HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11071995 - D3 D.3
THE BOARD OR SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on _November 7, 1995 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Bishop
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUWECT: Subdivision 7907, Byron Area.
The Board considered the recommendation of the Public
Works Director for approval of the final map and Subdivision
Agreement for Subdivision 7907, Byron area.
Following a lengthy discussion with a tentative agreement
being reached with the developer and representatives of the Byron
School District, the Board agreed to defer decision on the
recommendation of the Public Works Director to November 14, 1995.
Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that decision on
Subdivision 7907 is DEFERRED to November 14, 1995.
I hereby certify that this is a true and CrlrreCtCopyof
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED:
cc: Public Works Director PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
of supervisors and County Administrator
By . �� r� ,Deputy
McCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN
SAN FRANCISCO COUNSELORS AT LAW 'WASHINGTON, D.C.
LOS ANGELES 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD TAIPEI
SAN JOSE POST OFFICE BOX V
WALNUT CREEK WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 9, 9 AFFILIATED OFFICES
MENLO PARK
TELEPHONE(S10)937-8000 BANGKOK
�
FACSIMILE(510)975-5390 BEIJING'.�#- N0"
November 6, 1995 V SHANGHAI
BQAA��MI�T RECT DIAL NUMBER
(510)975-5310
INTERNET
HAND DELIVERY sskaggs@mdbe.com
Hon. Gayle Bishop, Chair
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Subdivision 7907
Agenda Item D.3
Our File 14205-047
Dear Supervisors:
We represent Centex Homes, the applicant for the final map for the above
subdivision,the second phase of vesting tentative map No. 7679. The approval of this final map
is on the agenda for your meeting of November 7, 1995.
Our client has received copies of two letters from the Byron Union School District
addressed to you and dated March 6, 1995, and July 28, 1994, by which the District seeks to
argue that Centex has not complied with condition of approval No. 15 which reads:
Prior to recording the final map for this development, "will serve"
letters from the Byron Elementary School District and the Liberty
Union High School district shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator. In the alternative, submit evidence satisfactory to
the Zoning Administrator that the applicant has complied with all
legally established school facilities funding requirements.
(emphasis added.)
We understand that the District intends to submit another letter to you during the hearing
tomorrow. Although we may not know all of the District's arguments, by this letter we initially
respond. Copies of this letter will be faxed to your offices this date. The original will be filed
with the Clerk of the Board tomorrow,November 7, 1995.
t
Hon. Gayle Bishop, Chair
November 6, 1995
Page 2
The District asks that the Board "find that Centex must provide the School
District full mitigation of the impact upon it" or, in the alternative, to "direct the Planning
Department not to issue any building permits . . . until the District has capacity to house
additional students at its current student/classroom ratios." Letter of July 28, 1994, p.5. Nothing
in the County Code permits such a withholding of building permits. Nor could the County now
enact such a requirement for this subdivision because the applicant's right to develop under the
laws in place has vested. Therefore, we will not address the latter approach further. When it
approved the vesting tentative map and other entitlements, the Board expressly rejected the
former approach. It is too late now to challenge or change that decision and it would be unfair to
do so as Centex has relied on it for more than two years.
The staff has determined that all of the conditions of approval have been met
including condition No. 15. Where the applicant has complied with all conditions of approval,
approval of the final map is ministerial; i.e., the Board has no discretion. Youngblood v. Board
of Supervisors, 22 Cal. 3d 644, 655 (1978) [the approval of the tentative map is the crucial date
when the Board exercises its discretion and decides whether to approve the subdivision];
Kriebel v. City Council, 112 Cal. App. 3d 693, 703 (1980); Government Code, §§ 66462, 66458,
66474.1.
The District correctly notes that the Zoning Administrator required only evidence
that the applicant would pay school fees required by state law and urges that the applicant should
be required to do more "as required by pertinent provisions of the General Plan and by the EIR
prepared on this project." Letter of July 28, 1994,p.2. The District is too late, The conditions
were set at the time of approval of the vesting tentative map and cannot be changed or challenged
now as the statute of limitations runs from approval of the tentative map, not the final map.
Gov't Code, § 66499.37.
The Board expressly rejected the additional mitigation which the District now
urges it to require because state law did not allow the Board to impose it. The Board expressly
found that the condition at issue,No. 15, requires only that the Applicant pay applicable impact
fees or obtain"will serve" letters from the local school districts. See, discussion below of the
Board's finding of fact(a)(iii).
In this case, the Zoning Administrator has reported that he has received evidence
satisfactory to him that the applicant has complied with all legally established school facilities
funding requirements, as required by condition No. 15. That fulfills the condition of approval
which requires only that the Zoning Administrator be satisfied, which he has attested he is.
There is nothing in the record to contradict that statement; i.e., to show that he is not satisfied.
The task before the Board is not to determine whether, in fact, "the applicant has complied with
Hon. Gayle Bishop, Chair
November 6, 1995
Page 3
all legally established school facilities funding requirements"; rather it must look only to whether
the Zoning Administrator is satisfied and, if he is, the Board must approve the final map.
Although, it is not necessary or proper for the Board to examine and determine
whether, in fact, "the applicant has complied with all legally established school facilities funding
requirements,"we will address the arguments raised in the District's letters which identify the
letter of July 28, 1994, as providing the basis for its "appeal." In summary,the District argues
that the County's General Plan and the EIR require the applicant to do more than to pay the fees
required by State law. It is wrong.
The EIR does not provide an independent basis for the imposition of mitigation
measures or conditions of approval. Public Resources Code, § 21004. It is an informational
document for the use of the Board which includes recommended mitigation measures. The
Board is not required to adopt the suggested mitigation measures. Native Sun v. City of
Escondido, 15 Cal. App. 4th 892 (1993). It need not adopt a mitigation measure if it finds that it
is infeasible. Public Resources Code, §§ 21002, 21081(a)(3). In this case,when it approved the
tentative map the Board did not impose the recommended mitigation measures upon which the
District now relies. Instead, it imposed condition No. 15 and expressly found that it only
required the applicant to pay "applicable impact fees" or obtain a will serve letter. The Board
found as follows:
(a) Facts.
