the election ballot to expand the Urban Limit Line boundary by more than thirty (30)acres through the Year 2026. N. Incorporate into both the General Plan and County Ordinance Code the procedure for the scheduled review of the Urban Limit Line based on the five (5) year cycle, beginning after voter adoption in November 2006, and a required ten year review in 2016 based on a review of land availability to determine capacity to meet housing and jobs needs for the County. V. Retain in both the General Plan and County Ordinance Code the existing procedure for change to the County's Urban Limit Line under thirty(30)acres based on a 4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors after holding a public hearing and making at least one of seven findings, as currently proscribed in both the General Plan and County Ordinance Code, based on substantial evidence in the record. VI. Retain the 65/35 standard for land preservation in Contra Costa County, whereby sixty-five (65) percent of the overall County land area will be retained for non-urban uses through the year 2026. VII. Retain the protections for the County's prime agricultural land, specifically the area now designated in the General Plan as the Agricultural Core by maintaining the 40-acre 2 minimum parcel size and limiting uses to agricultural production or to uses incidental to agricultural production. VIII. Approve a new Urban Limit Line Map for the General Plan, as recommended by the Board of Supervisors, which reflects the following changes'; a) Incorporate the City of Antioch's voter approved Urban Limit Line, November 8, 2005 Special Election, affecting the Antioch area; b) Incorporate the City of Pittsburg's voter approved Urban Limit Line, November 8, 2005 Special Election, affecting the Pittsburg area; c) Incorporate the City of San Ramon's voter approved General Plan Land Use and Urban Growth Boundary map (March 2, 2002) affecting the San Ramon area; d) Locate twenty-seven (27) acres for a public playfield as part of the Gateway (Montanera)development project in the City of Orinda on the inside of the Urban Limit Line; e) Locate the thirty-eight(38)acres of the Pine Creek Detention basin owned by the Contra Costa Water Conservation and Flood Control District in the North Gate,area on the outside of the Urban Limit Line; f) Locate the approved Alhambra Valley Ranch residential subdivision (Subdivision No. 6443) on the inside of the Urban Limit Line, and make corresponding adjustments to the Urban Limit Line boundary along the Martinez area waterfront placing certain lands within the City of Martinez on the outside of the Urban Limit Line, as recommended by the Martinez City Council. 2 See maps attached as Figure I and Figure 2 to this Initial Study/Environmental Checklist for graphic detail on the proposed changes to the County's Urban Limit Line Map. 3 [ l g) Locate certain parcels along Marsh Creek Road in the unincorporated area of Clayton fully inside the Urban Limit Line where the existing Iine splits these parcels. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Contra Costa County covers approximately 733 square miles and extends from the northeastern shore of the San Francisco Bay easterly about 50 miles to San Joaquin County. Contra Costa County is bordered on the south and west by Alameda County. On the north, Contra Costa County is bordered by Solano and Sacramento counties and separated by the San Pablo and Suisun Bays, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The western and northern portions of the County are urbanized with significant land area in industrial uses. The central portion of the County is predominantly suburban residential and commercial uses in character with industrial uses located on the riverfront of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River. The eastern portion of the County is also comprised of both suburban residential and commercial uses along with industrial uses located on the riverfront of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River. The far eastern portion of the County is predominantly in agricultural use with some suburban residential uses. Most the County's land area is comprised of non-urban uses including agriculture, parkland, watershed, and open space. The County's landform is dominated and shaped by the hilly terrain of the Diablo Range and East Bay Hills, the San Francisco- . San Pablo Bays, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing,approval, or participation agreement): None. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning — Transportation/ Public Services Population &Housing Circulation Utilities & Service Geological Problems — Biological Resources. Systems Water' Energy & Mineral Aesthetics Air Quality Resources Cultural Resources Mandatory Findings of Hazards Recreation Significance Noise Vo No Significant Impacts Identified 5 i t DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described.on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. a/nNi, Signature Date Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 6 SOURCES In the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation, the following sources and references (which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street 4th Floor-North Wing, Martinez) were consulted and incorporated herein (where appropriate these Sources are enumerated in response to questions under Evaluation of Environmental Impacts): 1. Project Description: November 2006 Ballot Measure To Extend the Term of the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line to 2026 and To Establish New Procedure for Voter.Approval to Expand the Urban Limit Line, as sponsored by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (draft Ballot Measure prepared by the Contra Costa County Community Development Department and County Counsel, based on adopted July 12, 2005 Board Order entitled "Report On Ballot Measure For Extension of The Urban Limit Line" and subsequent Board actions on March 7, 2006 and May 16, 2006). 2. The Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020 (adopted January 18, 2005), and Initial Study and Negative Declaration (SCH4 2004122066) and the Environmental Impact Report (SCH#88071904) prepared for the comprehensive update to the Contra Costa County General Plan (approved January 1991). 3. Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, Title 8: Zoning. 4. Contra Costa County General Plan Amendment Study: Potential Modifications to the Urban Limit Line Boundary (County File: GP#99-0001) and Environmental Impact Report (SCH#99- 112094), prepared by Mundie & Associates; Board Reports and Board Resolution No. 2000/366, August 1, 2000 and Board Resolution No. 2000/451, September 25, 2000, adopting General Plan Amendment involving modifications to the Urban Limit Line, and Court Decisions: Finley Tassajara Corp v. County of Contra Costa, ( Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. C00- 3704 and California Court of Appeals,First App e*llate District,Case No. A097392). 5. Review of City General Plans, including Land Use Elements, Environmental Impact Reports for General Plans,and related documents: * City of Antioch General Plan (adopted November 2'003) 0 City of Brentwood General Plan(adopted November 27, 200 1) 0 City of Concord General Plan ( adopted July 26, 1904 and as amended through April 1, 2003)and fin'al draft Concord 2030 General Plan,Volume 1: Plan Policies 0 Town of Danville 2010 General Plan (adopted 1999) 0 City of Lafayette General Plan (adopted October 28, 2002) 0 City of Martinez General Plan (adopted 1973) and Franklin Hills Specific Plan (adopted August 5, 1987) 0 Town of Moraga 2002 General Plan (adopted June 4,2002) 0 City of Oakley General Plan 2020 (adopted December 22, 2002) 0 City of Orinda General Plan 1987-2007 (adopted May 20, 1987) 0 City of Pittsburg General Plan 2020 (adopted August 200'1)' 7 • City of Richmond General Plan (adopted August 1994) and Land Use Map (amended May 1998) • City of San Pablo General Plan (adopted August 1996) • City of San Ramon General Plan 2020 and Urban Growth Boundary (approved by voters March 5, 2002) • City of Walnut Creek General Plan — Vision 2005 (adopted February 1989) and Land Use Element Map (revised November 5, 1991) and draft General Plan 2025 (draft February 17, 2006) 6. Maps of Voter Approved City Urban Limit Line, Special Election on November 8, 2005: • City of Antioch • City of Pittsburg 7. Contra Costa County Community Development Department Resource Mapping System — U.S Geological Survey Quadrangle Sheet Panels — Benicia, Vine Hill, Honker Bay, Antioch North, Jersey Island, Richmond, Briones Valley, Walnut Creek, Clayton, Antioch South, Brentwood, Woodward Island, Las Trampas, Diablo, Tassajara,and Byron Hot Springs. 8. Contra Costa County Community Development Department Geographic Information Systems (GIS)Mapping Program. 9. Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, adopted.by the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission, December 13,2000. 10. Draft East Contra Costa County Habitat Plan (www.cocohcp.org) and personal communication with John Kopchik, Project Planner, 1/24/2006. 11. Contra Costa County Keynotes: Habitat Types & Rare, Endangered or Threatened Plants of Contra Costa County (prepared by Contra Costa County Community Development Department, February 1978); and Contra Costa County Watershed Atlas (prepared by Contra Costa County Community Development Department,January 2004). 12. Map of Important Farmlands in Contra Costa County, Yr. 2004 (California Department. of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program) and Map of Agricultural Preserves in Contra Costa County (Williamson Act contracts), Oct. 2004. 13. Contra Costa County Inventory of Historical Sites (prepared by Contra Costa County Community Development Department, May 1976, revised 1989, and.reprinted 2001). 14. 2000 Bay Area Clean Air Plan and 1999 Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan, prepared by the Bay Area Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, revised December 1999. 15. 2004 Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List (Cortese 'List) for Contra Costa County, California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 8 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact lmact I. AESTHETICS —Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? VO (Sources: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,&8) b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,&8) V C, Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? WO (Sources: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,&8) d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,&8} "' SUMMARY: No 1177pact. DISCUSSION: The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch Pittsburg and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial boundary modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line. Map, as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development. The proposed action does not amend the County General Plan's land use map or alter policies or implementation measures in the General Plan relating to scenic resources or scenic highways. No direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. Voter approval would not adversely impact scenic resources or vistas, degrade the visual character or quality, or create a new source of light and glare. Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence that voter approval would have any significant adverse impacts on the physical environment in the area of aesthetics. 9 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES —In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Imnact Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use?(Sources: 1,12) b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?(Sources: 1,2,3,&12) C. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland,to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 1,2,5,6,7,& 12) SUMMARY: No Impact. DISCUSSION: The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line,while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial boundary modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development. The proposed action does not amend the County General Plan's land use map or alter policies or implementation measures in the General Plan relating to agricultural resources, except that if approved by voters it would expressly retain and extend the term of protections for prime farmland in Contra Costa County. Since the proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development or alter the General Plan's land use map, it would not directly or indirectly result in the conversion of agricultural land or conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with the County's Williamson Act Program. Consequently,based on a review of. the proposed ballot measure there is no substantial evidence that voter approval would have any significant . adverse impacts on agricultural resources. 10 t r EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 1, 14) b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?(Sources: 1,14) VO C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 1,14) d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Sources: 1,14) e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Sources: 1,14) SUMMARY: No Impact. DISCUSSION: The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to new procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line,while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial boundary modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development. The proposed action does not amend the County General Plan's land use map or alter policies or implementation measures in the General Plan relating to air quality. No direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. Consequently, based on a review of the proposed ballot measure there is no substantial evidence that voter approval would have any significant adverse impacts on air quality. 11 EVALUATION.OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incon2orated Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10, &11) b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,&11) C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? WO (Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,&11) d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,&11) e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or`ordinance? (Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,&11) f.' Conflict with the provisions .of an . adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local;regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1,2,4,5,617,8;10,&11) 12 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—continued SUMMARY: No Impact. DISCUSSION: The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, Voter approval would specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026,amend text in the Land Use Element relating,to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map,as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development,and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. The proposed action would not change or alter County General Plan policies or other regulations aimed at protecting biological resources,nor would the proposed action change land use designations under the land use map to the General Plan. The action would not directly or indirectly impact protected species or habitats or natural communities since no development is being approved, nor is there a change in County policies or regulations relating to biological resources that would facilitate new development as a result voter approval. There is a draft Habitat Conservation/Natural Communities Conservation Plan for eastern Contra Costa County that has been prepared and released for public comment.It is anticipated that the anal Habitat Conservation PlaniNatural Communities Conservation Plan will address the matters pertaining to habitat protection in relation to growth and development in eastern Contra Costa County over the next 30 years, including area inside and outside the present County Urban Limit Line. Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence that voter approval would have any significant adverse impacts on biological resources. 13 e � EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS V. CULTURAL RESOURCES —Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 (Sources: 1,2,4,5,7,&13) b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? (Sources: 1,2,4,5,7,&13) C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?(Sources: ) d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources: 1,2,4,5,7,&13) SUMMARY: No Impact. DISCUSSION: The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend the tern of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map,as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. The proposed action would not change or alter historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources in the County since no development is being approved, nor is there a change in County General Plan policies or other regulations relating to cultural resources that would result from voter approval. Also, voter approval would not result in disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, since no new development would be approved or facilitated. Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence that voter approval would have any significant adverse impacts on cultural resources. 14 . ^ " EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS V1. GEOLOGY AND,SOILS—Would theproject: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Skgndicant No Impact Inco1porated lglpac Impact u. Expose people orstructures topotential substantial adverse effects, inulud��the risk ofloss,injury,ordeath involving: ]. Rupture ofaknown earthquake fault, uadelineated oothe most recent A|quist- Priolo Earthquake Fault %uuiog Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of u known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication � 42. (8ouroeo:'l.1/4,5,6,7,& 8) 2. Strong moimniu ground obukin-19 (Sources: i2,4,5,6'7,& 8) 3 Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ~ (Sourcea: l2,4.5,6.7,& 8) 4. Landslides? ° ^ (Sources: l,2,4'5,6,7,& 0 6. Result in m���� �� �o�o � d� � loss of topsoil? (Sources: 1,2���,7,db 8) c. Be located unageologic unit orsoil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as u result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral opreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: l,2,4,5,6,7,& 8) d. Balocated ooexpansive soil, aodefined in 7uBc l8'l'Bofthe Uniform Building Code(l9PX), creating substantial risks tu life o«property? (Sources: },2,4,i,6,7,&8) * � Have uni\u incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not uvo}oWe for the disposal ` ufwastewater? � (Sources: l2,4,5,8,7,& 8) }� EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMTACTS VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS—continued SUMMARY: No Impact. DISCUSSION: The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps(Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. The proposed action would not change or alter County General Plan policies or other regulations relating to geological hazards, nor would the proposed action result in any change in use designations or location of uses under the land use map in the General Plan. Voter approval of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure would not expose people or structures to geological or earthquake hazards, result in substantial soil erosion, locate structures on unstable geological unit or expansive soil creating risk to life or property, or locate septic tanks or other alternative waste disposal systems on soil incapable of supporting such waste disposal. Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence that voter approval result in significant and adverse geological impacts. 16 ' ^ ` EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS V11. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS—WuoNtbcproject: Potentially - Potentially Unless Less Than 8kgnificant Mitigation Significant No . Impact Inco1porated Impactig�act a. Create significant hazard tothe p6bU or the enviromncnt through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? � (Sources: 1"2`4,5,6,&15) b, Create uaigoifiuuothazard to the public or the environment through reasonably tbreoeou6|e upset uod accident conditions involving the n:\euou of hazardous materials into the environment? ~ (Sources: : 1,2,4,i6,&15 C, Emit hazardous emissions or buod\c hazardous or acutely hazardous coo1eriulx substances or waste within � one-quarter mile of an ����� or ^ proposed school? (Sources: 1,2,4.5,6,&c15) d. 8alocated onusite which isincluded ou u list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Cod* Section 65862.5 and, as uresult, would it create u significant hazard to the public urthe environment? ~ (Snmceo:l,2,4.5,6,&l5) c. For a project located n6dzio an airport land use plan or, where such up)au has not been adopted, within two miles of public airport or public use uirpmt, would the project result in u safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. (Sources: )'2'4,5,6.8t0) t For u project within the vicinity of u private airstrip, would the project result inusafety hazard for people residing or working inthe projectareu? ~ (Sources: l,2,4.5,6,&9) 9. Impair implomeotatioo. ofuv physically _ interfere with un!udop1ed.,emergency ' ^obm �v000�mn rcspnos�``�,� or emergency ` plan? � ~ (8nmces: l��,5,6b6) |7 h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1,2,4,5,&6) SUMMARY: No Impact. DISCUSSION: The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to procedures for changing the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps(Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map,as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. Since the action does not approve or facilitate development, or change County General Plan policies or other regulations relating to hazards or hazardous material or change the use designations or location of uses under the General Plan land use map, it would not create or contribute to hazards. The action would not result in the transportation of hazardous material, it would not result in use or disposal of hazardous materials, and it would not release hazardous materials into the environment. Furthermore, the action would not result in an increased risk of air safety hazards, and it does not expose people or structures to wildland fires since it does not approve or facilitate development(e.g. change use designations or location of uses under the land use map in the General Plan). Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence that voter approval would have a direct or indirect physical impact on the environment related to hazards or hazardous materials. } 18 ' ^ ` � EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Woulddeproject: - Potentially Se" ^~"'` Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mb-atiou Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact lmIact u. \/ioiu10 any vvu1cr quality standards or waste discharge requirements? � (Sources: 1,2,4,5,JL6) b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be uout deficit in aquifer volume or u lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g.' the production nate of pre- existing nearby *oUa p/no}d drop to u . level which would not support existing land oaee or planned uoco for which permits have been granted)? � (Sources: l'2.4,5,&6) c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration ofthe course ofa stream or river, in umanner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation uo-oroff-xite? , (Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,7,&8) d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration ofthe course ofu _ stream or river, or oohatauhu||yincrease the rate oramount nfsurface run-off inu manner that would result boflooding on- or off-oitc? ~ (Sources: l2,4.56,7,&8) c. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity ofexisting or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff' ° (Sources: l,2,4,5,6,7,&8) [ Otherwise au6xkmtaJh/ degrade water ' quality? YO (Sources: l,2,4,5'6,7,&8) CF. Place housing within o lOO'ycuz flood hazard area as mapped on a,Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood - Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? �_ �vo__ )9 - (Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,7,&8) h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,7,&8) i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,7,&8) j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,7,&8) SUMMARY: No Impact. DISCUSSION: The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend text in the Land Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial modificationsto the County's Urban Limit Line Map,as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect'physical construction would result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. Since no new development is being approved under the measure, and the measure does not facilitate new development by changing use designations or location of uses under the General Plan land use map, the proposed action would not result in the violation of water quality or waste discharge requirements, it would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge of an aquifer or water table, it would not alter existing drainage patterns, create new runoff, it would not place structures within a flood hazard area, and it would not expose people or structures to flooding by result of a dam/levee or tsunami/mudflow. Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence that voter approval would have a direct or indirect impact on the physical environment related to hydrology and water quality. 20 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 1,2,5,&6) b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or the regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 1,2,3,5,&6) C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Sources: 1,2,5, 6&10) SUMMARY: No Impact. DISCUSSION: The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and.Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. It would also amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch, Pittsburg and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. See Figures 1 and 2 to this Initial Study for more details. The proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the County's Urban Limit Line ballot measure. The proposed action does not approve or facilitate new development because it does not change use designations or location of uses under the land use map to the General Plan,nor does it result in the rezoning of land in the unincorporated area. Since the action does not fundamentally change land use or zoning designations, it would not in any way facilitate new development in the unincorporated area. Besides the procedural changes relating to future expansion of the Urban Limit Line, the proposed action involves voter approval to conform the County's Urban Limit Line map, which is incorporated into the' Land Use Element, to the recently voter-approved Urban Limit Line maps for the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg (November 8, 2005 Special Election), and the previously voter-approved Urban Growth Boundary.for San Ramon(March 2,2002). This action would acknowledge the majority vote in those cities 21 t 7 and the determination by a majority of those voters that certain land areas now in the unincorporated area are within the city's voter-approved Urban Limit Line,meaning that it is reasonably foreseeable these areas will become urbanized under the city's land use jurisdiction when annexed to the city. The cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon may pursue annexation of those unincorporated areas within their respective voter-approved Urban Limit Line without the risk of losing return to source funds from the countywide '/2 cent transportation sale tax program because as specified under the Growth Management Program approved voters in November 2004 under Measure J they now have voter-approved Urban Limit Lines. While this provides no guarantee that certain unincorporated areas now within a city voter-approved Urban Limit Line will or should be approved for annexation, it does mean that there is no loss of important transportation funding that would inhibit them from pursuing annexation. In fact,there are recent examples providing evidence it would be more reasonably foreseeable that certain unincorporated areas now within a city voter-approved Urban Limit Line will be developed to urban uses under city land use jurisdiction, including • City of Antioch—Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Roddy Ranch Annexation, issued on 1/16/2006, the project addressed by this EIR is the proposed annexation of the Roddy Ranch Annexation Area into the municipal boundary of the City of Antioch and into the service area boundary of the Delta Diablo Sanitation District. The project also encompasses the planned provision of urban services to the Roddy Annexation Area. The Annexation Area is a 918-acre area that was the subject of a voter-approved initiative known as Measure K, which was passed by the City's electorate in November 2005. Measure K created a City urban limit line (the "Urban Limit Line"),beyond which future City development is restricted. • City of Pittsburs — Notice of Public Hearing before the Pittsburg Planning Commission on 5/23/2006, on the proposed Mirant Power Plant Annexation General Plan Amendment and Prezoning, This is a city-initiated project to amend the Pittsburg General Plan land use designations and/or prezone approximately 1300 acres of 17 parcels located north of Willow Pass Road and south of Suisun Bay. This unincorporated area was included in Pittsburg's Urban Limit Line approved by the city's voters in November 2005. • City of San Ramon— San Ramon is processing various land use entitlement applications for the Faria Ranch Project within the city's Northwest Specific Plan Area for development within their Urban Growth Boundary. The proposal entails the subdivision of 448 acres for the development of 400 single family residences, 84 townhouses, 216 condominiums, and 86 senior housing units. This project would also involve annexation of certain unincorporated land area, but within the city's Urban Growth Boundary. Consequently, the action to conform the County's Urban Limit Line to the cities' line would not make it more likely that these unincorporated areas would develop to an urban use,but would reflect the reality that these areas will likely develop under the city's jurisdiction. This prospective change in the physical environment would not be a result of action by the County, because until such time as annexation occurs the land uses designations or location of land uses under the land use map to the County General Plan will not change; however, the change would result from actions approved by those respective cities following annexation. The County has never received any requests to change General Plan land use designations in these locations. The procedural changes for future expansion of the Urban Limit Line and revisions to the County's Urban Limit Line map under the proposed ballot measure would be internally consistent with the Land Use Element and other elements to the General Plan. Based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence that voter approval would result in physically dividing an established community, conflict with.applicable land use plans or policies, and,it would not conflict with an applicable(adopted)Habitat Conservation Plan. 22 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS X. MINERAL RESOURCES —Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 1,2,4,5,&6) b. Result in the loss or availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? (Sources: 1,2,.4,5,&6 SUMMARY: No Impact. DISCUSSION: The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps(Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map,as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development, and no direct physical construction would result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. Since no new development is being approved under the measure, and the measure does not facilitate new development(e.g. change land use designations or location of land uses under the General Plan land use map),the proposed action would not result in a loss or availability of mineral resources. Also, the proposed action does not change County General Plan policies or other regulations aimed at the protection and utilization of mineral resources. Consequently,based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence of direct or indirect physical impact on the environment related to mineral resources. 23 . , EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS XI. NOISE—WuuNthenojoo result in: Potentially uigouo^unz . Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact lncolporated lmIac1 Impact a. Exposure ofpersons ,00rgeneration of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards ofother agencies? ° (Sources: l,2.4,5,&6) b. Exposure nfpersons to, nrgeneration of, excessive ground 6urue vibration or ground hocuenoise levels? � (3ourcesl.2.4.5,6t6) C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient onixo \ov6a in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? � (6ourcx: l.2,4,j,&6) d. A substantial temporary or periodic iourcuoe in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? � (Sumzos� l,2,4,i&6) e. For uProject located vkbhn an airport land use plan or, vvberu such o p\uo has not been adopted, within two miles ofa public airport or public use would the project expose people residing or working in the projectarea to excessive noise levels? � ` (&ourcs: l2,4,5,6,&g) f. For u project wbbbo the vicinity of a ' ` private airstrip, would the project expose people residing orworking,in the project area mexcessive noise levels? � (Sources: 1,2,4,5,6.Jt9) SUMMARY: Nn/ngmomc ° DISCUSSION: The proposed action if approved byvoters would amend both the General P\uo and Chapter 82-1, 6585 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend the term of the Drhuo Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line,while making correspondingamendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. 24 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS XI. NOISE—continued It would also amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. Since no new development is being approved under the measure, and the measure does not facilitate new development (e.g. change land use designations or location of land uses under the General Plan land use map), the proposed action would not result in exposing people to excessive noise levels. Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence of direct or indirect physical impact on the environment related to noise. 25 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING—Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation .Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Immpact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ✓ (Sources: 1,2,4,5,&6) b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1,2,4,5,&6) ✓ C. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1,2,4,5,&6) ✓ SUMMARY: No Impact. DISCUSSION: The proposed action if approved by voters would both amend the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch and Pittsburg) and to make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. Voter approval would not induce population growth because the measure neither approves development, nor grants land use entitlements, nor facilitates new development (e.g. change land use designations or location of land uses under the General Plan land use map). New development would not occur as a result of the measure's approval. Voter approval would not result in the displacement of existing housing or people because the measure does not propose development and development would occur as a result of the measure's approval. Additionally, voter approval would not change County General Plan land use map or policies regarding the location of urban uses or the intensity of urban uses (e.g. housing density) in the unincorporated areas of the County. The proposed action would not substantially alter the County General Plan's assumptions about population or the distribution of population in the County. Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence of direct or indirect physical impact on the environment related to population and housing. 26 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTALIMPAC8�S X111. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially ' Significant Potentially Unless Less Than 8iaodiuunt Mitigation Significant No lmpac Incolporated lmVac lm ILact a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilbiea, the construction of x/biu6 could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rabou, ro»punmc times or other performance uNcndveo for any of the pu6|icyurviceu? (Sources: 1,2,4,5,JL6) . l. Fire Protection? 2. Police Protection? 3. Schools? 4. 9odmY 5. Other public facilities? SUMMARY: No Impact. %Df%%ISfD{}N: The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the Gonue! 9\ao and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County,Ord�� Voterco Code. Vapprovapprovapprovalspecifically*ou}dspecifically extend the term ofthe Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, mound the text in the Lund Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land 9zeuurvo1ioo Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's lJrhao Limit Line Map in the Gcmma| Plan toreflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line nzopy (Antioch and Pittsburg) and to make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit line Map` as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval o[the ballot measure. Tbepropooed action does not amend the General Buo land use map (e.g. change land use dooigoa1iooa or location of land uses), nor would the proposed action alter existing policies c« measures relating to the provision of public services in the unincorporated area. The proposed action would not involve or require the physical alteration of governmental facilities. Since voter approval of the boUm« measure does not approve or facilitate development (e.g. obungo \uod use designations orlocation ofland uses under the General Plan land use map),"the proposed action would not induce population growth requiring new coexpanded public services. Cmoycgoeody, based ooareview nf the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there imou substantial evidence ofdirect orindirect impact oothe physical cmvironnnontrelated nupublic services. ` 27 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS XIV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact; a. Would the project increase the use of " existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 1,2,4,5,&6) b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources: 1,2,4,5,&6) SUMMARY: No Impact. DISCUSSION: The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1,.65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line,while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch and Pittsburg) and to make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. The proposed action does not amend the General Plan land use map (e.g. change land use designations or location of land uses), nor would the proposed action alter existing policies or measures relating to the provision of recreation services in the unincorporated area. The proposed action would not involve or require the construction of new recreational facilities.Also, voters are not being asked to approve new development, nor are the voters being asked to facilitate new development, that would induce population growth requiring new or expanded recreational facilities. Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence of direct or indirect impact on the physical environment related to recreation. 28 ^ ' EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS XV. —Would the project: Potentially . uVgnuounc Potentially Unless Less Than ' . Si-nificant Mitigation Siaodficaot No lmDyc IncoQlorlatei lLnQact lmpac a. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number ofvehicle tripo, the volume to capacity ratio on . mads,or congestion at intersections? / (Sources: l`2,4,5,&6) b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, u level of service standard established by the county omogoabon noonugeocot agency for designated roads or highways? � (Sources: \,2,4,5,&6) c. Result in aohuug� in air traffic patterns, including, either an i000au: in, traffic levels oruchange inlocation that results in auhatun6u] safety risks? (Sources: 1.2'4`5,JL6) d� Substantially increase hazards due to u design feature (e.g. xbmp cuo'cx or dangerous intersections)orincompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? � (Sources: ],2,4,5'&6) Resultinadequate o � �� �ouoocr��ncyacoo o? ` (Sources: l'2,4,5,&6) ~ ` | ' [ Result in inadequate parking capacity? - (Sources: 12,4,5.