(ii) The EIR's recommended mitigation measures
would require the Applicant to pay impact fees higher than those
currently in effect, establish an interim school impact mitigation
plan and participate in a Mello-Roos district or similar capital
facilities program. However, state law prohibits school impact
mitigation beyond the assessment of impact fees authorized by
statute. In addition, state law prohibits denial of development
projects based on inadequacy of school facilities, provided that
applicable school fees are assessed and paid.
(iii) Condition 15 of the Conditions of Approval
requires the Applicant to pay applicable impact fees or obtain"will
serve" letters from the local school districts.
(b) Findings.
Hon. Gayle Bishop, Chair
November 6, 1995
Page 4
(1) The mitigation measures recommended by the EIR
for school impacts are infeasible because they are inconsistent with
state law.
(2) The Project's significant impacts on school services
will be substantially lessened by the imposition of the Conditions
of Approval but are significant and unavoidable.
CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE ALBERS GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND RELATED ACTIONS AND FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THAT PROJECT (Attachment A to Board's action approving the
project on May 18, 1993) at pages 18-19.
Even if there were a legitimate challenge to these findings based on lack of
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act,which we do not concede, it is long
barred by the failure of the District to exhaust its administrative remedies and to file suit in a
timely manner. Public Resources Code, § 21167.
Nor does the District's argument based on the General Plan provide any basis for
denying approval of the final map. The map was found by the Board to be consistent with the
General Plan when the tentative map was approved. CERTIFICATION, etc., at p.31. That is the
time when that determination is properly made. Youngblood, supra at 652. The District did not
exhaust its administrative remedies or file a timely lawsuit challenging that determination. It is
now too late to do so.
In any event, there is no showing that the map is inconsistent with the General
Plan. The environmental review process was used to monitor the ability of the schools to serve
the development(Policy 7-140); the capacity of the area's schools was given close attention
(Policy 7-142); the Board did consider the availability of educational facility capacity
(Policy 7-143); and the review of the project was coordinated through the environmental review
process (Policy 7-145). Other goals, policies and measures were not achieved due to the timing
of the project and constraints imposed by state law; however, consistency is not measured by
strict compliance with all goals and policies.
Indeed, it is beyond cavil that no project could completely satisfy
every policy stated in the OCP [the General Plan at issue], and that
state law does not impose such a requirement. [citations.] A
general plan must try to accommodate a wide range of competing
interests . . . and to present a clear and comprehensive set of
principles to guide development decisions. Once a general plan is
in place, it is the province of elected city officials to examine the
specifics of a proposed project to determine whether it would be
"in harmony"with the policies stated in the plan. [citation.]
Hon. Gayle Bishop, Chair
November 6, 1995
Page 5
Sequoyah Hills Homeowners'Ass'n v. City of Oakland, 23 Cal. App. 4th 704. In this case, that
decision was made by the Board more than two years ago when it approved the Project and
found it to be consistent with the General Plan. It is too late now to reopen the issue.
Very truly yours,
/"-j
Sanford kaggs
cc: County Counsel
Margaret Green, Superintendent
Steve Garrett
Ray Smerge, Esq.
Byron Union School District RECEIVED
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
14401 BYRON HIGHWAY,BYRON, CALIFORNIA 94514-9251 1u0��C
(510)634-6644 N�V — 7 1 65
FAX(510)634-9421
Peggy Green, Superintendent CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA
Byron Middle School Discovery Bay Elementary School
14401 Byron Highway 1700 Willow Lake Rd.
Byron, CA 94514 Byron, CA 94514
(510)634-2128 (510)634-2150
November 7, 1995
Centex Homes is not paying their "fair share" of money to the Byron School District for the impact of
the students being generated by the project.
History of Negotiations:
In 1992, the County passed a General Plan that required Developers to mitigate their impacts on
schools just as they do for roads, sewer, water, etc. Sections 7-AO and 7-AR of the County's
Centrally Plan state that the County will "assure the provision of adequate primary, secondary, and
college facilities in the County" and "assure that school facilities are adequate or committed to be
adequate, prior to approvals of major applications for residential growth."
The E for the Albers Project (Centex as Developer) stated that prior
to recording their final map, that'will serve letters from the school districts or evidence satisfactory to
the Zoning Administrator that the applicant had complied with all legally established school facilities
funding requirements."
County failed to notify the school district of meetings with the planning commission.
• March 1, 1993: Charles Humbert attended an East County Regional Planning Commission. The
matter was heard in closed session and he was unable to give input. The letter that was sent to
the Planning Commission on 2/5/93 from the district was not included in the packet given to the
commission. Final EIR was adopted 10/26/93.
• June 7, 1994: A meeting was set between a school district committee and Steve Garrett of
Centex. He arrived 45 minutes late and members of the committee had gone home.
• June 22, 1994: A letter was sent to Mr. Harvey Bragdon, Director of Contra Costa County
Community Development Department officially notifying the Board of Supervisors that
inadequate school facilities exist. Forwarding the school facilities plan and fee justification study.
• Late June,1994: The School District met with county personnel and a representative of Centex
Homes to discuss the issue, and the County had specifically told the School District that the
meeting was not its hearing on the issue. The School District met with county personnel and a
representative of Centex Homes to discuss the issue, and the County had specifically told the
School District that the meeting was not its hearing on the issue.
• July 13 or 14, 1994: The Zoning Administrator signed the tentative map.
rx July, 1994: The School District was not notified that the Zoning Administrator had approved the
relevant conditions upon the tentative map. The School District later learned that the Zoning
Administrator had determined that there had been compliance without any further impute from
the Schoo -District when Centex informed the district on July 20, 1994.
July 21, 1994: District's appeal was filed with the County to the Board of Supervisors appealing
the decision of the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator.
• July 28, 1994: Amended appeal was filed. District agreed to allow the first 65 building permits
to be pulled during the week of July 25, 1994, to show a good faith effort and negotiate with
Centex.
• September, 1994: The District appeared before the East County Planning Commission
requesting full mitigation for Phase II of Albers.
• November 28,1994: County required full mitigation of Phase 11 of Albers Project where they
were rezoning from commercial to housing. County approved the $2.75 per sq. foot for the last
97 houses of the project.
• September and October: The District and Centex worked hand in hand to have a new facilities
study prepared. We had agreed on consultants to work with when Centex asked that we hold off
on undertaking that extra expense, as Centex believed that it was in a position to suggest a
workable resolution without having to review a new study.
• October, 1994: Proposal from Centex was made to the district, it was basically a redistribution
of how the funds would be paid across the whole project and their highest offer was $1.66 be
square foot for all the homes including the 97 homes that we had already received approval for
$2.75. The district's counter proposal is $1.98 for the first homes in Phase I and $2.75 for the
remaining 97 homes in Phase ll.
• March, 1995: The district sent a letter to the Board of Supervisors requesting a decision on the
appeal since negotiations had broken off. Supervisor Torlakson arranged a mediator to work
with the School District and Centex.
• April, 1995: The Superintendent and two School Board members met in mediation. The district
agreed to provide Centex with landscaping plans for DB as a possible solution to part of the
money that could not be settled. Landscaping plans were sent during the summer. Through
mediation, the two parties got no closer on settling the total financial obligation.
• February and March, 1995: The East County School District Facility plans were brought up to
date during the formation of the JPA. All five local school districts worked together. The new
figure shows a cost per dwelling for elementary school students at $5,361 and cost per dwelling
for middle school students is $2,566, for a total of$7,927.
• September of 1995: Board of Supervisors approved this plan.
Centex does not fall under this JPA Facilities Plan but should be required to fully mitigate
their school impacts that were made known at the time of the signing of the tentative map.
Byron Union School District RECED
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
14401 BYRON HIGHWAY.BYRON. CALIFORNIA 94514-9251 NOV — 7W
(510)634-6644
FAX(510)634-9421 CLERK BOARD OF SU
Peggy Green. Superintendent CONTRA COSTA
Byron Middle School Discovery Bay Elementary School
14401 Byron Highway 1700 Willow Lake Rd.
Bvron. CA 94514 Bvron. CA 94514
(510)634-2L3 (510)634-2150
November 3, 1995
Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: Byron Union Elementary School District
Albers Residential Development
Subdivision Application #7907
Dear Sirs:
I am writing you on behalf of the Byron Union Elementary School District in regard to your pending
hearing on Centex Homes' application for a final map ralating to Subdivision #7907.
Byron Union Elementary School District has negotiated extensively with Centex Homes in an attempt
to miticate the effect of the development upon the School District's facilities, an anticipated increase
of one new student from every, two houses.
!n July. 190-4, the Schcol District filed an administrative appeal of the Zcning Administrators decision
that t,`te application for a final map for Subdivision #7907 complied with the County's General Plan.
The Schcol District dropped the appeal as to that subdivision, while retaining the right to pursue it
when Centex sought another final map for the development. This was done in order to allow Centex
to begin development and enhance the profitability cf the Project and to engender its good will
toward the School District.
This appeal has been in abeyance since April, 1995, due to the fact that Centex has not sought
additional building permits since that time. Unfortunately, the School District and Centex have been
unable to came to an agreement about how to mitigate the effects of the remainder of the Project in
the meantime, and we must now request that the appeal be reactivated and addressed at your
November 7, 1995, hearing. Without adequate mitigation, the School District simply cannot
accommodate the students which will be generated by the Project.
`Nhen we last appeared before you, we requested that the County require Centex to mitigate the
effects of the development en the School District by paying $2.75 per square foot of assessable
s.
B. 9f Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
.f „wft rember3; 1995-
{iY Page 2�..
space in the development.' Since that time, the School District has told Centex that it would accept
51.98 per square foot, which is a split of the difference that it automatically collects ($1.20/square
foot) and the amount it needs. By taking this step, the School District realizes that it has to depend
upon the possibility that the State will be able to supplement its funds, which, as you realize, is not
necessarily a safe assumption!
Rather than reiterate information the School District has previously provided you, I am attaching six
of our earlier letters to the County's Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. 1 will be
appearing at your November 7 hearing to address our appeal. If you have any questions on this
subject that require further detail, please do not hesitate to contact me prior to the hearing at (510)
634-6644.
Sincerely yours,
Margaret Green
Superintendent
MG:bn
cc: Steven Garrett, Centex Homes
Encs: (1) July 28, 1994 letter to Board of Supervisors
(2) September 7, 1994, letter to Board of Supervisors
(3) September 21, 1994, to Community Development Dept.
(�) November 28, 1994, letter to Board of Supervisors
(5) February 28, 1995, letter to Board of Supervisors
(6) April 5, 1995, letter to Board of Supervisors
By comparison, the developers of Discovery Bay West paid the equivalent of S2.71/square foot.
Byron Union School District
CONTRA COSTA COUtiTY
1440I 3YR0N HIGHWAY.3YRON,CALFORMA 94514-4251
(510)634.21:3
FA.'{(510)634-9421
3YRON ELLME`1TARY SCHOOL DISCOVERY BAY ELEMENTARY SCIHOCL
14401 3YRON HIGHWAY 1,00 WILLOW LAKE ZOA0
3YRON,CALT'ORNLA 945I4-9751 3YRON,CALIFORNIA 94514-937:
(510)634-2123 (510)634-21`C
July 28 , 1994
Boar 3 Cf Sucer i SarS
County c- Contra Ccsta
o'SI =_:ze Str eet
Martinez , Cal?fcrnia 94553
Re• 1rrne"1Ce,4 Accea i Cr �',CT i nC ,Ci?i' n i S�' ?-^r Regar^' n tom=
M-rcCerty . ,, lan�.'atiye .Suhdi Vi 9ign Ma— 79
LZ_r clerk CC 'th.e Bca_— .
Bvrcn is �le-len��_^_ Sc ccl �i ^i ," c ,^
Su,::L; �S Z::2,S Z e,ded a-zeal C� C:e
CaC-S_c- C: L-e C.^.ilL.re C--SZa ccunn-t Zcn-in A C/u-.._ST�?T.Cr
..: .. C .....:C .'.:,.i1.�..= (l t C.a n�..J..`i'I T/ :S J ccm,.,l 12''.. ',v..t. G
z:-- ' re= rrad. - _..