&s0) � Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting ukcoxatbe transportation(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ~ (Sources: l,2.4,5,&6) SUMMARY: NoIn7poct. 29 ' y EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—continued DISCUSSION: The proposed action if approved by voters would both amend the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend text in the Land Use Element relating to procedures for changing the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps and to make other non- substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. Voters are not being asked to approve new development or to facilitate subsequent approval of new development (e.g. change land use designations or location of land uses under the General Plan land use map). Besides the procedural changes for future expansion of the Urban Limit Line, the proposed action involves voter approval to conform the County's Urban Limit Line map, which is incorporated into the Land Use Element, to the voter-approved Urban Limit Line maps for the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg,and San Ramon. This action would acknowledge the majority vote in those cities and the determination by those voters that certain land areas now in the unincorporated area are within the City's voter-approved Urban Limit Line, meaning that they would eventually become annexed and urbanized under the City's land use jurisdiction:(for more discussion on the reasonably foreseeable development of unincorporated lands under city land use jurisdiction where there is a city voter-approved Urban Limit Line, see DISCUSSION under IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING, page 22). Therefore, the proposed action would not alter the existing transportation system (traffic patterns, roadway,rail lines, bus routes, parking, etc.)or induce traffic from new development placing new demand on the existing transportation system. Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence of direct or indirect impact on the physical environment related to transportation/traffic. 30 ^ . EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS XV . UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—TVmUdtheproject: Potentially oguu+m^ Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lmpact IncoMorated lmJac lmpac1 a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ofthe applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: l.2,4,5,&6) b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could ooumc significant environmental effects? , (Sources: ],2`4,5,&6) C. Require or result in the construction of new o1onn water drainage fucildiva, the construction of which could cause oignifiumucnvirnoznentu effects? (Sources: l`2,4,5,&6) d. Have sufficient p/u1er supplies available serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, orare new or expanded entitlements needed? _ (Sources: l,2,4'5.&6) e. Result in u dotecozioudnn by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may yone the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: ) r f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's waste disposal needs? (Oourcey: l,2,4,5,&6) 8 Comply with federal, state and lnod ynztuuo and rcau|ati000 related to solid vvuato? * (Sourcesl.2,4'l&6) 3\ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—continued SUMMARY: No Impact. DISCUSSION: The proposed action if approved by voters would both amend the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch and Pittsburg) and to make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. The proposed action does not amend the General Plan land use map (e.g. change land use designations or location of land uses), nor would the proposed action alter existing policies or measures relating to the provision of utilities-and service systems in the unincorporated area. Voter approval of the ballot measure would not require the construction of new utilities or service systems. Since voter approval of the ballot measure does not approve development, nor would it occur as a result of voter approval, the proposed action would not induce population growth requiring expanded or new utilities or service systems Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban.Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence of adverse impacts on the physical environment related to utilities and service systems. 32 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Im act Impact a. Does the project have the potentia] to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife .population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? WO C. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? SUMMARY: No Impact. DISCUSSION: The proposed action if approved by voters would both amend the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend text in the Land Use Element relating to procedures for changing the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps and to make other non- substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action neither confers any land use entitlement or development approval,nor facilitates development by changing the land use designations or location of land uses under the General Plan land use map. No direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. The proposed action will have no significant physical effects on the environment, either directly or indirectly. 33 ---- - ------ SCHOFIELD &&SSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION TI I),*P)-k'2.\AT'SAN R.AMON TEL: 925-3'.17-0008 San joaq oin Valiq office: 20oO CXOTf-,VQYON PLVA-.',SLTI'17270 Rkx; 1)2.5-327.0009 1506 1 S n%cl,P,0 hw-c 10.37 SmItV\ION.(!,k)4583 WLAi: WWW.Sch413W-COIII )'ax 2119.57r,0325 July 11, 2006 VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL (925) 335-1222 Community Development Department Admipistration Building ii 651 Pine Street 2" Floor- North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Attention: ArUria 13har, Principal Planner Re: Appeal Related to Community Development Department Condition of Approval dated February 22, 2006, Compliance Review 1951 Green Valley Road,Alamo, CA 94507 County Ffle#2106-11230 Dear Ms. Bhat: My clients and I would like to thank Supervisor Piepho as well as you and.your staff in attempting to mediate this dispute. Unfortunately, Dr. Weiner has refused to accept a mitigation Ti(rat.ion that would involve landscaping as a means of shielding my client's home from the effects of the continued glare. For your and.the other members of the Board of Supervisors benefit, I am providing a bn*ef discusslon of what has transpired. You will recall.that at the Board hearing on June 23, 2006, the parties were asked to meet and confer to see if mitigation or relocation of the proposed panels would satisfy the parties concerns with the goal that this appeal would be resolved. Following the hearing, Supervisor Piepho offered her services and office to attempt to mediate. The parties agreed and we met on July 6, 2006 Certainlynot coincidental, Dr. Weiner"adjusted" the three existing solar panel arrays to a near horizontal position and had hi s son write aletter diSCLISSillg increased efficiency of the existing panels at their new position. When the mediation took place, Dr. WcIner did not present any alternative to a location for the six (6) new pa cels other than as proposed and simply announced that the 'glare' was gone and that the photographic evidence presented at the hearing v I t tGC.tYJV 1J•J�F J�.i IVit LLL Gk t"IJJtJI.. . Aruna Bha.t.Principal Planner Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Tuly 11, 2006 Page 2 must have been taken from the second story or roof of appellants' residence. He was assured that this was not the case and that the photographs were taken front the,rear patio of the residence;. The effect o:freposition.ing the panels has reduced the amount of glare, however, it neither has eliminated the glare from the existing panels nor addressed the increased Aare from the installation of six (6) new panels which continues to pose a health and safety, danger to my clients, their family and guests. Appellants brought their landscape architect who presented a landscape plan that would include plantilig of low growing trees and bushes that would shield the existing as well as proposed panels. This proposal provided. for appellants to bear all of the expenses of installation, watering and maintenanca. The landscaping would straddle the property tine adjac:ent,to appellants' residence and Dr. Weiner would simply provide a landscape license into his property for approximately 15 to 20 feet. The landscaping license would comply with the statutory restrictions that the planting not interfere with the solar array's operation. Appellants would also agree that the license would terminate upon the sale of either residence so that there.would be no encumbrance on the property should.Dr. Weiner choose to sell lois estate. You will recall that the statutory restriction that grants the .Beard discretion concerning the installation of solar panels for conditions that pose'a threat.to health and safety would limit mitigation expense to $2,000 to Dr. Weiner. Appellants' proposal satisfies this regt.iirement since the proposal would be at no cost to Dr. Weiner. The only burden on Dr. Weiner would be his allowing appellants the right to have access to a defined landscape license for installation, watering and maintenance of the planting. Dr, Weiner has failed to provide any proposaYfor a mitigation that would protect appellants from the Health and safety concerns of the constant glare from the existing panels that would necessarily result frorn the new installation. He has failed. to provide an alternative site for the proposed panels and has failed to provide any cost estimate for mitigation. He continues to propose the installation of six (6) additional solar arrays that will virtually double the square footage 'footpritzt' of the solar arrays and bring the panels some forty(40) feet closer to appellants home than what presently exists, Dr, Weiner does not address that the proposed panels will literally double the glare condition. Appellants have provided clear evidence that the health and safety issues far outweigh Dr, Weiner's need to install. the panels as proposed. It is respectfully requested that the.Board grant this appeal and retake a finding that the health and safety issues presented by the existence of glare onto appellants' property exists and' That Dr. Weiner be required to presedpla.ns that would,relocate the proposed solar, panel array to a new location downhill on his property that i.s not confi.guous to appellants residence. r-una Brat,Principal Planner Contra Costa (,aunty Board of Supmisors July 11, 2046 Page 3 Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, SCHOFIELD & SO ' TLS, PLC LOUTS F. SCHOFIEL LFSIrrg cc: Board of Supervisors C tient i i . 3OAKD Ur 0711 Ou wW 1 i { TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa `' ° COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ��.,.,._ ,_.:.��4 County r� cat? DATE: June 13, 2006 SUBJECT: SCHOFIELD & ASSOCIATES FOR NAMPHUONG TRAN & TRUNG DUNG (APPELLANTS) MICHAEL WEINER (OWNER) APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE INSTALLATION OF SIX GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PANELS. THE PROPERY IS LOCATED AT 1951 GREEN VALLEY ROAD IN THE ALAMO AREA (APN 1.93-770-001), COUNTY FILE #Z106-11230, DISTRICT Ill. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS UPHOLD the Community Development Department's decision that approved the installation of six ground mounted solar panels and deny the appellant's appeal. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS (ABSENT CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Lorna Villa(925-335-1236) ATTESTED cc: Community Development Department (CDD) JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Schofield &Associates, Appellant Dr. Tran & Mr. Dung, Appellant Dr. Weiner, Property Owner BY , DEPUTY County Counsel Bryan Ranch Homeowner's Association June 13, 2006 Board of Supervisors Pile#Z10611230 Page 2 BACKGROUND On May 23, 2006, the Board of Supervisors heard testimony from the property owner, Dr. Michael Weiner. Since the appellants were unable to attend the meeting, they had earlier requested a continuance. The Board continued the item to the June 13, 2006 meeting. Staff has included photos to illustrate the location of the panels in relation to both residences. G: Current Planning/ Staff Reports/Z106-11230 Board Order2 : � �`�.rn-v� w,` 'gas �.' ,�+ �s --�rxc� t e a'- �x'� - � 'a�E'x" �"-' F r .����.r � "�•"����f . ,..-- n�'.�R. ^�.,•� ,�-'�r�x a��' ��, ��� "#�r� '���� v��y�$5,�g�� s ,ia�;��s#'��`�' w.:�. i�'�„-��� 13k IZ ,90 55 *„k rte,, t Y�L�'�� r+• t T'Ei ,�` tr `>:,'ra r 'a �" R. + { - k r ' r r i w. sum Act �.+ r•i6., "� :s kf ? s +. �ktYF Y a' '�,"Y�,.,. t e 4. t .,• � Laa4hr t$ � ' 1g',y c"°✓a va,,.'� r 4 53 b °i �y } r��` 5, Om'tt` w"a'' HT 5 �t ,i'Salg �k,�. .i to cn�'.:. ,y� ANMAWK ��h,,.t � �., WWOWN y cyad '"S ,f3' irn3a `xj P '4a, s''�' � ��v�t! rn�AC �k°`aytr t�'E� .+fir. �tl• k Z" �' -"yy+4',�itk`-r xY r� o,���.4��.a,_�y��,�t� �y ""idis� � ��` "� ?��s� , gv �i Y,az^-: `s f4 c•s r c+ Solar Panels as seen looking north from the foot of the berm. t .�u Fu� e � tf 9•! , n K 5 y i.`.. __may,... twg`�r.• ,ras,r:3.?�+k. '.�� .. �t �;, vx -�.,� ',�' _aha NAM f �g k � `i 7 'C•e:l 'qtr � '�s.iro� �� .. ;-t r te'- ����. �.;.t 77", 45 is A a d. A 1 u sr { s.. r a .�n� i� t tr.� �.��r'"1 ]' rr,�7.� �ur3�' g^p r+r ;.�v,, `�•�rr �.� �'#N�..}�a�^kt � Vic:. e'�'4.�= a ', - t V'. 4„ r R: !><�z�sa k,$'s J.'��y.f`."y,��']3 `�w'�1�-����7�' ��'�wr,.,s4 .�s '�rt��'+ �a:.�""�.I,.d•#�'eu�,�'•�, ��"�"�.�f^.�� s��* �f� '��t�,,.�`R�['�.r i , ( ` ,,CC 9x7 r•�. ar � c,;; n C xw,»a < S"-r' ` �.i'� 'h 7 �' �5 �. 9k a-� } ys 1 fix,,4�r z Y�• �, �t ag s�?'��� ��„s-��i-t�'k�.?,r`�''�•`��•'fk''�t'����rye{��r'�.va•"'�'S�����.r�:�' x '�`�t- .sy .� d��'9�`°�n�-.-" 7 �1�,�n', +�3! '��yY'4 TyY`t�>;a,'y$���,�l��t'`•^�h4`.zs�9v"�'�� �5 v�y�t7"�{.�?' 2�°r'��'7���°3'o-������� �1 ��� �� al ,'1 rqrl •5 t _ es �•Ju s � r •�' ^Y'ht�'*syk�' lG -fs},r.+ tta*r},,if 51 a tis ' '. h r. ,a^ `� � rt i�1 n � -:. k �'1 art � 'A�',•� " .t''��h�l•..r`" F�'Y._ C�r4y }itk �� � j y�ze�`''%�l"�� ��.���"'Tz �d . `x t2.s -s`tp.� fr2.L z t'ts i 3,�d} s'F 9.7 �,~< F e'a�rt � 1.,,d �� �t4•�� � `� �'�� y r x T `��r ? �•., F' r i F •� Ni �� ��k.-�2 i�,�lir� � �.� .�� g ,�t l� Y:a`4 h�^ t 4✓ �•r y a 3s5� fi�r c�'�°x*�e. t t i� • 4( -k�r�(;�7 ic. (1 � - s Yy `r�% "'J'gs- t ty Sx s Y tF, t ,• ;r vx5.rl,.Rt h 3hS�..�.k Y� 3�` i 1 4 t•} ¢v -.(.� Y t�7i �,}�. '�_' s i -"fir�•- ' Vy a fhx+�, s :ss.S�1 `f +� p�.y Tk ,y i .. Y, E '?R� _. ✓t tl. f i 5 t Solar Panels as seen looking north,from the southwest corner of 'Dr. Weiner's property. T p p i 'may o- a NOk '. w t 3 A southeasterly view of the Tran's home taken from the western (and therefore! highest) corner of the most southern panel (panel closest to the Tran's home) . � " je ME Ca t w, fir; .- ~'N .Y �«;g..... Ny �. �+•(x ^'4x�.-a 3 ,sr:��'^. �tay,.d �� ��3y. .t^..'§ -i'll, L,-+•T>". .-F,w L �„�„r«c� �� F nC=�T "Z".. „i • h`�'a.. .rva.. - 4._ � i c r Pn TOT p ' a 41 '41 ," fir. �' 7 �,. +S•r--.- � p�a . ''`"�: $ � c.vi-._�4 �. -. < - i..'"'^s,�,{t s, .� zR ,v' tl�' �' •Oq nom,: .�, .. �L ro 5., • .,:. -. _,� a e:��%'°e2'er I A.• m-i Q�. s q x. - _ _ _ f r' a �t Solar Panels as seen from Dr. Tran's property. v�"0�. t iN.�d 3 -�' M,y mss. �r.•r r RN,: a''w'' ...aP �.`f��r ht•w.v ,� 'tS'a cn- : 9 Sy -: w .:,; `�'^' �t..yr}-_ - . aa� - �, � ,�:d✓W`+�.Cfi - - �*� i 1Y sir w o'` � n{ 1 rye*ter f ' a6 � �'T � '.-�s °+S�S`Y t� ` .�t°�r -i4�'r- '�T'h its' t v ..;yr� ..i-•��...— .�A 'M 12 ,.h... -..E '¢rha f Ar v a ✓�,�� -' r.?, i.�1 t `r�"��z� ' t''t i t .+ i.r^.a J s ''' .nv't'c. �'w 'Lr r�'-,��y�+._'' F��. A fit„ �,J� "'�J•, � F b � .�9.�'� }F,���r d �)! �:.L� -. t'� Yom' ��'"♦ 7' .,r,�p � .: a � a4,r eg><�,;# v-s 0 x r a "' 'ar�r wa Wst -•r-- . M ..$rrys .' > •.... t4: yy^'h" „_. fi , � ..� fxt YY �..�' i. 44�� 4 > ♦ �e}iG.' k a rrr rr-*�.z '- y ,,, "�u � is *. "P�.. 7-• � - .a /"'�Y c +.. '?� �<� b.kt4 � ar � . -py, � � _m r F' �`� .f�` fir'' s r a"`-•v J + .'.r rt '41Y' / � • r r r,'+e t'' s .?+•.�,a; ':y. '' 3r r....,. :,yam ' Mid- 40. �+ s �' -• ��.�.,�sy v r#°``14`5r.p, � ;:,,, is 3; � N 7 , •�'�S '�,�" nS tK,� �,_-.�( 3 3 SY%V.. - rt( 'ra+' .. .°P• ,p A 'F ��ix�� r..�"1 ,,,�,1£t � ua '�.,-y,G�� tyV ' S-.x.. ...x?'',.r"�'` .t:;•' ..;�y '�, .:�,�-':,. 71. a E s•`. 'T�,%. �k,�#�"+ 's�'1M'"s'*FL -"k`" Y`'�`t r,,�,'a�� t r;� °V x � - ;:� 'zFt�,�t� �.���4;H� rte" �3X+'«���.rY i �•-ro � ,,..{ �,�%�+�"��s � •'�-.' cq(�dfi� ��..,r .aN t ''.f� ..% -n.�,,� x><�r.u�r� .is �' `,q s�.: t ,�� � - - � .-/'# `o�� I'fi�,,.5��3` N� ;s,3'"� �_c, 'th{�a�„„xe; '-•.rtQ-.„, •• 3.Y. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY AICP ;°a °� - 's Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County rn c 6 DATE: May 23, 2006 SUBJECT: SCHOFIELD & ASSOCIATES FOR NAMPHUONG TRAN & TRUNG DUNG (APPELLANTS) MICHAEL WEINER (OWNER) APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE INSTALLATION OF SIX GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PANELS. THE PROPERY IS LOCATED AT 1951 GREEN VALLEY ROAD IN THE ALAMO AREA (APN 193-770-001) (COUNTY FILE #Z106-11230) (DISTRICT III) SPECIFIC REQUESTS) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATIONS UPHOLD the Community Development Department's decision that approved the installation of six ground mounted solar panels and deny the appellant's appeal. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER _ VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS (ABSENT�) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Lorna Viiia(925-335-1236) ATTESTED cc: Community Development Department(CDD) JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Schofield & Associates, Appellant Dr. Tran & Mr. Dung, Appellant Dr.Weiner, Property Owner BY ,DEPUTY County Counsel Bryan Ranch Homeowner's Association May 23, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#Z10611230 Page 2 11. FISCAL IMPACT. The appellant. (Schofield & Associates) has paid the initial appeal fee of $125.00. The property owner (Dr. Weiner) will be required to pay for staff time in excess of $125.00 associated with.the processing of this appeal. 111. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The appellant is appealing the placement of six additional solar panels arrays at 1951 Green Valley Road in Alamo. The subject property is located within the Bryan Ranch Development located in the Danville/Alamo area of the County. The development was approved as a Planned Unit District in 1978. On July 2, 2002,the Community Development Department approved County File#DP01 3016 Condition of Approval Review(attached)for the placement of three photovoltaic panels. The approval identified conditions the property owner(Dr. Weiner) volunteered to incorporate to help screen the panels.The decision was appealed by Ms.Tran and Mr. Dung and ultimately, the Board of Supervisors upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision to allow the three photovoltaic panels. In February of 2006, Dr. Weiner requested approval to install six additional photovoltaic panels at the west end of his property. The Community Development Department approved the installation of the additional panels on February 22, 2006.•This decision was also appealed. The project site is a steep 3.73-acre lot with elevations varying from 535 at the lower level of the property to 775 at the top of the site. The single family home is located at the east end of the lot. The solar panels are located approximately 400 feet from the residence and are not visible from Green Valley Road because of the topographical difference. IV. APPEAL DISCUSSION Listed below is a summary of the appellant's statement and staff's response. 1. Appeal Point: The proposal doubles the accessory structure in size by adding six new solar arrays (94)sq.ft. each, which are being placed closer than the sixty five foot setback that was required by the original conditional approval. The Zoning Code limits the area coverage of an accessory structure to 600 square feet. The six new solar arrays add an additional 564 sq. ft. to the existing accessory structure that is 612 sq. ft. The accessory structure approved in 2002 already exceeds the limitations set forth in the Ordinance. ResDohse: The Zoning Code allows detached accessory structures to be placed three (3) feet from the property line if it is set back at least fifty feet from the front property line. The location of the six new panels, which are to be placed 26 feet from the south property line, May 23, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#Z10611230 Page 3 complies with the setback requirements. The zoning does not limit the number of accessory structures. 