:.cncn
uaa n a-A ma J .:r SU=..._
J.....r lri��
__r G,:_cn Hi Sc^col c__
sis ✓e ..--..;i��.�,�� i.lvn�l:�.. C. 1�:?r.SrrC�..
,P%C.::_.,_S:.r aZ:r Z:at _.e Zu^__Ce.^,L f?ZS
_=_a:lV e5'�.^..._SieC. 5:..::CC.'- =a•'i _{ { Z�S �S_C_ :..::G :'r
a L V
_ .div Li.�_`=...:le,•^i...a
:-� C _+iZ �cear TMS
".at appeal
�C a.CCS _S._ 1C� �VZ L. ilZ .� CCC'.:::leI1ZZ t C n, Z. e S C!nCC
1C is Zr?CZ 1S ame-A-i 1C it's a �eal 4z= r of erance Z Gsa
.-CCUM en:S .
Scar 3 of Supervisors
County cf Cantra Costa
Duly 28 , 1994
Page 2
A footnote to this condition states "Reference Final EIR
Mitigation Measures. " Similarly, page 12 of the conditions
states "This project shall comply with the provisions of the
Albers Genreal [sic] Plan Amendment and related actions
Environmental Impact Report as determined by the Board of
Supervisors. "
The School District requests that the Board of Supervisors
reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator that these
conditions, as they relate to the School District, have been
met.- The only step which the Zoning Administrator required
Centex to meet in order to satisfy these conditions was to
submit a letter which stated that the developer will pay
those fees c.-llected by the School District pursuant tc
Government Ccde sections 53080 at sec. and 65995 at sec.
The Zoning Administrator did not require Centex to 'r l v
mitigation the Development's impacts upon the School
District, as required by pertinent provisions of the General
=tan and by the EIR prepared on this project.
Sections 7-AO and 7-AR c the Ccuntv's General Plan state
4:1--at the Ccunty will "assure the provision of adecuata
rimarV, se:cnCarV, and CCllege -Facilities in the Ccurlty"
and _ssu_ _ tzar sch...c_ _.._I i _es are adecuata c� c..mr,,i.. ec
be ade.,,a to =r4 C. ^.^5 =Cr
ras-d-gnt--4 growth. 113 - -
As discussed Delew, the School District is not
-
-- 4S^ a3l ;- -4 eC' 4 as 4' aff eci's the Ccun ' _s anaa
�:1. i S l l �. v L.y S .Z 4
v.. V1S� _—_ O.. OJ il.11c-i7C e :-..5 al�ii tom:_S Deve7 =',entJ
an�iC=pateC
during th3 week C: Monday, july 2� , 1994 .
Ra the_, i t is cn v apce_l'_::g the declsien as It a==ects
-eJ..ailCa C s',I^.Scq"e.^.t L'._... = =ermits .
See =! cc secticl-S 7-145 and 7-11.50 of
' a~ which: state:
Adequate provisior. c: schools and other public
facilities and se=rices sh all be assured by
coordinating review cf new develcpmerlt wit* the cities
and other service pr:,vider s through the Growth
Maracement Program (see Chapter IJ) , tie environmental
raview process, and other wears . (Section 7-145 . )
Ccunty shall support school facility fees for
c�ow�h-i:ncacted school di sty ices . (Section 7-150 . )
Bcard cf Supervisors
County os" C--ntra Costa
July 28 , 1994
Page 3
The Z-IR for the Albers Development found that:
Until a funding program is implemented to make up t. e
cist_ict-estimated difference between maxi::,u=
authorized impact fees and the true cost of school
expansion necessitated by cumulative local residential
development, construction of the project will
contribute to a significant adverse cumulative impact
on Discovery Bay Elementary School and Byron Middle
Sc hool.4
('::R, p. 178 . ) in order to mitigate this anticipated effect
of the Development, the EIR establishes the following
condition:
To mitigate this izpact, the applicant could to
re-au-i--ed t0 develcio an interim school imnaCt- mit_CZt on
p l a:n in consultation with the BU SD (e.g. , t::e prcvis icr_
Qf Cr.e tC ttiC pertabl a classrooms, Cr the =ntr_-hut_On
c= a vcl,,nta:y fee. ) This interim plan would remain in
ef_act U.-til a funding program is implemented w to
the district's satisfaction, adequately savers the
difference between cu=ent impact fees and the tz u e
cost of expansion.. . fClu_rant impact fees, and
ai.�..::rated state-author_zed increases in these J ees,
are nct ex:.ected to be sufficient tc cover t e true
ccs;, of needed additional local elerren-tary and middle
sch ccl construction. To m_-`cate this im=actanc:-cvai
Cf t`ie t"CiZct. S'cuid ie ccndit_cred urcn 'crc fect
?"'c_" share ` +'t.C'Sal i C.r i n =u _r
t?1a
?C:.e ^ `ca-c t i r=ci 1 _`.` -s f�.Indi rc =roam t-•�.0 "e
esti-i i s eC bV the ;zy'ron Ur i cn Schcci ]i stri C•
(=� � .
177-7-S , er=hasis=has= added. )
sca=d of superriscrs
County cf Contra Costa
,;u?v 28 , 1994
Page 4
The comments to the Draft EIR ("DEM") and the County's
responses to those comments ;sake it clear that the County_
expected that mitigation would require more than simply
payina the statutory fees under Government Code sections
53080 et seq. The Loom agency Formation Commission of
Contra Costa County commentead on the DEIR as follows:
Page 174 clearly states that the current school impact
fees will not be sufficient to offset the cost of
facilities. The mitigation on page 178 implies that
applicants should go beyond the fee to provide their
faire share of the cast of mitigation of school
facility costs. This mitigation measure is written to
generally be easily_ applied; it should be made more
specific.
(E=R Attachment, p. 38 . }
The County responded, stating:
As stated on DEIR page 17 , the recommended mitication
Measures for schcol impacts would recruire the app__cant
to cont=ibute or arrange for funding bevcnd the
astabiished i:mnact L=_s authorized by the state. ( S-Inca
mitigation could tare many forms, f j urt:.er
speci=kation cf th is mechanism in the ET-R, before suc
;.egotiatien occurs, would to premature.