2. Appeal Point: The pending proposal doubles the size of the accessory structure allowed by the 2002 approval; does not address that the pending proposal installs six (6) new solar arrays when the 2002 approval limited the accessory structures to three (3); does not address mitigation for a setback from the property line to reduce the adverse effects on our property; does not address any mitigation for vegetation or other growth to shield the visual effect to our property; and does not address reflection and glare that not only occurs form the existing accessory structure but also from the installation of the six (6) -new solar arrays. Response: The 2002 decision was related to the application to install solar panels. It did not otherwise establish limitations on the property. It should be noted that the State law was amended to specifically limit local agencies in the review of solar energy systems. Government Code Section 65850.5 requires local agencies to administratively approve applications to install solar panel systems through a nondiscretionary permit. Review of applications is limited to whether the system will have an adverse impact on public health and safety. The visibility, aesthetic design, and reflectivity are all examples of issues beyond the review prescribed by State law which states (refer to Government Code 65850.5): (a) The implementation of consistent statewide standards to achieve the' timely and cost-effectiveinstallation of solar energy systems is not a municipal affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of Article X1 of the California Constitution, but is instead a matter of statewide concern. It is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies not adopt ordinances that,create unreasonable barriers to the installation of solar energy systems, including,but not limited to, design review for aesthetic purposes, and not unreasonably restrict the ability of home owners and agricultural and business concerns to install solar energy systems. It is the policy of the state to promote and encourage the use of solar energy systems and to limit obstacles to their use. It is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies comply not only with the language of this section, but also the legislative intent to encourage the installation of solar energy systems by removing obstacles to, and minimizing costs of, permitting forsuch systems, (b) A city or county shall administratively approve applications to install solar energy systems through the issuance of a building permit or similar nondiscretionary permit. Review of the application to install a solar energy system shall be limited to the building official's review of whether it meet a// health and safety May 23, 2006 Board of Supervisors Fife#Z10611230 Page 4 requirements of local, state, and federal law. The requirements of the local law shall be limited to those standards and regulations necessary to ensure that the solar energy system will not have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. However, if the building official of the city or county has a good faith belief that the solar energy system could have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, the city or county may require the applicant to apply for a use permit. (c) A city or county may not deny an application for a use permit to install a solar energy system unless it makes written findings based upon substantial adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. The findings shall include the basis for the � rejection of potential feasible alternatives of preventing the adverse impact. (d) The decision of the building official pursuant to subdivisions (b) and(c) may be appealed to the planning commission of the city or county. (e) Any conditions imposed on an application to install a solar energy system shall be designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety at the lowest cost possible. (f) (1)A solar energy system shall meet applicable health and safety standards and requirements imposed by state and locally permitting authorities. (2) A solar energy system for heating water shall be certified by the Solar Rating Certification Corporation (SRCC) or other nationally recognized certification agency. SRCC is a nonprofit third party supported by the United States Department of Energy. The certification shall be for the entire solar energy system and installation. (3) A solar energy system for producing electricity shall meet all applicable safety and performance standards established by the National Electrical Code, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and accredited testing laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories and, where applicable, rules of the Public Utilities Commission regarding safety and reliability. May 23,2006 Board of Supervisors File#Z10611230 Page 5 3. Appeal Point: During the past three and one half years, the vegetation planted on the earth berm to the south of Dr. Weiner's property has been neglected and allowed to become unkempt. It has not provided the visual shielding that the mitigation required for visibility of the existing solar arrays and has not prevented glare and reflection. The addition of six (6) more solar arrays will not only increase the visibility from our property, but will cause an even greater negative impact on our property's value. Response: The July 2, 2002 approval to install three photovoltaic panels was subject to landscaping conditions with which Dr. Weiner volunteered to comply. Subsequent to the installation of the three panels,the required landscaping was installed in compliance with the approved permit. 4. Appeal Point: Dr. Weiner's property is located within the Bryan Ranch Homeowner's Association. Dr. Weiner's application to the Bryan Ranch Architectural Committee was denied (attached) on January 13, 2006. As of the February 22, 2006, Conditions of Approval Compliance Review, the proposed project has not been approved by the Architectural Committee. However, it appears that Dr. Weiner re-submitted his request after the County issued a building permit on February 24�' and received a conditions approval from the Architectural Committee on February 28, 2006 (attached). This approval was based on the erroneous representation that the 2002 mitigation measure had been complied with, that the County has approved the project as well as alleged relaxed setback distance requirements. Response: Please refer to the response for Appeal Point#2. 5. Appeal Point: We would like to call the Board' attention to the magnitude of the solar energy production that is proposed. The 2002 solar arrays were represented to produce 7,800 kwh per year. Dr. Weiner's physical data proposes to install six new solar arrays generating a total of an additional 6,800 kwh per year. Utilizing the California Energy Commission's recommendations, the combination of solar arrays should satisfy the electric need of two residences. Which means that this is not simply being installed for residential consumption. Perhaps this is why Dr. Weiner offered to sell electricity to us. What Dr. Weiner proposes is the equivalent of solar panel "farm" that certainly is not in compliance with the zoning regulations for the planned community. Response: Please refer to the response for Appeal Point#2. 6. Appeal Point: The proposed solar array is not-suited for the proposed location next door to our home for a variety of reasons: a No review of the solar array's color or location has been conducted to insure that it will blend with the landscape and that the glare will not impact the Iccal streets and structures. • There was no analysis of alternative locations. May 23, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#Z10611230 Page 6 • There is no analysis that the solar arrays presently.existing as well as proposed have and will cause excessive reflection that intrudes into living areas and amount to a nuisance. • There is not analysis for grading and construction to minimize the visibility to our house and local streets and structures. • There is no analysis that the proposed solar arrays satisfy the minimum setback required by the 2002 mitigation measures. • There is no analysis that the proposed solar arrays will create excessive energy production that would amount to a,business venture that is not in compliance with the County zoning regulations. Response: Please refer to the response for Appeal Point#2. V. CONCLUSION Pursuant to Section 65850.5 of the Government Code, local agencies are required to administratively approve applications to install solar panel systems through a nondiscretionary permit. Review of the application is solely limited to requirements necessary to mitigate specific, adverse impacts on public health and safety;The proposed panels do not impact public health and safety. Staff recommends that the Board uphold the administrative decision that allowed the installation of six (6) additional solar panels and deny the appeal. G:Current Planning/Staff Reports2I06-11230 Board Order SCHOFIELD &ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PROF.SSIONAL LAW CORPORATION nFIE PLIaA-kr SAN RAMON 7M., 925.327-0008 San)ouquin Valley ofcc 20(x)CROW C-ANYON PLACE,SUITZ:170 270 FAX_ 925-327-0009 15W.1 Saacs,P.O.Box 1637 SAN RAMON,G49a583 EMAIL: ma;I@sch4Iti -com Modaco,Ca6iarrm 95353 'WEB: www.96412W.cam 2(19.57(-8888 T--=209-576-6725 TLC ihY to: Sart Ramon March 23, 2006 IMAR, 2 4 �RECT HAND DELIVERED Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board 651 Pine Street,Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Notice of Appeal Related to Community Development Department Condition of Approval dated February 22,2006, Compliance Review 1951 Greeu Valley Road,Alamo, CA 94547 County Fite#2106-11230 Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors; Dr..NamPhuong Tran and Mr. Tntng Dung are the owners of the property located at 60 Oak Glen Court, Alamo, California,which is immediately south and adjacent to the proposed solar panel array that Dr. Weiner wishes to construct. We are bringing, this appeal to challenge the administrative decision made by a County Officer, On February 22, 2006,Ms. Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director with the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, issued a Condition of Approval Compliance Review for the proposed project. This determination finds that the proposed photovoltaic(?V'� panels are an accessory structure that comply with the R-h 5 District standards and concluded that the panels comply with the provisions of the zoning district and.with the intent and purpose of the P-I District. We believe that this determination is in error and is not supported by the zon.ing regulations and evidence in the Community Development Department's files related to this project. This determination is not based on an adequate independent analysis by the County and inadequately addresses the project alternatives,health, safety, visual, financial and other concerns which would be considered during a full land use permit review, This is the second proj ect by Dr. Weiner for installation of solar panel arrays at this sane location on his property. The first project was the subject of contested proceedings that resulted in approval based on the negotiation of mitigation measures because of the magnitude and Contra Costa County Board.of Supervisors Re: ' Notice of Appeal March 23, 2006 Page 2 exposure of that project. This ultimately was presented to the Board of Supervisors at the Board hearing on October 1, 2002 (County File#DP013016,District III), We enclose a copy of the Board's decision as Exhibit"A". The mitigation included.the limitation to three(3) solar arrays which would be permitted to be installed sixty five(65) feet from the southern property line (that abuts ourproperty). The approval was for a total accessory structure size of 612 square feet for the three solar arrays to be installed on terraced.pads intended to reduce the height and. visibility from our house, installation of an earth berth along the south property line with the planting of four(4) trees plus an.additional 30 inch box tree to the northeast of the arrays, This installation was completed in 2002. The new proposal virtually doubles the accessory structure in size by adding six(6) neve solar arrays (44 square feet each), width are being placed closer than the sixty five(65) foot setback that was required by the original conditional approval. Section 82-4.212 of the Zoning Ordinance provides standards for an accessory structure, (a) a floor area coverage of 600 square feet on lots greater than 20,000 square feet in area; and., (b) 15 feet in height. The six (6) new solar arrays adds an additional 564 square feet to the existing soar array accessory structure that is 612 square feet. The accessory structure approved in 2002 already exceeds the limitation set forth.in the Ordinance. The Compliance Review does not address that the pending proposal doubles the size of the accessory structure allowed by the 2002 approval; does not address that the pending proposal. installs six (6) new solar arrays when the 2002 approval,limited the accessory structure to three (3); does not address any mitigation for a setback from the property line to.reduce the adverse effect on our property; does not address alternative sites on Dr. Weiner's property which could be to the north and out of view of our property; does not address any mitigation for vegetation or j other growth to shield the visual effects to our property; and, does not address the reflection and glare that not only occurs from the existing accessory structure but also from the installation of the six (6) new solar arrays. During the past three and one-half years,the vegetation plantedon the earth berm to the south of Dr. Weiner's property has been neglected and allowed to become unkempt. It has not provided the visual shielding that the mitigation required for visibility of the existing solar arrays and has not prevented glare and reflection. The addition of six (6) more solar arrays will not.only increase the visibility from aur property, but will cause an even greater negative impact on our property's value. 1 Weiner's emer s property is located within the Bryan Ranch Homeowner's Association. Dr. 1 Weiner's application tot he Bryan Ranch.Architectural Committee was denied on January 13, ' r. 2006, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit'B", As of the February 22, 2006.Condition of 1 Approval Compliance Review, the proposed project bad not been approved by the Architectural Committee. However, it appears that Dr. Weiner re-submitted his request after the County issued . i i I Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Re: Notice of Appeal March 23, 20061 Page 3 r i' �i a building permit on February 24`''.and received a conditional approval from the Architectural i� Committee on February 28, 2006,copy of which is attached as Exhibit"C". 'This approval was i based on the erroneous representation that the 2002 mitigation measures-had been carnplied with, that the Countyhad approved the project as well as alleged relaxed setback distance requirements. We would also like to call the Board's attention to the magnitude of the solar energy production that is proposed. The 2002 solar arrays were represented by the installer to produce an estimated 7,800 kwh per year. The State of California Energy Commission in it's Consumer Guide and guides to system.design and installation state that the average residential property consumes 7,500 kwh per year. In other words, the 2002 solar arrays should satisfy more than 100%of the needs of the average residence. Here,Dr.Weiner's physical data proposes to install six new solar arrays generating a total of an additional 6,900 kwh,per year. Utilizing the California Energy Commission's recommendations,the combination of solar arrays should satisfy the electric,needs of TWO residences . . . which.means that this is not simply being installed.for residential consumption. Perhaps this is why Dr. Weiner offered to sell e=lectricity to us. What Dr. Weiner proposes is the equivalent of a solar panel 'farm' that certainly is not in compliance with the zoning regulations for the planned.community. l �. The proposed solar array is not suited for the proposed location next door to our home for a variety of reasons; • No review of the solar array's color or location has been conducted to insure that it will blend with the landscape and that the glare will not impact the local streets and structures. I • There is no analysis of alternative locations. • There is no analysis that the solar arrays presently existing as well as proposed have and will cause excessive reflection that intrudes into living areas and amount j to a nuisance. • There is no analysis for grading and construction to minimize the visibility to our house and local streets and structures. • There is no analysis that the proposed solar arrays satisfy,the minimum setback required'by the 2002 mitigation measures. • There,is no analysis that the proposed solar an•ays will create excessive energy production that would amount to a business venture that is not be in compliance with the County zoning regulations. Contra Costa County Hoard of Supervisors Re. Notice of Appeal March 23, 2006 Page 4 i We recognize that the State's policy is to encourage alternative energy production, however this policy has never been intended to eliminate the rights of neighboring property i) owners to ask for mitigation that will avoid a negative impact to our and oui neighbors' properties. Dr. Weiner in creating his collection of nine(9)solar arrays completely disregards any mitigation for the negative effect that it has on the property of others. Based on the information above,we request that the February 22, 2006 Condition of Approval Compliance Review and the pending building permit application for the proposed solar arraybe suspended pending resolution of this appeal by the Board of Supervisors. If you have any questions or comments regarding this appeal,please contact me at(925)362-1398. By our signatures, i verify under penalty of perjury that the statements contaim.ed herein, to the best of my knowledge, are true and correct. Very truly yours, amI hh— n�Tran Trung Dung Enclosures cc: Louts F. Schofield, Esq. a�eai u,(1?27o6.wpd BRYAN RANCH HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATJON Architectural Committee Project Review Request Project Nao. 94-05 Owner: Michael Weiner Applicant: Same Phone: 831-2830 Property Address: 1951 Green Valley Rd. Tract: 6188 Lot: I The Applicant/Owner hereby applies for approval to make improvements to Owner's property as described below or in attached pians and specifications. By making this Request, I acknowledge that the Bryan Ranch CC&R's and Architectural Rules are binding on the Applicant/O-vvner, and agree that the subject property and all improvements added thereto shall be maintained in full compliance with the CC&R's and Rules. Dated: December 16, 2005 Si.,nature on File Owners Signature Install a supplemental solar panel system per the attached, undated reduced size drawing by AlvisProjects, Inc. sheet PV-1 and 5 pages of selected portions of the full sized drawing. The Architectural Committee reviewed the information submitted and based on that review and consideration of the Bryan Ranch CC&R's and the Architectural Rules reached the following decision on 1-11-06 (X) Not Approved for the reasons indicated.below. ( ) Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed equipment location shown on plan PV-1 violates the County & ARC approved property, line setback distances per"Option B, Enlarged View #1" drawing for the existing solar panels. 2. Existing solar panel location shown on the submitted plan does not agree with the County approved "Option B, Enlarged View#1"that specified a setback from the southern property line of 70 feet with a 5 ft high screening berm 40 to 60 feet long and 35 feet from the western property line. 3. The submitted plan PV-1 is not legible and much information has been blacked out. A full size drawing is required that shows the true location of the existing panels, associated equipment, landscaping and the location of proposed equipment with details of what is actually proposed including the installation and routing of conduit to the main power distribution panel in the home. 4. Additional view screening landscaping may be required in addition to the 12 15-gallon f=lannel Bush along the southern property line and the Chinese Pistache tree that mere required in 2002. Project tinning: Per CC&R Section 3.04 D fir. E, work must start within 8 months of the approval date, or the approval shall be deemed revoked. Within 8 months after start of construction, «ork must be completed. The Architectural Committee is to be notified when work is complete. Any/all approvals made by the Architectural Committee are for aesthetic purposes only. County and State Code requirements apply. Date: / ?, .