(2'_R attach:�tent, p- 39 }
can-SX
�5 --e= sCuara foot of assessable res-dental Space.
cont=est,
't_- Dist==ct needs S4 , S20 for sacs: CZ.
s ras:�eZ:�_al un_ts (C_ $2 . 7-25 p per suuar
L 1
l.JeVe_JT''il ie:I e.' .7
:.^.e sc^cc_ was nct notl__ec tha_- ".,e JVr:inc
Administrator had accroved the relevant cond:ticns uzc:: the
t_entat_ve :Zap. _n :act, •,vh21e t e SChCc_ D1S�.%iC:.
C--unit personnel d eL Cemex acnes to
d_scuss this issue, t::e County has speci=ically told :e
SCh^.CC+I 0?s:.}r�?Ct t::at th_S was not its hearing CT'i the issue.
The SC�.''.Cc1 D_S Vr.rV ,va�;'ed that y.�� 7 i., a i„i +�?_n
ac ..on :.c A�.m.6 st_ �cr
T'' =eaW1.1-1 �.i 'c i L
:ese _ s s;.or�_y a increased $l. ZO per
scua=e fact.
Board cf Supervisors
County o= Contra C--sta
July 2S ,. 1994
Page 5
had determined that there had been compliance without any
further input from the School District when Centex informed
it of this fact yesterday, July 20, 1994 .
As a remedy, the Schoel District rev_uests the Board of
Supervisors to overturn the decision of the Zoning
Administrator, and to find that Centex must provide the
School District full mitigation of the impact upon it.b
Alternatively, the School District requests that the Hoard
direct the Planning Department not to issue any building
permits after the first 65 being- sought during the wee.:K of
July 25, 1994 until the School District has the capacity to
house additional students at its current student/classroom
ratios . This is authorized under section 7 . 13 of the
County' s General Plan, which states " [lit is the
resporsibi?ity of ?coal goverment to ensure that the tir;�_ng
Cf growth is ccordinated with the efforts of the school
districts to provide school facilities . "
3v f'_ling this appeal, the School DiS:.riC% is nOt re"•�L'eS-i.^.0
that the Countv withhold issuance of the O'S building pe.=U_s
which Cant-ax seeks during the week cf July 25 , 1994, as the
Sc hcei District does rct wish to adversely effect Cantex's
ability to economically develop the first stage of its
Deveicpment. :ur:�:e=Wore, -.-.a Sc::oc? District and Centex
are engaging in discussions regarding -iZ_-ie mitigat on of the
.ev elcnmen t 1 S i mnac:.s whiC.^. the Sc:Col D?Str?CT. believes may
e =reit-=ul. The Schcol Distr_ct is -_1_ng t .is azpeal _^
crde: .O obtain a reevalua-, on cf t.his deCisicr. as it
vp+ay` tri j *:.T .....,, T +la•.�Q t �t d 1 �' �^�Y `.•• .CS
S all _..L.._ _ss..anlces C: ,.�L�_ _1.0 :.a_..S _�- -=-
De�l e_ce�;nrt.
s The Sc.Ccl Dis-rizt is willing to discuss any
ina_ic^ of fess , a staged undi:,g system, arc/cr
rcvisicn cf facilities which can best benefit both Centex
rcaas and the School Di s:.ric_.
Scard of Sumer isora
County of Contra C--sta
July 28 , 1994
Page 6
If the County would benefit by receiving any additional
information about this appeal prior to the hearing thereon,
please contact me or George hoover, at (5?0) 634-664-49 .
Very truly yours,
Ma;raa Green
Suuerintenden".
c__: Steven P. Garret, Centex Homes
Sune=viscr Tom Torlakson
Last County Regional Planning Cc .� issicn
September 7 , 1994
Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
651 Pine Street
Martinez , California 94553
Re: Effect of Albers II General Plan Amendment
on Bvron Union Elementary School District
Dear Clerk of the Board:
I am writing to you on behalf of the Byron Union Elementary
School District, to request that, in approvina the Albers II
General Plan amendment, you require t:^_e de-veloce= (s) of
residential property within the covered area to fully
mitiGate the effect or Sich developme-t upcn the School
District.
AS was d1SCUSSe,4 I}'?.^. t e CZC `CCl DlSt__Ct a 'Dear=C be =?
you o the appeal of t :e ?CP.'_.^.0 dm, _4n_=lratorIs d`C_Sn t:'.
aCcrove Phase I of t ;e Aber_ - =ccer develcpmen- t h_s
Geveloement will ?:ave a substantial impact upcn the Schcc,
-str ict. We anticipate Ihat approxz'ately -9 _"".:den— w_?i
be generate^ by t pre,ect. S_nce
nC rsmai..ing Capacity IC ^CUS2 aQC'___—na_ StuCenlS , it wi_1
,-ave to build a c� a�-1
_ nea _
t a 9 '=..
-es a_cr:�
Za_t County Kec_cra-
CCnmra Cesta, IC a:Crass t.�__ _SsUe. =.S a resu_t C= zn e
Ciscussi ons at the_ ee:_^g, ^.e _ !a...._-g Ccmm_ss_Cn _^_as
_eccmmend_d that the Scheel D_smrict _ _v_se _t.
Dl n and --at the CevelCper (s) pavt^-=- share Cr the costs
of the Kaci litiss Iha� C=e .. :eSSi. .', by the delieic-cme.n
t e Cost to be determined accc-rdi:g tC t~_ .aCil_, i eS lai .