� t. flay For the Committee - File: 1951 Green Valley Rd_P 94-05 Rev: June 18.2003 BR YAN RANCH O.1 EO WNERS A SSS CIA TION c/o Jean Bates & Associates, Pa Box 669, Danville, Calif6mia 94526 (925) 838-2095 January 13, 2006 Michael Weiner 1951 Green Valley Road . Alamo,CA 94507 Re: Architectural Committee Project Review Project 94-05 Dear Mr.Weiner. The Architectural Committee has rejected your application to install additional solar panels on your property for the reasons indicated in the enclosed Project Review Request Form, However, the Committee will reconsider your application, provided it contains the information specified in the Committee's denial. You are encouraged to resubmit your request, taking advantage of the guidance provided. I have attached the "Procedure for Requesting Reconsideration by the Board of Directors" if you wish to appeal the committee's decision. Sincerely, jJ Paul R. Wilkinson Administrative Assistant Cc: Architectural Committee Chairman Enclosures: Project Review Request dated January 11, 2006 Procedure for Requesting Reconsideration by the Board of Directors Couni y Condition of Approval Review dated July 2, 2002 Michael Weiner letter with Option B dated July 3, 2002 Michael Weiner letter dated August 14, 2002 agreeing to plant 12 Flannel Bush File: 1951 Green Valley Rd_P 94-05 fr arry, ICP Community Contra Dennis it Deva prne Community Dovelopm=nt Director Development Costa Department County inty Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Mari'tnez,Caliiomifl94553-Op95 ` l'f \ Phone: (925) 335-1236 July 2, 2002 Dr. Michael S.Weiner - 1951 Green Valley Road `"�•- Alamo, Ca 94507 Dear Dr.Weiner: Re: County File#DP013016 Condition of Approval Review For placement of photovoltaic panels 1951 Green Valley Road,Alamo On May 29, 2002, you submitted a Condition of Approval Review under file 9DP013016, to install three photovoltaic panels on your p7operty referenced above. The property is located txithin the Bryan Ranch Development located in the Danvi11e1Alamo area of the County. The development was approved as a Planned Unit Development District in 1978, and included several conditions of approval. The Community Development Department deten-nined that photovoltaic panels are an accessory structure and a Conditions of Approval Review(COA)was necessary to ensure that the panels are consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 District. Condition#2 of the subdivision states: Prior to the issuance ofany buildingpermit and/orgradingpermit for work on any lot, theproposed residential buildings and accessory structurp_s to be located on that lot shall be first submitted for review and approval by the County Planning Director. The guide to be used to establish setback, yard and height dimensional requirements and otherprovisionsfor development and u-se on each lot shall be the Single Family Residential District R-15..." I have reviewed and considered all information you submitted including revised"Option B site pian submitted on June 25, 2002. The letters submitted by Dr. NarrmPhuong Tran, your neighbor at 60 Oak Glen Court in Alamo, a letter dated May 15, 2002 from the Alamo Improvement Association, and letters dated April 26, 2002 and June 14, 2002 from the Bryan Ranch Homeowners Association have also been reviewed. We met on June 23,2002 to view the site and mock-up of the panels. We also viewed the site from Stone Valley Road and connecting collector streets. On June 26,2002,I viewed the site from Dr.Tran's property at 60 Oak Glen Court; this property is located to the south of 1950 Green Valley Road. At the site visit on June 23,2002,we discussed mitigations you proposed to screen the view of the panels from surrounding properties. AIthough it would be extreme]),difficult to see the panels from Stone Valley Road,I appreciate your willingness to plant a box tree to the east of the panels to screen any possible view,from Stonc Valley Road. Your proposal (Option B attached) to relocate the southern bank of panels further from your 1 Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. n firs is rincarf tha 1 ct '�rrf R 5th Fririays nt aanh mnnth S: south property line lessens the impact to the adjacent property. The additional landscaping along the south property line and grading to the west of the panels,you propuse also contribute to minimize its effect. The conditions of the subdivision require compliance with the Single Family Residential District R-I5.I have evaluated your proposal against the R-15 District standards and concluded that the panels comply with the provisions of the District. Based on this,approval is granted for the placement of three photovol laic panels at the west end of the property. The project is approved as identified on plans prepared by Alvis Proj ects Inc.and as revised on Option B dated June 25,2002, subject to.the conditions you have volunteered to incorporate as listed below. Please note that the items listed below also include comments from Bryan Ranch Homeowners Association. The following items shall be submitted to the Community Development Department forreview and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit. 1. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted and include the items listed below. Additionally, approved all landscaping shall be installed,prior to requesting a final inspection of the panels. a. One 30-inch box Chinese Pist:ache tree shall be planted along the east side of the solar panels, The tree shall be planted outside the drip line of the existing trees and located to screen any possible view of the panels from the cast side of the property, b. A five-foot high berm,approximately 40 to 60 feet in length,planted with native grasses,shall be located to the southeast of the panels to help screen the view of the panels from the adjacent property to the south. c. Four 15-gallon trees shall be planted along the south property line, 15 feet on center commencing at the southwest comer of the lot. 2. Two copies of a grading plan in compliance with the Grading Ordinance shall be submitted that demonstrates the west end of the panels will be decreased in height. No cut shall be steeper than 2:1. Identify the volume of the cut, the volume of the fill and the approximate amount the panels will be lowered.Please note that any grading involving more than 200 cubic yards will require a soils report and grading permit. 3. A revised site plan shall be submitted that incorporates"Option B"(attached)which relocates the most southerly panel to the north. 4. Provide evidence that you have made a good faith effort to deliver your landscape plans to the Bryan Ranch Homeowners Association and have sought comments from their Architectural Committee, 5. The three foot high metal equipment box that will house the inverters and the electric panel shall be painted to blend in with the hillside. 6. The revised site plan shall demonstrate that the automated drive equipment will be placed on the north side of the panels for each array. Additionally,the concrete pad for the placement of the automated drive equipment shall be minimized as much as possible. 7.. Demonstrate that the Solar Rating Certification Corporation or other nationally recognized agency certifies the proposed photovoltaic system. 2 Once the above listed information is submitted and accepted as adequate the plans will be approved by the Community Development Department. If you have any questions do not hesitate to cal meat(925)335-1236. Sincerely, Arp Loma Villa Project Planner Attachments; Option B Site Plan dated June 25, 2002 Landscape plan I I PV-P June 14,2002 letter from��ww Offices of Gagen, McCoy, McMahon &Armstrong Bryan Ranch Homeowners Association letter dated April 26, 2002 cc: Archer Norris,Attention Ed Shaffer, 2033 North Main Street Suite 800, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 w1attachnients Byron Ranch Home Owners Association,C/o]can Bates&Associates,P.O.Box 3428, Danville,Ca 94526 Alamo Improvement Association, P.O. Box 271,Alamo, Ca 94507 Trung Dung &NamPhuong Tran, 60 Oak Glen Court, Alamo, Ca 94507 w/attachments Catherine Kutsuris, Comniunity Development Department G:currt.)iwiAett=s/DP0 13016 CDA Itr AICP C o m m u n itv Dennis t Barry, pme E Community Development Director t Ea Development Costa Department County County Administration Building FE 'L 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 (925) 335-1236 ' Phone: SrA•c6uK February 22, 2006 Dr. Michael Weiner 1951 Green Valley Road Alamo, CA 94507 Dear Dr. Weiner: RE: County File#ZI06-11230 Condition of Approval Compliance Review 1951 Green Valley Road The Community Development Department has reviewed your application to install six photovoltaic panels at the west end of your property at 1951 Green Valley Road. The property is located within the Bryan Ranch Development which was approved as a Planned Unit Development in 1978. The conditions of the subdivision require compliance with the Single Family Residential District R-15. The photovoltaic panels are accessory structures and a Condition of Approval (CUA) Compliance Review is necessary to ensure that the panels are consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 District, Staff has viewed the site and considered all information submitted including the site plan submitted on February 10, 2006, and the letter dated January 11, 2006, from the Bryan Ranch Homeowners Association. The site visit of February 16, 2006, revealed that due to the topography of the site, the six panels proposed would be lower in height than the existing panels that were installed in 2002. The Community Development Department has evaluated your proposal against the R-15 District standards and concluded that the panels comply with the provisions of the zoning district and with the intent and purpose of the P-1 District. Based on this, approval is granted for the placement of six photovoltaic panels at the west end of your property, as generally identified on plans dated February 10, 2006,prepared by AlvisProjects, Inc. Please note that the determination to be made by the Deputy Director is considered an administrative decision made by a County Officer. Pursuant to the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code the decision may be appealed directly to the Board of Supervisors within 30 days (by March 24, 2006) of the action, Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1st. 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month Enclosed are three copies of the approved plans to be used for building permits. If you have any questions you may contact Lorna Villa at (925) 335-1236 or Aruna Bhat at (925) 335-1219. _ Sincerely, Catherine Kutsuris Deputy Director Attachment: Approved plans (3 sets) Cc: Byron Ranch Homeowners Association, c/o Jean bates & Associates, P.O. Box 3428, Danville, Ca 94526 w/o attachment Alamo Improvement Association,P.O. Box 271, Alamo, CA 94507 w/o attachment Trung Dung &NamPhuong Tran, 60 Oak Glen Court, Alamo, CA 94507 w/o attachment &currplan/letters/Z106-11230 hT 1951 Green Valley Road : Alamo, CA 94507 r Nigel S. Wei& KD, April 6, 2006 Board of Supervisors: I thank Loma Villa forproviding me this opportunity to present my concerns regarding the appeal by Tran and Dung of the Community Development Department's decision to issue a condition of approval on February 22, 2006, regarding the installation of solar panels. At the outset I wish to point out that most of the concerns contained in the appellants' letter are identical to those contained in the letter submitted by the appellants September 05, 2002. These include the issues of color, location, grading, and county setbacks.- I am confident that the staff report Will adequately address these points. On the other hand, I am personally disturbed by several statements of the appellants that are both patently false as well as politically and socially dangerous. The appellants allege that Dr. Weiner has, during the past three and one- half years, neglected the vegetation planted on the earthen berm. That is untrue. The only vegetation planted were several trees that have continued to grow despite the voracious appetite and incessant attacks by the local deer population. I have regularly cleared weeds around the trees, re-staked the trees for reinforcement, and protected them with netting. The appellants' claim that the solar arrays"will cause an even greater negative impact on our property's value" has no supporting evidence and is contrary to evidence based on the independent property appraiser, Zillow.com, which demonstrates a steady increase in value of the appellants' home since the installation of my initial solar arrays in November 2002. Please see accompanying exhibit. The story chronicling the denial by the Bryan Ranch Homeowners' Association Architectural Review Committee is both inaccurate and misleading. The Architectural Review Committee did deny my request on January 13, 2006. This denial, however, represents a violation of California Civil Code 714, which clearly states that such denials are void and April 8, 2006 Page 2 unenforceable. More ominously, the denial by the Architectural Committee reflects an illegal impersonation of a county official and therefore represents a potentially seriouscriminal offense. `:Furthermore, Weiner did-not re= submit any request to the Architectural Review Committee. Their letter of approval dated February 28, 2006 was unsolicited, gratuitous, and replete with false statements such as "new information" and ""relaxed setback distance requirements." The paragraph pointing out the magnitude of the solar installation should be scrutinized because of its political and social implications. Both Dr. Weiner and the appellants reside in homes considerably larger than the average California resident. The appellants' implication that Dr. Weiner is either not worthy to be permitted access to the electricity he needs to run his household, or is engaging in some form of illegal:activity, is both preposterous as well as fascist. Such malicious accusations should not be tolerated in this or any other governmental forum! I strongly believe in the rule of law and the rights of citizens and neighbors to express their.grievances. This appeal, however, is both redundant and malicious. The.substantive points were dealt with in the October 1, 2002, hearing before the Board of Supervisors. No land use or political issues have changed. I have demonstrated .the usage of-more electricity than I have generated and feel compelled, as a responsible and concerned citizen, to mitigate that usage by increased generation. The placement of additional solar panels provides a reasonable and sanctioned solution. What should not be sanctioned is the abuse of process by the appellants, not only in bringing up issues that have already been resolved; but in doing so in an inflammatory and malicious fashion. While the costs related to this hearing are typically borne by the defending party, I beseech the Board in this matter to make a determination waiving those costs and insodoing illustrate to the public its support for solar and alternative energy and its intolerance of abusive and redundant appeals. Sincerely, r' r Michael S. Weiner, M.D. Zillow.com-Data& Graphs-Real Estate Value,Local Real Estate Trends Page l of 2 �- « freta Your Edr-in Real Estate 60 Oak Glen Ct, Alarn f CA 94507 ZESTIMATETM: $3,575r664 Value Range: $3,146,584 - $3,825,960 Market Value Change Show: Dollar E O/o Percentage Time frame: jyrj Syr E 2-yr Since last sale $4:OOm- $3.64m- r $3.00m $2.50m $2.0Om- $1.5Om $1.00m- cl%00Et Ztttrr;i,'.Ccirrt $016m- Jar102 JanO3 Jan04 JanOS Jan06 Compare: This home 94507 Alamo Contra Costa CA USA Show sales ZestimateT' Rankings This home at $3,575,664 is valued higher than: �Zindex (Median ZestimateTM) • 98% of homes in 94507 ZIP code $1,266,333 ', • 98% of homes in Alamo $1,266,858 ; • 99% of homes in Contra Costa County $598,163 �- 9 9% of homes in CA state $527,088 • 990/6 of homes in United States $256,565 Historical Value Trends Show as: 0/o C $ C a/o annualized Past: This home 94507 Alamo Contra Costa CA US 130 days 1.5% -2.3% -2.20/c 0.3% -1.9% r 1 year 5.5% 25% 25% 20% 200/b 14% 15 years 42% 113% 113% 133% _M1 172% 87% 10 y— 147% 192% 1920/b 272% 267% 98% ` Last sale (09/15/2000) 74% 121% 122% 149% 181% 890/6 http://www.zillow.com/Charts.z?chartDuration=5years&zpid=l 8427739 4/50006 r 8 � a N s � a i'n � 4 °q� L • i e os m 0 n � n s Vol z� O f'�A �'.�fj NZt � O ypNCp rl SI1 Z. 1 � \© T2�N QL O�Ty p L pi7.Al�ili2�C N 4.ti ""Cow"O'S v � �ne and w 'povVe , sysijo ' oso solar ;5on 12�p6 � ' n w Exp �t w D.5 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Date: Ju1_y18, 2005 Public Comment There were no requests to speak. The following person submitted comment via email: Pamela Peterson, in regard to dissatisfaction with services provided by the Children and Family Services Department. THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY NO BOARD ACTION WAS TAKEN 01Ns DoE IPv�b l�2 —w-+w ' I <cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us> net> cc: 07/12/2006 03:42 PM Subject: Data,posted to form 1 of http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.ht m Username: Pamela Petersen UserAddress: 1617 Pomona St. UserTel: 510-787-6858 UserEmail: mommy3125@yahoo.com AgendaDate: Option: D.1 AgendaItem: Remote Name: 4.243.224.82 Remote User: HTTP User Agent': Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; (R1 1.5) ; NET CLR 1.1.4322) Date: 12 Jul 2006 Time: 15:42--45--,- Comments: 45"'-Comments: I would like to bring to the attention of the Board, the unethical/illegal manner in which Children and Family Services conducts themselves. Are any of the Board members aware of the tactics some social workers employ, in order to "win" their cases? It is common for SW's to lie in their reports, perjure themselves in a court of law, needlessly attack the character of good parents,and use any questionable means they deem necessary, to "win" their cases. Always, of course, in the name of what is in the child/children's "best interest.. " Those who work for the dept.of CFS, who view the dismantling of families,as a ".win" , are sadly mistaken as to the essence of their job, and why it even exists. I am fairly certian that when the idea of- an agency to protect children, and provide resources- that would allow families to stay together, was born, that at no time during it's inception, was it part of the plan, to .needlessly remove children from their homes, viciouslyattack the character of parents, or resort to lies and purjury, in order to be "right" . CFS takes a decidedly advarsarial stand "against" parents,and the family unit, which is not only counter-productive, but an adulteration of their purpose, and a betrayal of public trust. As tax-payers, we entrust CFS with the responsibility of protecting children from neglect/abuse, (real,not imagined, and/or invented) , and providing families with needed resources, that will strengthen, and educate the family, thereby,allowing families to stay together. I know from personal experience w/CFS, that they fail in every aspect of their job. I also know, from the extensive research I have done, regarding CFS, that my experience is not unique, rather it is the norm. CFS portrays itself as the champion of children and families, claiming to treat all people fairly, with dignity, without bias,and to operate within the guidelines of the law. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just as with any group, their are good ones and bad ones.In the case of CFS, the bad ones continue to betray the public trust, and harm the mission of those who seek to protect children and educate and empower the family unit. It would appear that some of the recent federal mandates have been interpreted by CFS .to mean,, [the more children they remove from the loving care of their parents, the more revenue for their county/state. ] I am quite sure, that is not how such mandates were meant to be interpreted. You and I both know that everything in this country revolves around the almighty buck. Anyone who disputes that is fooling themselves. Money keeps the great machine moving, both of which are necessary for our economy to thrive. It is no secret that rarely is there enough money for all the various needs at all the various levels, local,state,and federal. I do not dispute that more money is needed in CCC, to meet the needs of our social services programs/depts. , but is that need worth destroying even one family? I say, NO! Please, do not write me off as a disgruntled -client of CFS. My complaints against CFS are very real. I request an investigation into the operations of CFS, ASAP. I am happy to provide the extensive evidence I am in possesion of that may be helpful in such an investigation. It is my sincere desire to identify those who are guilty, and bring them to justice, thereby, allowing those with the correct vision of what CFS was created to be, to continue with their work, and provide the resources and services needed by families. that will allow them to stay together, as a family. If there is a "winner" , it needs to be the family, not some power hungry, misguided social worker. When the family wins, the children win, their caregivers win, and society as a whole wins. If we as a society continue to allow the family unit to be destroyed, which plays itself out in so many negative ways,we will have no one but ourselves to blame for the deterioration of our society. I take seriously my responsibility to my children and to mankind, to have made the world a better place for my having been here. I hope you do too. What kind of values are we instilling in our children? What kind of world are wecreating for our children, and their children, and so on, and so on. . . . . . .? These are questions we need to ask of ourselves, often. MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY July 18, 2006 Chair Supervisor John Gioia convened the meeting of the Board of Supervisors this day at 9:00a.m., in the Board Chambers, Room 107, of the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California. The Deputy Clerk called the roll, Supervisors present were: Gayle B. Uilkema, District II Mary N. Piepho, District III Federal D. Glover, District V And Chair Supervisor John Gioia, District I Absent: Mark DeSaulnier, District IV At approximately 9:05 am the Board of Supervisors adjourned to Closed Session. The Board reconvened at 9:30 a.m. with all Supervisors present, and stated there were no Closed Session announcements. The Board adjourned at 1:20 p.m. with no Closed Session announcements. Attested: July 18, 2006 John Cullen, Clerk of the Board and County Admi 'strator B e cHuen, eputy&A SMENA SHARE\CONVENE 2006\July 18, 2006.doc t s Exhibit One Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors November 2006 General Election Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure Revised Ballot Language Per Board of Supervisors Mtg,05/I6/2006 2006 Voter Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Shall the voters amend the Contra Costa County General Plan and the County's 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (County Ordinance Code Chapter 82-1) to: (i) extend the term of the County's Urban Limit Line to the Year 2026; (ii) require voter, approval to expand the line by more than 30 acres; (iii) adopt a new Urban Limit Line Map; and (iv) establish new review procedures? TEXT OF PROPOSED MEASURE The People of the County of Contra Costa County hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. TITLE This measure shall be entitled the 2006 Voter Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line. SECTION 2. SUMMARY This measure amends the Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) and the 65/35 Contra Costa Land Preservation Ordinance in the following ways: (1) It extends the term of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance from December 31, 2010 to December 31, 1 Revised Ba//of Language Per Board of Supervisors Mfg. 05/16/2006 2026. (2) It provides that, through December 31, 2026, the General Plan cannot be amended to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres without a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors and approval of the voters. (3) It provides for periodic reviews of the Urban Limit Line, including a mandatory mid-point review in Year 2016 involving an evaluation of land supply to satisfy 20-year housing and job needs in Contra Costa County. (4) It incorporates a new and revised Urban Limit Line Map that reflects the approvals of city Urban Limit Lines or Urban Growth Boundary maps by voters in the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon and also reflects other non-substantive boundary changes at various locations. (5) Finally, the measure retains the 65/35 land preservation standard and protections for the County's prime agricultural land. SECTION 3. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND FINDINGS The voters approve this measure based on the following facts and considerations: A. In November 1990 the voters approved Measure C-1990, the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (Chapter 82-1 of the County Ordinance Code), which limited urban development in Contra Costa County to no more than thirty-five (35) percent of the land in the County and required that at least 65 percent of all land in the County would be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, and other non-urban uses. Measure C-1990 also established a countywide Urban Limit Line 2 Revised R&/Of 4anguage Per Board of Supervisors M ty 051t612006 identifying non-urban agricultural, open space, and other areas beyond which no urban land use could be designated during the term of the General Plan. B. County Ordinance Code Section 82-1.028 currently provides that the Urban Limit Line will remain in effect until December 31, 2010. This measure would extend the duration of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan (which includes the Urban Limit Line) to December 31, 2026, thus extending the protection to the County's non-urban and open space areas for an additional 16 years. Because the factors contributing to the need to adopt the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan still exist, it is appropriate to extend these protections through the year 2026. C. The procedure by which the Urban Limit Line may be changed, either by the Board of Supervisors or by action of the voters, is described at page 3-9, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County General Plan, and in Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Section 82-1*.018. To provide additional protection to the County's non- urban and open space areas, this measure would require that, through December 31, 2026, the General Plan cannot be amended to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres without a • four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors and approval of the voters. 3 Revised Ra//0t Language Per Board of Supervisors Mtg. 05/16/2006 D. This measure would establish a procedure to allow the Board of Supervisors to review the Urban Limit Line on a 5-year cycle, commencing in 2011, to consider whether changes should be made to reflect changing times. This measure would also require a 10- year comprehensive review of the Urban Limit Line in 2016 to determine whether there is sufficient land available to satisfy housing and jobs needs for Contra Costa County for the following 20 years. Because housing and job needs, as well as social and environmental factors, may change over the years, it is appropriate to provide for this review procedure in 2016, which is the mid- point of the extended term, to determine whether expansion of the Urban Limit Line should be considered to meet the changing needs of the County. SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION To implement this measure, the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005- 2020) and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, are amended as follows: A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 1. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN MAP DIAGRAM At page 3-10, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), Figure 3-1, Urban Limit Line Map (black and white version sized 8"x 11"), and a color version of Urban Limit Line Map 4 Revised Bal/at Language Per Board of Supervisors Mfg.05/16/2006 (11" x 17" insert to the General Plan) are hereby amended, as shown on Figure One: Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Map, which is attached to this measure. Each will be titled: "Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Map" and adopted to show the boundary of the Urban Limit Line, as approved by this measure. 2. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN TEXT The General Plan is hereby amended to revise the text of "CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE", at page 3-9 of the Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan, as follows. New text shown in bold italics and underline rexample] is added to the.existing text while text in strikeout font [exaffiple] is deleted from the existing text. Text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure. CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE There shall be no change to the ULL that would violate the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. ehanb holding a pubiie hearing, and b fallawing findings based an substantial evidenee7C reeerd: There will be no change to the ULL except in the manner specified herein. There will be no change to the ULL unless the Board of Supervisors first holds a public hearing at which it approves the chanee or chances, by a four-Ffths vote, after making one or more of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: 5 Revised Ba/lot Language Per Board of Superw'sors Mtg.05/16/2006 (a) a natural or man-made disaster or public emergency has occurred which warrants the provision of housing and/or other community needs within land located outside the ULL; (b) an objective study has determined that the ULL is preventing the County from providing its fair share of affordable housing or regional housing as required by State law, and the Board of Supervisors finds that a change to the ULL is necessary and the only feasible means to enable the County to meet these requirements of State law; (c) a majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the County have approved a change to the ULL affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement; (d) a minor change to the ULL will more accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal boundaries; (e) an objective study has determined that a change to the ULL is necessary or desirable to further the economic viability of the east Contra Costa County Airport, and either (I) mitigate adverse aviation related to environmental or community impacts attributable to Buchanan Field, or (ii) further the County's aviation related needs; (f) a change is required to conform to applicable California or federal law. (g) a five (5) year periedie cvelical review of the ULL has determined, based on criteria and factors for establishing the ULL set forth above, that new information is available (from city or County growth management studies or otherwise) or circumstance have changed, warranting a change to the ULL. 6 Revised Ballot Language Per Board of Supervisors Mtg.05/16/2006 Any General Plan amendment that would expand the ULL by more than 30 acres shall require voter approval of the proposed General Plan amendment, following the public hearing and the four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors approving the General Plan amendment and making one or more of the findings set forth in subsections (a) through (g) above. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a proposed General Plan amendment to expand the ULL by more than 30 acres does not require voter approval if, after a public hearing, the Board of Supervisors by a four-fifths vote approves the General Plan amendment and makes either of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: (i) the expansion of the ULL is necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property; or (ii) the expansion of the ULL is necessary to comply with state or federal law. Expansions of the ULL totaling 30 acres or less do not require voter approval. [ADD THE FOLLOWING NEW PARAGRAPHS UNDER THE HEADING "CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE", at page 3-9 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as follows] The Board of Supervisors may conduct a cvclical review of the ULL every five years. The Board of Supervisors will review the boundary of the ULL in the year 2016. The purpose of the year 2016 review is to determine whether a change to the boundary 7 Revised Ba//o t Language Per Board of Supervisors Mfg. 05/16/2006 of the Counhl's Urban Limit Line Map is warranted, based on facts and circumstances resulting from the County's participation with the cities in a comprehensive review of the availability of land in Contra Costa County sufficient to satisfy housing and lobs needs for 20 vears thereafter. This review of the ULL is in addition to any other reviews of the ULL the Board of Supervisors may conduct. Any change to the ULL proposed as a result of anv review authorized by this section must be adopted pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section. These provisions are effective until December 31, 2026. B. ORDINANCE CODE CHANGES 1. To be consistent with the amendments to the General Plan that change the boundary of the Urban Limit Line, the People of the County of Contra Costa hereby enact Ordinance No. 2006-06 as follows: TEXT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE Ordinance No. 2006-06 Section 1. Title. This ordinance shall be entitled the "2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line." Section 2. Summary. This ordinance amends Chapter 82-1 of the County Ordinance Code to extend the term of the County's Urban Limit Line to the year 2026, 8 Re v1sed Ballot language Per Board of Supervisors Mtg.05116/2006 to establish new procedures to review the boundaries of the Urban Limit Line and to prohibit expansion of the line by more than 30 acres without voter approval. Section 3. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.010 is amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is shown in bold italics and underline [exam p ], text in strikeout font [e*aRi*] is deleted from the existing text and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure): "82-1.010 Urban limit line. To ensure the enforcement of the 65/35 standard set forth in Section 82-1.006, an urban limit line shall be established, in approximately the location depicted on the ill ustfative 65,135 Gen�ra Cest GeuRly hand Pfesefvatien Plan Map attaehed as- Exhibit A to Ofdiaanee Ne. 90 66 "Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Map" adopted by the voters on June 6, 2006 The urban limit line shad be is incorporated into the county's open space conservation plan. The urban limit line shall limi limits potential urban development in the county to thirty-five percent of the land in the county and shall pr-ehibmi:4 prohibits the county from designating any land located outside the urban limit line for an urban land use. The criteria and factors for determining whether land should be considered for location outside the urban limit line should include (a) land which qualifies for rating as Class I and Class 11 in the Soil Conservation 9 Revised Ba//of Language Per Board of Supervisors Mfg, 05/16/2006 Service Land .Use Capability Classification, (b) open space, parks and other recreation areas, (c) lands with slopes in excess of twenty-six percent, (d) wetlands, and (e) other areas not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development, unstable geological conditions, inadequate water availability, the lack of appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing development, likelihood - of substantial environmental damage or substantial injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat, and other similar factors. (Ords. 2006-06.$3, 91-1 § 2, 90-66 § 4). Section 4. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.018 is amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is shown in bold italics and underline [example], text in strikeout font [elle] is deleted from the existing text and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure): 82-1.018 Changes to the urban limit line. (a) There shall be no change to the urban limit line that violates the 65/35 standard set forth in Section 82-1.006. After adoption of the new general plan, as Except as otherwise provided in this Section, as long as there is no violation of the 65/35 standard, the urban limit line can be changed by a four-fifths vote of the board of supervisors after holding a public hearing and making one or more of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: 10 Revised Rallo f Languoge Per Board of Supervisors Mtg. 051161,?006 (1) A natural or manmade disaster or public emergency has occurred which warrants the provision of housing and/or other community needs within land located outside the urban limit line; (2) An objective study has determined that the urban limit line is preventing the county from providing its fair share of affordable housing, or regional housing, as required by state law, and the board of super-visors finds that a change to the urban limit line is necessary and the only feasible means to enable the county to meet these requirements of state law; (3) A majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the county have approved a change to the urban limit line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement; (4)A minor change to the urban limit line will more accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal boundaries; (5) A five-year per-iodie cyctical review of the urban limit line has determined, based on the criteria and factors for establishing the urban limit line set forth in Section 82-1.010 above, that new Revised Ballot Language Per Board of Supervisors Mtg.05/16/2006 information is available (from city or county growth management studies or otherwise) or circumstances have changed, warranting a change to the urban limit line; (6) An objective study has determined that a change to the urban limit line is necessary or desirable to further the economic viability of the East Contra Costa County Airport, and either(i) mitigate adverse aviation-related environmental or community impacts attributable to Buchanan Field, or (ii) further the county's aviation related needs; or (7) A change is required to conform to applicable California or federal law. referendum as pr-ovided by !a-w. Changes to th urban limit lino , ndef . ethe. , mst.,nees shall fequife a ate .file people. (b ) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, any proposed General Plan amendment that would expand the urban limit line by more titan 30 acres will require voter approval of the proposed General Plan amendment in addition to and following a four- fifths vote of the board of supervisors approving the General Plan amendment and making one or 12 Rewsed Ba//ot Language Per Board of Supervisors Mtg.05/16/2006 more of the findings required by subsection (a) above. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a proposed General Plan amendment to expand the urban limit line by more than 30 acres does not require voter approval if, after a public hearing, the board of supervisors by a four-fifths vote makes either of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: (i) the expansion of the urban limit line is necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private Property; or (ii) the expansion of the urban limit line is necessary to comply with state or federal law. Proposed expansions of 30 acres or less do not require voter approval. (c) The board of supervisors may conduct a cyclical review of the urban limit line every five vears. (d) The board of supervisors will review the boundary of the urban limit line in the year 2016. The purpose of the year 2016 review is to determine whether a change to the boundary of the county's urban limit line map is warranted, based on facts and circumstances resulting from the county's participation with the cities in a comprehensive review of the availability of land in Contra Costa County sufficient to meet housing and lobs needs for 20 vears. This review of the urban limit line is in addition to 13 Revised Ballot Language Per Board of Supervisors Mtg.05/16/2006 any other reviews of the urban limit line the board of supervisors may conduct. (f) Any chanze to the urban limit line proposed as a result of any review authorized by this section will not be effective unless it is approved pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section. (Ords. 2006-06$4, 91-1 §2, 90-66 §4.) Section 5. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.028 is amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is shown in bold italics and underline [example] while text in strikeout font [exile] is deleted from the existing text and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure): 82-1.028 Duration. The provisions of this chapter shall be in effect until n,.,.,..r..'ber- ;' 2010 December 31, 2026, to the extent permitted by law. (Ords. 2006-06.$5, 91-1 § 2, 90-66 § 4). SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE This measure shall become effective immediately upon approval by the voters. Upon the effective date, Section 4.A) 1. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN MAP DIAGRAM and Section 4.A) 2. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN TEXT of this measure are hereby inserted into the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), as one of the four consolidated general 14 Revised Ba//of Language Per Board of Supervisors Mfg.05/16/2006 plan amendments for calendar year 2006 allowed under state law. Upon the effective date, Ordinance No. 2006-06 is hereby enacted as a County ordinance, amending the County Ordinance Code. SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY If any portion of this ordinance is hereafter determined to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, all remaining portions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. Each section, subsection, sentence, phrase, part or portion of this ordinance would have been adopted and passed regardless of whether any one or more section, subsections, sentences, phrases, parts or portions was declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 7. AMENDMENT OR REPEAL Except as otherwise provided herein, this measure may be amended or repealed only by the voters of Contra Costa County at a countywide election. G:\Advance Planaingladv-planlULL Ballot Measure\ULLBailotMmsumNov7IN16bommiond516n6.doc 15 Revised Ba//at Language Per Board of Supervisors Mfg.05/16/2006 FIGURE ONE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE MAP (Note:Map is sized for the voter pamphlet) ® 2006 Proposed Voter Approved Contra.Costa County Urban Limit Line Map 0 2.5 5 Miles c °. 5 3a..Me�H^ C wx,e 9'" Ouse K HERLVLEs wane¢ neauao -__ _ \ ,4-i. y 7. jll N PO wcwoxo :,' - ��,i ewe •� N�Is t '.S' PLEA MT ,� r � � � ~; BPENiWDpp ��, ..G\ 4�� , �� ^•,��•,, IAF�vErn: caEE. t i �, ,P -.,; Legend a R «oo+ a.d..r Proposed Urban Limit Line �' a .. oA s > Agriculture,Open Space,Wetlands, Parks and Other Non Urban Uses (Outside the Urban Limit Line) Agricultural Core(Outside the Urban Limit Line) r Prepared by Contra Costa County Community Development CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 16 Exhibit One Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors November 2006 General Election Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure Revised Ballot language Per Board of Supervisors Mfg. 0911612006 2006 Voter Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Shall the voters amend the Contra Costa County General Plan and the County's 65/35 Land Preservation Flan Ordinance (County Ordinance Code Chapter 82-1) to: (i) extend the term of the County's Urban Limit Line to the Year 2026; (ii) require voter. approval to expand the line by more than 30 acres; (iii) adopt a new Urban Limit Line Map; and (iv) establish new review procedures? TEXT OF PROPOSED MEASURE The People of the County of Contra Costa County hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. TITLE This measure shall be entitled the 2006 Voter Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line. SECTION 2. SUMMARY This measure amends the Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan (2045-2420) and the 65/35 Contra Costa Land Preservation Ordinance in the following ways: (1) It extends the term of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance from December 31, 2010 to December 31, 1 Revised Ballot Language Per Board of Supervisors Mty 051161,?006 identifying non-urban agricultural, open space, and other areas beyond which no urban land use could be designated during the term of the General Plan. B. County Ordinance Code Section 82-1.028 currently provides that the Urban Limit Line will remain in effect until December 31, 2010. This measure would extend the duration of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan (which includes the Urban Limit Line) to December 31, 2026, thus extending the protection to the County's non-urban and open space areas for an additional 16 years. Because the factors contributing to the need to adopt the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan still exist, it is appropriate to extend these protections through the year 2026. C. The procedure by which the Urban Limit Line may be changed, either by the Board of Supervisors or by action of the voters, is described at page 3-9, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County General.Plan, and in Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Section 82-1.018. To provide additional protection to the County's non- urban and open space areas, this measure would require that, through December 31, 2026, the General Plan. cannot be amended to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres without a 'four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors and approval of the voters. Revised Bal/of Language Per Board of Supervisors Mfg. 05/16/2006 (11" x 17" insert to the General Plan) are hereby amended, as shown on Figure One: Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Map, which is attached to this measure. Each will be titled: "Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Map" and adopted'to show the boundary of the Urban Limit Line, as approved by this measure. 2. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN TEXT The General Plan is hereby amended to revise the text of "CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE", at page 3-9 of the Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan, as follows. New text shown in bold italics and underline [example] is added to the existing text while text in strikeout font [exrafftple] is deleted from the existing text. Text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure. CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE There shall be no change to the ULL that would violate the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. ehanb holding"a ublie h5Effi Tb-ZLiidTT1 making ane of fnOTe-'of th reeerd: There will be no change to the ULL except in the manner specified herein. There will be no change to the ULL unless the Board of Supervisors first holds a public hearing at which it approves the change or changes, by a our-fifths vote, after making one or more of the following endings based on substantial evidence in the record: 5 Revised galley f Language Per Board of Supervisors Mtg.05/16/2006 Any General Plan amendment that would expand the ULL by more than 30 acres shall require voter approval of the proposed General Plan amendment, following the public hearing and the four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors approving the General Plan amendment and making one or more of the findings set forth in subsections (a) through (g) above. Notwithstanding the fore-eoinp, a proposed General Plan amendment to expand the ULL by more than 30 acres does not require voter approval if, after a public hearing, the Board of Supervisors by a four-fifths vote approves the General Plan amendment and makes either of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: (i) the expansion of the ULL is necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property; or (ii) the expansion of the ULL is necessary to comply with state or federal law. Expansions of the ULL totaling 30 acres or less do not require voter approval. [ADD THE FOLLOWING NEW PARAGRAPHS UNDER THE HEADING "CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE", at page 3-9 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as follows] The Board of Supervisors may conduct a cvclical review of the ULL every five years. The Board of Supervisors will review the boundary of tite ULL in the vear 2016. The purpose of the vear 2016 review is to determine whether a change to the boundary 7 Revised Bollo f Language Per Board of Supervisors Mtg. 0511612006 to establish new procedures to review the boundaries of the Urban Limit Line and to prohibit expansion of the line by more than 30 acres without voter approval. Section 3. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.010 is amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is shown in bold italics and underline Lqyamle], text in p stakeout font [example] is deleted from the existing text and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure): "482-1.010 Urban limit line. To ensure the enforcement of the 65/35 standard set forth in Section 82-1.006, an urban limit line shall be established, , in approximately the location depicted on the illustrative 65 35 Gentra Gest Geunt�, Land Pfesenxatien Pim Map a4aehed Eidiibil A to Or-dinanee Ne. 90 66 "Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Map" adopted by the voters on June 6, 2006. The urban limit line shall be is incorporated into the county's open space conservation plan. The urban limit line shall-lima limits potential urban development in the county to thirty-five percent of the land in the county and ssha4l pfeli;T prohibits the county from designating any land located outside the urban limit line for an urban land use. The criteria and factors for determining whether land should be considered for location outside the urban limit line should include (a) land which qualifies for rating as Class I and Class 11 in the Soil Conservation 9 Revised Ba/lot Language Per Board of Superwsors Mtg. 05/16/2006 '(1) A natural or manmade disaster or public emergency has occurred which warrants the provision of housing and/or other community needs within land located outside the urban limit line; (2)An objective study has determined that the urban limit line is preventing the county from providing its fair share of affordable housing, or regional housing, as required by state law, and the board of supervisors finds that a change to the urban limit line is necessary and the only feasible means to enable the county to meet these requirements of state law; (3) A majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the county have approved a change to the urban limit line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement; (4) A minor change to the urban limit line will more accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal boundaries; (5) A five-year period cvclical review of the urban limit line has determined, based on the criteria and factors for establishing the urban limit line set forth in Section 82-1.010 above, that new 11 Revised Ballot Language Per Board of Supervisors Mfg. 05/16/2006 more of the findings required by subsection (a) above. Notwithstanding the foregoine, a proposed General Plan amendment to expand the urban limit line by more than 30 acres does not require voter approval if, after a public hearinz, the board of supervisors by a four-fifths vote makes either of the followinz findinzs based on substantial evidence in the record: (i) the expansion of the urban limit line is necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property; or(ii) the expansion of the urban limit line is necessary to compiv with state or federal law. Proposed expansions of 30 acres or less do not require voter approval. (c) The board of supervisors may conduct a cyclical review of the urban limit line every five vears. (d) The board of supervisors will review the boundary of the urban limit line in the year 2016. The purpose of the year 2016 review is to determine whether a change to the boundary of the countv's urban limit line map is warranted based on facts and circumstances resulting from the county's participation with the cities in a comprehensive review of the availability of land in Contra Costa County sufficient to meet housing and jobs needs for 20 years. This review of the urban limit line is in addition to 13 Revised Ballo t Longuage Per Board of Supervisors Mtg. 05/16/2006 plan amendments for calendar year 2006 allowed under state law. Upon the effective date, Ordinance No. 2006-06 is hereby enacted as a County ordinance, amending the County Ordinance Code. SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY If any portion of this ordinance is hereafter determined to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, all remaining portions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. Each section, subsection, sentence, phrase, part or portion of this ordinance would have been adopted and passed regardless of whether any one or more section, subsections, sentences, phrases, parts or portions was declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 7. AMENDMENT OR REPEAL Except as otherwise provided herein, this measure may be amended or repealed only by the voters of Contra Costa County at a countywide election. &Mvanee Planet&dv-pWn\ULL Ballot Measure\ULLB21lotMr surcNov2U06bosacuont151606.doc 15 Revised Ballot Lon Per Board of Supervisors Mtg. 05/16/2006 FIGURE ONE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE MAP (Note:Map is sized for the voter pamphlet) e2006 Proposed Voter Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Map o z.s s Miles '' 9 t Pciw .+'t '! NlnOCN ONtLEY Q � } k CON y •P I Legend t F Proposed Urban Limit Line �`••�, � d Agriculture,Open Space,Wetlands, Parks and Other Non Urban Uses (Outside the Urban Limit Line) r° 4 Agricultural Core(Outside the Urban Limit Line) Prepared by Contra Costa County Community Development CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 16 Attachment "C": Written Comments Received During Noticed Review Period On Proposed November 7, 2006, 2006 Voter- Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure and Re-circulated CEQA Review �� EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT June 23, 2006 Patrick Roche, Principal Planner Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,North Wing, 4h Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Negative Declaration- Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure Sponsored by Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Dear Mr. Roche: East Bay Municipal Utility District(EBMUD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure (County files GP#06-0001 and ZT#06-0001). EBMUD has the following comments. EBMUD requests that the County consider extending the term of the Urban Limit Line extension to the year 2030, rather than 2026, as this would align with ABAG's and EBMUD's planning horizons. On page 3, Section VIII c), it states that if the ballot measure passes,the Contra Costa County General Plan will be amended to "Incorporate the City of San Ramon's voter approved General Plan Land Use and Urban Growth Boundary Map (March 2, 2002) affecting the San Ramon area." EBMUD opposes providing service to areas outside of the EBMUD Ultimate Service Boundary, which was expressed to the City of San Ramon in a letter (dated July 21, 2000)regarding their General Plan update. EBMUD anticipates no service extensions outside of the current Ultimate Service Boundary and LAFCO-approved Sphere of Influence. Pursuant to District Policies 3.01 and 3.05, EBMUD would oppose any such annexations. Further, and not withstanding the aforementioned oppositions if EBMUD were to be so designated, EBMUD Policy 3.08 "Advisory Election for Annexations Outside the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line" would apply. (Copies of policies enclosed). Regarding page 32, Section XVI, Discussion, the County and EBMUD have discussed making several small, non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map such that the Urban Limit Line conforms to areas (mainly residential)that are 375 ELEVENTH STREET. OAKLAND. CA 94607.4240 . TOLL FREE 1-866-40-EBMUD xMvck..,Hn.•: Patrick Roche, Principal Planner June 23, 2006 Page 2 t currently urbanized and being served by EBMUD. Please ensure that these modifications are incorporated. If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact me (510) 287-1301. Sincerely, William R. Kirkpatrick Manager of Water Distribution Planning WRK:TNS:sb sb06_177.doc Policy 3.01 ESMUD EFFECTIVE 06 JUL 03 ANNEXATIONS SUPERSEDES 11 AUG 98 IT IS THE POLICY OF THE EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT TO: Consider annexing territory,when requested by owners of the property or public agencies having jurisdiction. Conditions Annexations are subject to the following conditions: • The territory shall be within the District ultimate service boundary. • Generally there should be an immediate need for water service on a part or all of the territory being annexed. • The territory proposed for annexation should include any parcels required to make a logical boundary. • The annexation should facilitate the operation of the utility and be of advantage to the community. • The annexation should be economically sound. • Territory within the lands included in the East Bay Watershed Master Plan must, before annexation: - Provide adequate facilities for removal of sewage from the watershed; and - Comply with the District's requirements for control of soil erosion, sedimentation and nutrient impacts within the territory. • Territory should be outside the Briones Hills Agricultural Preservation Area (BHAPA)as adopted by Contra Costa County and signatory cities. If the territory is within the BHAPA: - The District may annex parcels owned by the District or other public agencies, providing they will remain in public ownership. - District policy shall be to express opposition to annexation of privately held parcels. Territory Outside Opposition shall be expressed to all proposed annexations outside of the ultimate of Ultimate service boundary unless: Service Boundary a) The requested annexation is a small boundary adjustment found by the District to be in its best interests based on the following conditions: (1) The property and dwelling units are the smaller part of a larger development project located primarily within the ultimate service boundary; Annexations NUMBER 3.01 PAGE NO.: 2 EFFECTIVE DATE: 08 JUL 03 (2) The development project is desired and approved by the city or county land use planning agency with jurisdiction, and the land use planning and environmental documentation recognize EBMUD as the logical provider of water service; (3) Annexation of the property to EBMUD represents the most practical and feasible method of obtaining water service; (4) The cumulative number of dwelling units outside the ultimate boundary added as a result of such small boundary adjustments shall not exceed 100 in any two-year period;and (5) District Policy 3.05-Effects of Extension of Water Beyond the Ultimate Service Boundary and Policy 9.03-Water Supply Availability and Deficiency are satisfied with regard to the effects of extension of water beyond the ultimate service boundary; or b) The requested annexation is to mitigate health risks,as established by the appropriate agency,associated with existing water supplies. Authority Resolution No. 20996,June 8, 1962 Amended by Board Motion No. 91-012, February 14, 1991 Amended by Resolution No. 33116-98,August 11, 1998 Amended by Resolution No. 33365-03, July 8, 2003 References Policy 3.05 - Effects of Extension of Water Beyond the Ultimate Service Boundary Policy 3.08 - Advisory Election for Annexations Outside the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Policy 9.03 - Water Supply Availability and Deficiency Policy 3.05 EBMUD EFFECTIVE 13 FEB 01 EFFECTS OF EXTENSION OF WATER BEYOND SUPERSEDES 08 MAR 03 THE ULTIMATE SERVICE BOUNDARY IT IS THE POLICY OF THE EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT THAT: The District will not extend water to areas outside the present Ultimate Service Boundary (USB) of the District, if such extension would result in: 1. A reduction in the quantity of water available to District customers to satisfy existing or projected levels of demand; or 2. A reduction in the quality of water available to the District customers from the District's present water sources; or 3. An increase in costs of service for District customers. The USB defines the territory within which the District has planned to provide water service. The phrase "District customers" as used in this policy shall mean (i) existing water service customers of the District and (ii) future customers, located within the present USB, but not now receiving water service. This policy shall not apply to-proposed annexations of property to the District's service area within the USB and such annexation shall continue to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Authority Board Motion, adopted on March 8, 1983 Amended by Resolution No. 33236-01, February 13, 2001. Policy 3.08 EBMUD EFFECTIVE 28 JAN 03 ADVISORY ELECTION FOR ANNEXATIONS SUPERSEDES NEW OUTSIDE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE IT IS THE POLICY OF THE EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT TO: Call an advisory election if EBMUD is designated as the preferred water service provider by a local planning agency in its environmental documentation when the proposed development is located outside the Urban Limit Line adopted by Contra Costa County in 2000. Purpose The purpose of the election shall be to submit to the voters within the EBMUD service area the question of whether territory outside said Urban Limit Line should be annexed to EBMUD. Events EBMUD is identified by a local planning agency in its environmental Triggering an documentation as the preferred provider to deliver potable water service Advisory to a residential development of 200 or more dwelling units located in Election territory beyond the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line. In such cases, the matter shall be placed on the agenda for consideration by the Board of Directors at a regularly scheduled public meeting. If the Board determines not to oppose annexation of such territory to the district, EBMUD shall call an advisory election on the question whether such territory should be annexed to EBMUD. The advisory election shall occur prior to the time the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission is scheduled to consider annexation of the territory to EBMUD and, when possible, shall be consolidated with a general election. • If a local agency designates EBMUD as the preferred provider for water service to a residential development in territory outside the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line that is less than 200 dwelling units and is not covered by the provisions of Policy 3.01 then EBMUD shall oppose the annexation, and the Board of Directors shall determine at a regularly scheduled public meeting whether to call an advisory election on the question of whether such territory should be annexed to EBMUD. • This policy shall be applied consistent with and in furtherance of the provisions of Policy 3.01 —Annexations. Authority Resolution No. 33347-03, January 28, 2003 References Policy 3.01 Annexations Policy 3.05 Effects of Extension of Water Beyond the Ultimate Service Boundary Policy 3.07 Responsibility to Serve Water Customers Policy 7.03 Emergency Preparedness Policy 7.09 Workplace Health and Safety OF ANT/ trig !