�l_lthoulah t:':e SChocl District is in agre=meat w_th the
CCncect proposed by the Planning C^.mmiiSS_vn it recuests
• '^'-_r_ language be amended "'r_ _ tC ado b
that the... �l.v^ ��.iciiy-
tiie Bear... C= Sute_'JisorS _-I-e CC"catet= :•i era
d:sCL:Ssed by Ine _ 1 ann_. Ccmm_Ss= . :ic v . e ^e
Board of Sumervisors
County of Contra Costa
September 2 , 1994
Page 2
onportunity before the Commission to discuss the actual
1anCuage to be prcCcs2d. )
The School District requests that the proposed Pcl.icv 3-9x
to the General Plan, as suggested for the Albers II General
Plan Amendment, be amended as shown:
Development of the Albers II general plan amendment
area is intended to accommodate un to 97 residential
units. Development applications within the general
plan amendment area will be approved only upon
assurances, through project conditions of approval to
the extent allowable under State law, that all needed
public facilities , including school facilities ean Willi
be mrovided. -h _ __��.._ --- -
_ - _ a ��--
- 'anplican�: w' 11 ;:flay `m .ti.aa.Le :tYie case 'or
ou� ldlrg _`s.hoa raclhi.ties: tO fivuSe .t e s.�uaents
req=Qll�l`�'y a^�'Gl^atenera.
tad:'bV':tne GTei2a' 3
u:T�n :'Cfie*:cment� :b Cay' nC ".SCI?001 f aC' �'1�. ZS: IRlt 1Cat.ly^il
a Me d.. Roos. Ccmmllnl tV. �aC1�1:t`1eS
1:it., t.eL SC' CCl:: u St Ci �J� tne: amOt:ilt
GrwY'1�n:. 'r, taxes.::,, _ :.mac .b�un� -'C.n .;an aQ.eCtla:te
Sc Ecol Union SchoC�;:.:::
ov_-I e process t prenare 1 is
school facilities clan in a timely manner. Tie
apipr`ova ;:_`J ane C.''.LTin Z . unless,
aS aCbC�1Cn 'b� i�:1p .s',C.^_CC yTlic=r is r^�T.^.G C .Ce
_ .
arc� t_ar'v C camrlCiCL1S .
Sentance be added -_,z) t'e I== 1ddS Cu- _o_
`•'+___ -a amerCvec by ,-.^.e Ccu .v
unieSS _tS adoptiC^. CV t 5 �ChCO_ J_St--�. . is foun i z
Ze ar-bitrary or ca riC:CL:s .
=_s r=co:.,:,ended at your August ?nth hear:. _ on cur appeal of
t.^:a zoning Admin_Strazo:fs CSC_s_c , we are :vo='.{1P,g wit:?
:a::C"aae suaces--ea cli Zea PIann_na CCmm1ssion
-vr ; v%, the Sc'"cCl 1_.{a tC have Cmi-_te iS
-V �^. 1:: :1:{a0ut t'=i^ :•i i-_ a? gU24Igc iv _C "�.hc :�::^.CO_
=Z::! Ct vCt:'_C __'{e tC :aye _rcluda d _s typed 1n radl_ne
t'ive. _ '
Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
September 2 , 1994
Page 3
Centex Homes to determine if we can negotiate a mutually
agresabie solution to this issue without involving the Board
of Supervisors . However, as I will be describing+to you in
that context, we do not expect that process to be concluded
prior to your decision on the Albers II General Plan
Amendment. Consequently, we request that you include this
language in the documents adopted in implementing this
issue.
On behalf of the School District, 1 want to thank you for
the consideration you are giving the needs of the School
District as residential develocment .within the School
District increases . I= you have anv questions as you
consider this issue prior to hearing, please do not hes4Ltate
--o contact me, at (510) u'3--6c"
Very truly yours,
Marga=at Green
Sureri n tianaen�
cc: Steven _ . Gam.__ a_ max ..cores
Bvron Union School District
CONTRA COSTA COUViY
1 11 01 BYRON F IGHW AY,BYRON. CALIFORNIA 94514-9251
(510)634-6644
F_-_X(310)634-9421
Pt—z-v Greet, Superintendent
Santember 21, 1994
Cir. a Costa County
C_-Mmun_tJ Develccment Decart-merit
JB1 Pine S.=set, Ncrt:: Thing - Feu'-IA— Floor
Martinez, California 94553
Re: E cn D i sccyery lav West- Carrera T Plan amens:-an.t
Lea: Sir/Madams
_ rJr_L_ a x.11 a a:. t: Lv_J1: .rll_vn .- �::Te..r _ � �.L•1:V
:i_��..._1,... t '•..V vv.� V_.. _.. _V vil1 ,� ..�� ravle:Y_nr. --:i .il.a_f':
_.-Cn.u-e: -al I:1-act R? crL ` tt�i�719� Li?�2=2d rvi
J_.5�.v�i?..• �GV YY2S� G2,1'Le_�_ ..�~ �:ic�.�^.tC:itZ:i� j 11V_�71� .
-..0 S`n^_C i Dis:r iC- ::as en arad into a ' _t..:._',aticn acre?3�2
rala-ti-na- r" `-'..a .:::-,l:a:•'v r s Disc-ova'-y Bay Was
a..a CC`S ? Je- ar"; cDI=Cz_.r.. zo _ a = ,.._
=
a 1 a t ad tic ha C' .} _ e Sc:1cG_
^lave a:•�_' ��:'�C: cC�?�'c:/= *y - � 2r
�%._ Lt:vS2 dc'ia cC
•:y tC art:•i d 1 el-c- -p r=m.a..
tia 'dam..' .L: nC%= t''._;9 :c�_^.:J_::C, 1%CLC:S_ ,:1N.
.'a.._e. _-3 Sta=aS _::at t a+~:1_ .wpb_= -t;_
_-a ZS V_ L ./.1.. ''.iC.n�..�_�:ttGii.,' C /?_'��ers V. �_
Wi _n a .7_.. 'yY417_-._ _e
sr Cl;/ :e CC7e: dove, cce=s . tt °:Ya
request r..^.ai- r..'?_j it_�_C'tu`�v �n SL:=2 =ev_ser r
raa.:
tt �1 i"•c�iidA .v_ �in__�•..��n ZGdce:� �'V 1:C 1:
_SC:jv==•_� Ba,�* West carts C: t:l_ G_._ e b�
r e_uir i ng =ull -f--cm t.8
de•velccers , l:h=cuCh't ie nayirient o= addi:Lona
' COli 'nrCl7at:Cn ilLtyaes, "a
Fac_lities 0is;r_ct1 or donation cf :and
and/or Services. "
'Fc-" _ ,,_s raascn, we ars !!cam ccmme 1Cinc u:c;l any
disc_ecancles wh_cz may exist In tie Dy_R i= -- =elate
cr._v tc the Discovery 3av west Project.
. ,,n_ra
CIMMU.I.-ty Development Lepa. .:it"f1L
Sa=t 21, 1994
Pace ..