-. June 26, 2006 Pat Roche Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Pat, We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Negative Declaration for the Urban Limit Line (ULL) ballot measure to be considered by the voters in November 2006. We are also very pleased to see that the County is proposing to modify its Urban Limit Line to be consistent with the City of Antioch's Urban Limit, as established by Antioch voters in November 2005 through the passage of Measure K. This consistency should help ensure that the City and the County-have a common vision on the future growth plans for the Roddy Ranch area. This letter contains a number of comments on the Negative Declaration that was circulated for review by County staff. Our understanding is that the purpose of the Negative Declaration is to address the environmental impacts of extending the County's Urban Limit Line for 20 years, namely from 2006 to 2026. The County ULL originally established by the voters in 1990 is due to expire in 2010. Our comments focus on the possible environmental implications of this 20 year extension. Relationship of the ULL to Future Development: A consistent theme in the proposed Negative Declaration is the assertion that the ULL is of no real environmental consequence, as inclusion within the ULL does not"confer any land use entitlement or approval of development". For every environmental issue touched on in the Negative Declaration(traffic impacts, biologic impacts,potential for flooding to impact new development, etc.), the Initial Study concludes that there will be no impact as future development is deemed to be speculative. In fact, every single box in the Environmental Checklist Form is checked as "no impact". P.O. Box 5007 Antioch, CA 94531-5007 Direct Phone 925-779-7036 Fax 925-779-7003 vcami liana,ci.antioch.ca.us It's instructive to step back and examine the proposed County ULL would do from a procedural and environmental perspective: ■ The proposed ULL would extend the County ULL for 20 years. ■ If the proposed ULL is not approved, then the ULL will expire in 2010. ■ Properties located under County jurisdiction can only develop with urban uses "inside the ULL". However, in the absence of an established ULL (i.e. if the ULL expires in 2010) a plausible conclusion would be that no "urban" development could move forward in the County until a new ULL is established. ■ This scenario would potentially impact thousands of acres of land currently inside the ULL. Much of this undeveloped vacant land inside the County ULL is located in far East County, namely the 4000 acres of Bethel Island, the 1000 acres east of Discovery Bay, and the 1900 acres around the Byron Airport. ■ While the preceding scenario of"no County ULL" is not likely (a ULL at some location will inevitably get approved by the County voters), one of the key questions before the voters (at least as it pertains to East County) is whether the County should continue to consider the possibility of development over the next 20 years on the 6900 acres of land just mentioned in far East County. Aside from the "big picture" issues just discussed,the proposed County ULL also contains significant changes from a procedural perspective that have environmental implications, as noted below: • As previously mentioned, the Negative Declaration takes the position that any future development inside the ULL is speculative, as a future General Plan Amendment would likely be required for development to move forward. • This may be a reasonable argument to make with the existing County ULL, as the threshold to get a General Plan change (3/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors) is roughly equivalent to what it takes to modify the ULL (4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors). • However, the proposed ULL changes the rules by greatly increasing the threshold to include property within the ULL (a 4/5 vote of the Board, plus a majority vote of voters Countywide). As a result, inclusion in the ULL is likely a much more reliable determinant of the future location of development over the next 20 years, as compared to what the current General Plan designation happens to be. • Unfortunately, the Negative Declaration does not address this "new reality", as it assumes that inclusion within the ULL has no bearing from a CEQA perspective on the likelihood that a given piece of property will develop. 2 The purpose and spirit of CEQA is to provide accurate information on which decision makers can make informed decisions. The decision makers in this case include all the registered voters in Contra Costa County. The Negative Declaration with its conclusion of"no impacts"tends to defeat its purpose as an information document. Land Use Impacts: As already stated,the Negative Declaration concludes for all environmental issues that the proposed ballot measure will.have no impact, and the Land Use Section of the Environmental checklist is no exception. ■ Urban Versus Non Urban Uses: A seemingly minor but key difference between the existing County ULL requirements (as adopted by the voters in 1990) and the proposed ballot language, is the question of what can be developed outside the ULL. The current language contains wording defining with some level of precision what can be developed outside the ULL,which it defines as "non urban"uses. The proposed ballot measure has dropped this language, presumably leaving it up to the Board of Supervisors, and not the voters,to determine the type and intensity of development that can happen outside the ULL. This raises the possibility of increased development outside the ULL, over and above what is allowed by the current ULL. The Negative Declaration does not identify or address this issue. ■ 65/35 Requirement: Both the existing and proposed ULL implementation standards require strict adherence to the 65/35 requirement, where a minimum of 65% of the land in the entire County (including all land inside and outside city boundaries) must be in"non urban" uses, while a maximum of 35% of the land may be in urban uses. A common misconception is that the 65/35 refers to the ratio of land that is outside versus inside the ULL. That is definitely not the case, as the current ratio of land outside/inside the ULL is approximately 54/46, which is obviously less that 65/35. The reason for this discrepancy (and confusion) is that the 65/35 requirement is based on actual land use, and not the location of the ULL. Based on information on the County web site (last updated in June 2000)the ratio of urban to non urban land use is 69.5/30.5, which more than meets the 65/35 requirement. However,this land use ratio is now likely much closer to 65/35, given the development that has occurred over the last 6 years (both in the County and inside city boundaries). What the Negative Declaration fails to do in the Land Use Section, is to update from the year 2000 the current status of the ratio of"non urban"to urban uses. How much more development can occur if the voters agree to extend the ULL for 20 years while maintaining the 65/35 ratio? No information is provided. A related and equally relevant question is what happens in the case of cities that utilize the approved County ULL to achieve their Measure J ULL compliance requirement? As you are aware, CCTA recently approved changes to the Measure J provisions to allow cities to use the County ULL for Measure J compliance if, 1) the County ULL is approved by voters countywide, 2) a majority of the voters in that jurisdiction vote to approve the County ULL, and 3) a majority of City Council members of that jurisdiction vote to adopt the County ULL. An issue not addressed in the Negative Declaration is the potential land use implications for any such City utilizing the County ULL for 3 Measure J compliance, if the County allows development to move forward on land inside the ULL (such as Bethel Island) causing the 65/35 threshold to be reached. Will such cities be allowed to develop inside their existing boundaries, or will they be "frozen" in place? Right now the Negative Declaration under land use just states "no impact". We realize that an Urban Limit Line is a bit of a conundrum to address from a CEQA perspective, as it resides in the grey area between a planning study and a discretionary entitlement. However, it does seem the environmental documentation could be more illuminating on the implications of voting to extend the ULL for another 20 years. In any case we are looking forward to reviewing a revised environmental document. Sincerely, VICTOR CARNIGLIA Deputy Director of Community Development cc: Mayor and City Council Members Planning Commission Board of Supervisors Donna Landeris, City of Brentwood Karen Majors, City of Oakley Lou Ann Texiera, LAFCO 4 �`�EOF PLANN�NC STATE OF CALIFORNIA _ Governor's Office of Planning and Research z LIFO State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit �`+ OF CA Arnold Schwarzenegger �;' - r,,, Sean Walsh Govemor + +r` LDirector June 29,2006 Patrick Roche Contra Costa County Community Development 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 Subject: November 7,2006 General Election Ballot Measure Regarding the Urban Limit Line,County Files GP#06-001 and ZT#06-001 SCH#: 2006012134 Dear Patrick Roche: The enclosed comment(s)on your Negative Declaration was(were)received by the State Clearinghouse after the.end of the state review period,which closed on June 28,2006. We are forwarding these comments to you because they provide information or raise issues that should be addressed in your final environmental document. The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments. However,we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions concerning.the environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above-named project,please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number(2006012134)when contacting this office. Sincerely, Terry Roberts Senior Planner,State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 96812-3044 TEL(916)446-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www,opr.ca.gov STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Govemor DELTA PROTECTION COMMISSION 14215 RIVER ROAD ' + P.O. BOX 530 WALNUT GROVE, CA 95690 Phone (916) 776-2290 FAX (916) 776-2293 E-Mail: dpc@citlink.net Home Page: www.delta.ca.gov RECEIVED �;� June 27, 2006 JUN 2 9 2006 v (J r4 STATE CLEARING HOUSE �u_ State Clearinghouse P. O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Project Manager: SUBJECT: Negative Declaration for the November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot Measure Regarding the Urban Limit Line, (SCH #2006012134) The staff of the Delta Protection Commission (Commission) has reviewed the subject document dated May 26, 2006. From the information provided, it appears that the proposed action would not directly involve areas within the Primary and Secondary Zones of the Legal Delta. Therefore, such action for approval or denial would not be subject to appeal to the Commission. However, the potential for the general planning authority that would be a result of the expansion of the Urban Limit Line to impact the Primary and Secondary Zones should be taken into consideration as stated in the letter provided by the Commission on February 27, 2006 (attached). Thus, the following comments are provided as input for your analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The analysis of the proposed action should provide a determination of consistency with the Management Plan relative to potential impacts to the Primary or Secondary Zone, particularly with respect to utilities and infrastructure, land use, agriculture, and environment. A copy of the Management Plan is provided at the Commission's web site www.delta.ca.gov, and staff is available to discuss the areas noted herein in greater detail upon request. The opportunity to provide input on the subject proposal is appreciated. As noted above, I am available at (916) 776-2292 or at lindadpc@citlink.net if you would like further clarification with respect to the Commission's Management Plan or comments. Sincerely, mda Fiack Executive Director cc: Patrick Roche, CCC Community Development Department `�E Df PLANN/y STATE OF CALIFORNIA nW.;• '••w o T N _ Governor's Office of Planning and Research o z State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit 14IF*nowOFCRL1�- Arnold Schwarzenegger 00- `1 !? Sean Walsh Governor 1''' Director June 29,2006 Patrick Roche Contra Costa County Community Development 651 Pine Street - 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 Subject: November 7,2006 General Election Ballot Measure Regarding the Urban Limit Line, County Files GP#06-001 and ZT#06-001 SCH#: 2006012134 Dear Patrick Roche: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on June 28,2006,and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project,please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. :,.7+Since ly, J'- Tl _ Terry Roberts Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL(916)446-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.apr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2006012134 Project Title November 7,2006 General Election Ballot Measure Regarding the Urban Limit Line, County Files Lead Agency GP#06-001 and ZT#06-001 Contra Costa County Community Development Type Neg Negative Declaration Description A proposed countywide ballot measure for the November 7,2006 General Election to extend the term of the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line to 2026 and establish new procedures for voter approval on expansion of the County Urban Limit Line, as sponsored by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (County Files:GP#06-0001 and ZT#06-0001). Lead Agency Contact Name Patrick Roche Agency Contra Costa County Community Development Phone (925)335-1242 Fax email Address 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing City Martinez State CA Zip 94553 Project Location County City Region Cross Streets Parcel No. Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways Airports Railways Waterways Schools Land Use Multiple/Various Project Issues Other Issues Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation;Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Delta Agencies Protection Commission; Department of Parks and Recreation; San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission;Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Department of.Housing and Community Development; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Regional Water Quality Control Bd., Region 5(Sacramento); Native American Heritage Commission;State Lands Commission Date Received 05/30/2006 Start of Review 05/30/2006 End of Review 06/28/2006 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. ADDENDUM to D.6 May 16, 2006 On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered adoption of Resolution 2006/80 calling for election on November 7, 2006 for the 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line (ULL). Patrick Roche of the Community Development Department introduced this item. The Chair called for public comment, and the following people spoke: ■ Mike Daly of the Sierra Club commended staff for working to create a line on which everyone can agree, but said he has a concern about potential for unintended consequences that could result in the development of unsupported projects. ■ David Reid of the Greenbelt Alliance seconded concerns about potential unintended consequences that could create planning problems, and requested delaying the item one week to allow for time to work with staff to create better language. Supervisor Glover said he agrees that the line that is currently in place is the line that the Board would like to keep, but suggested that what is presented in this item is what the voters have asked for. Supervisor DeSaulnier suggested delaying the item for one week for discussion, being respectful of the voters' desires while also trying to ensure the quality of life,to return to the Board with any potential language that could clarify the Board's intentions. Supervisor Glover clarified that the Board is not talking about changing staff's recommendation. Supervisor Piepho suggested that what is before the Board has been driven by the voters all along, said that the process has been open and public, and noted her desire for the process to move forward. By a unanimous vote with none absent, the Board of Supervisors took the following action: DELAYED for one week the adoption of Resolution 2006/80 calling for election on November 7, 2006 for the 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line (ULL),to allow staff to return to the Board with any potential language that could clarify the Board's intentions. REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete t is form a d place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. � Q Name: i`-Q-1 Phone: Address: �(� n l N� M aL City: (Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting) I am speaking for myself or organization: C (�R��c e _ CHECK ONE: ]� I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For. ❑ Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: ❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider: Please see reverse for instructions and important information INFORMATION FOR SPEAKERS: 1. Deposit this form in the box next to the speaker's rostrum before your agenda item is to be considered. 2. You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3. Begin by stating your name and address, and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative of an organization. 4. If available, give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation before speaking. 5. Limit your presentation to three.minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be- heard.) 6. Please notethat this form will become a matter of public record and will be kept on file at the office of the Clerk of the Board along with the other meeting materials. REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) " Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. K4, ( Phone: ; � �✓ �� /� Name: r _ Address: �d d� City: (Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting) I am speaking for myself or organization: S "e-, r ra- CHECK ONE: J LTJ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # / Date: 0 My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ® Against ❑ 1 wish to speak on the subject of: ❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider: Please see reverse for instructions and important information . INFORMATION FOR SPEAKERS: 1. Deposit this form in the box next to the speaker's rostrum before your agenda item is to be considered. 2. You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3. Begin by stating your name and address, and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the. representative of an organization. 4. If available, give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation before speaking. 5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard.) 6. Please note that this form will become a matter of public record and will be kept on file at the office of the Clerk of the Board along with the other meeting materials.