(21 Because the agras7an with iiZe HeffTlan Company
relates only to Discovery Bay West, we request
t:.at footnote "b" to Table 4 .8-1 be omitted.
School District's Iatast developer fes
justification study relates its experience that
hones wi_::in the District each generate .5
St Idents . Based a:cn this experience and the
numbers c:. dwslling uni:.a anticipatad, as set
�ort:i in Table 4 . 8-0 . mabla 4 .8-7 should stag
that homes built, by other developers will generate
65, rat`_r th.an 52, students for the School
D is trict . by t.`?a .;ea= 2 CIO , __ If the ncrt_cn Of the
L.�R a - `:'J1_C,'."4+ LS ;,ct '�o�. '.i V`.�. atm. I:�Q�•3 r. L��' �.�_�
aS=a _,___ d is 'Ch.is .f;c� -a
°,;1C}'.1�a �a : ?1L.".S.?..'.
TZT7
::ie it t. n c_n S'Cj.-
=ay be
C..`:Z« "�«"•:� .._ :;�= rz^.�.«a.: pia.^. � ':i,:`::,5.. ..
.=_1::.: ,._L:,_': _.:c .•..�.._ ..�� '_'ice:: - =,,i 1
an,
=v`_T• C.`: 2.
(t. o iCaj underl�neC SC:ICc l >s tr ic-_ sh_s
to ensure "'at tale d'eve_^vers are clear. the_- t e:
'ustf7_1111"' mit'Cate t: e a acts
Idevel--anent, and tea t::e measur a _S ,.:arida-01. 4 .
( i ire JC.^.oc-I District also reau' st s :.ids, 1L
developers are allowed tc utilize tie elementa~v
school site with'_:: Discovery Bay West for be_c_
and a'tar-scccl child care, the develoc_ ers be
:ecuired to pay tis School District the add_t�or.a�
naaintenance costs which it will incur as a result
of such increased uses .
Contra Costa County
Community Development Denartment
Szota� e= Z :99y
_ -r
Pace 3
We ammraciata i avi nc the czccrv=4—t j tO participata J " the
ceve?cpmenz of '"he R raiatin c tc 41--his area. �� ti7e Ccuntv
as any uas-zicns a CL' `:iesa issues a57. . ?V1Sc�S `. a D __~'
?ease cc not :hesitate to contact me.
Sincare�y yours
=a=�- t Gratin
�;:nerl.nt�iiGe.^.t
Byron Union School District
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
14401 BYRON HIGHNVAY, BYRON, CALIFORNIA 9.1511-9251
(510)634-6644
FAX(5 10)63.1-9121
Peggy Green, Superintendent
November 28, 1994
Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Casta
651 Fine Street
Marinez, CA 94553
RE. Approval of General Flan :amendment for 97 Residential Unit Addition to Albers
Project in Byron
Cear Members of the Board:
he Byrcn Union School Dist;;ct understands that the Board of Supervisors will be making its
`nal decision regarding the General Plan Amendment which will allow development of 97
re I ntial units on a portion — which was criginaily slated for commercial development — of
the Albers project in Byron.
You may remember that the School District has appeared before you several times to discuss
appropriate mitigation of the effects cf the residential development in and around Byrcn upon
its a0llity tO hCLSe t1le StLCents generated by that deveicpment.
When we last appeared before you cn this General Plan Amendment, you directed Centex
:cme5 �rld the Sc COI � isu is to attempt tC negotiate a resciution, based upon a new 4 c;iities
s«cy which was to be presented to the Beard of Supervisors. Centex and the Scheel District
vicrkad thand in hand to have a study pre,pared s;;only. in fact, we had agreed on consultants
t0 `NCrIk With 'When Centex asked that we hold c�i cn undertaking that extra expense, as Centex
believed that it Was in a position to suggest a wcrkabie resolution without having to review a
new StLd`l.
Since :hat time, Steve Garrett of Centex and i have been discussing the details of a proposal
reseivirg the mitigation issues for these homes, as well as the previously-approved 292
homes, and we hope to have one ready to present to our respective constituencies by January
cf 19-t�7.
Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
November 28, 1994
Page 2
We recognize that this time frame exceeds yours for approving the General Plan amendment.
Therefore, in order to preserve the School District's rights while the parties negotiate, we ask
that the County insert the following condition into the approval of the General Plan:
The developer(s) of any residential units which are built within the area of this
General Plan amendment shall pay the Byron Union School District $2.75 per
square foot of Assessable Space within each residential unit prior to obtaining a
building permit.for such unit.
i ne figures being discussed by Centex and the School District are not based upon full
mitigation (i.e., the 52.75/square foot), but upon compromise figures. Therefore, if the Board
accrcves this language, we assure you that the School District will take the payments into
acoount and adjust the figures necessary to mitigate the remainder of the Albers project.
We appreciate your continued attention to this matter. If you have any questions about this
issue, please do not hesitate to contact me prior to the Board meeting. I would also encourage
ycu to contact Steve Garrett at (510) 827-8200, to confirm that Centex Homes supports this
method of preserving rights while negotiations continue.
Very truly yours,
u
Margaret Green
`-uperintendent
L.. Steven P. Garie'.l. Centex Hcries
Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
November 3, 1995
Page 2
In July 1994, the School District filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to
approve Centex's final map for Phase I of subdivision 7679. A hearing on this matter was
held on August 16, 1994. At that time, the Board of Supervisors asked the parties if
negotiated settlement was still a possibility. When the School District and Centex responded
affirmatively, the Board directed us to discuss the issue based upon a Facilities Plan and, if
discussions proved unfruitful, to return for disposition by the Board. In September 1994, 1
returned to report to the Board that Centex and the School District were still moving
productively towards resolution and intended to proceed in the same manner. Given the
length of the pending meeting, we reported this to staff, and received no contrary direction
from the Board.
Since that time, the School District and Centex have implemented two approaches to
resolving this dispute, sometimes sequentially and sometimes concurrently. We first worked
with Centex to identity consultants who would prepare a revised Facilities Plan for the
School District. We met twice with Centex to develop goals and criteria for the Plan itself
and fcr retaining consultants, as well as a tight schedule for completing the Plan. We then,
jointly interviewed consultants identified through this process.
In October, we agreed with Centex upon a consultant, with whom the School District was
going to contract immediately. Before we contacted the consultant, however, Steve Garrett
of Centex called me, to suggest that we could likely come to an agreement without having to
obtain input from consultants.
We met again with Centex on October 28th, at which time Centex offered to the equivalent of
81.58 per square foot ("s") of assessable space within its development. In response, the
School District offered to accapt $1.98/sf, which represents a split of the difference between
the 81.2�IsI received pursuant to statute and the School District's $2.75isf need.
Although we did not come to an agreement at that time, we did agree that there was enough
potential far agreement that it was worthwhile to continue discussions. Because Mr. Garret
and 1 agreed that a proposal would be most likely to succeed if we could individually
negotiate something which could be jointly recommended to our respective constituencies,
we spoke many times prior to putting any further proposals on paper. Unfortunately, Centex
apparently rethought its position mid-process, and its subsequent proposal was still
unsatisfactory.
Byron Union School District
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
14401 BYRON HIGHWAY, BYRON, CALIFORNIA 94514-9251
(510) 634-6644
FAX (510) 6349421
Peggy Green, Superintendent
February 28, 1995
Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553
Re: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Approval
- Final Mao for Albers Proiec: in Bvron
Dear Members of the Board:
I am writing to inform you that negotiations between the Byron Union School District and
Centex Homes regarding the effects of the Albers development on the School District have
broken down. By this letter, the School District requests that the County reactivate the
School District's appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve the final map for
Subdivisions 7679 and 7881. Alternatively, since we are informed that anal approval of
Phase II is pending and it appears that the decision we appealed last summer may not have
binding effect upon subsequent phases, we request that mitigation issues be considered at
that hearing, once again in the context of an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision
that Centex has fulfilled all mitigation conditions included on the tentative map.'
The basis of the School District's appeal is set forth in my letter of July 28, 1994 - attached
for your convenience — was written to support the School District's appeal of the approval of
Phase i of Subdivision 7679.
' There is some confusion regarding whether the Zoning Administrator's earlier
approval of the final map applies to the entirety of Subdivisions 7669 and 7881, or only to
Phase I of subdivision 7679. The School District indicated last summer that it would not
oppose approval of Phase I. It does seek, however, to pursue and preserve all options
relating to Phase 11 and successive phases of these subdivisions.
Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
November 3, 1995
Page 3
This proposal, received earlier this month, was for an"amount which would leave the. School
District absolutely unable to build facilities necessary to house the students which will move
into Centex's planned homes. While our existing facilities pian shows that it will cost
$2.75Isf of new development housing to build the necessary school facilities, Centex's latest
and highest offer has been the equivalent of only $1.661sf. This offer would provide only
60% of the necessary funding, and would leave the School District with a shortfall of neariv
$7.35,0001. As you are aware, the future of the State funding program is extremely
questionable. The School District has accepted responsibility for finding funding from some
other source for nearly 30% of its need (i.e., the equivalent of $0.77Isf [$2.75 - $1.98]), but
cannot responsibly agree to do more than this.
We appreciate your attention to this matter and concern about the ability to provide services
to children who will be moving into the School District. If you have any questions prior to the
hearing on this matter, please do not hesitate to call me, at (510) 634-6644. In the
meantime, we will keep in contact with Planning Department staff regarding the date for the
hearing on this matter.
Very truly ycurs.
Margaret Green
Superintendent
EF-1
rci(s): July 26. 1994 Letter
��: SLeven P. Garrett. Cientex ji
Llcmes
Bvron Union School District
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
14401 BYRON HIG'rIWAY. BYRON. CALIFORNIA 9-1.514-92-1
(510)634-6644
F.a.Y(510)634-9411
Peggy Green. Superintendent
Byron Middle School Discovery Bav Elementary School
1.401 Byron Highway 1700 Willow Lake Rd.
Bvron. CA 94514 B,,Ton. CA 94514
(5 10)634-=1:3 (5 10) 634-?150
April 5, 1995
Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Approval
Final Map for Albers Project in Byron
Dear Members of the Board:
On March S. 1995. the Byron Union School District filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to
approve the final map for Subdivision #7907, a development being built by Centex Homes ("Centex''} in the
Byron Area.' A copy of our letter of March 6. 1995. is enclosed for your reference. The school district has not
heard from the County regarding the date upon which this appeal will be heard.
As you may be aware, Supervisor Tortakson has arranged for the school district and Centex to meet with a
mediator to attempt to resolve the issue of Centex's mitigation of the impacts of the development upon the
school district. We met with Centex last week for that purpose and believe that these discussions may
eventually resolve the issue. However, we are also aware that. in order to preserve all legal alternatives, we
must continue to pursue our administrative remedies. Therefore, we are requesting that the appeal be set for
hearing, although the school district would not be adverse to having a few more weeks prior to the hearing. in
order to continue our dialogue with Centex.
Please notify me when the hearing on this appeal is set. If you have any questions. please do not hesitate to
contact me at (510) c34-e644. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
Margaret Green
Superintendent
Enc.: 3/6/95 fetter from Byron Union School Cistrict
cc: Steven P. Garrett. Centex Homes
'We expressed the appeal as zither(1) a renewal of the appeal of the approval of Subdivisions 7679 and 7881,
or (2) an initial appeal of the approval of 7907, due to the open question of whether the Zoning Administratcrs
approval of Phase I of Subdivision 7679 would have binding effect upon subsequent approvals.
DATE:
REQUEST TO SPEAK '' ORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT %
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers rostrum before
addressing the Board.
NA.'viE: 5A-A)i- yt� SQA C. .5 PHONE: 93 7 Jofly
ADDRESS: (J pwlc V CrtY: LJ G
I am speaking formyself OR organization: i,tt4
(NAME OF ORGANIZNTION)
Check one:
10 I wish to speak on Agenda Item #
My comments will be: general r against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
DATE:
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.
NAME: C�-0-- 1 PHoNE: 4-cTV6 "—iso 1
fie. �...� •, z��
ADDRESS: /VL.c 9,S-/4-0 CI Y:
I am speaking formyself OR organization: L�--o., U s D
Check one: NAME OF ORGANI7_NTIOX)
I wish to speak on Agenda Ite 3
My comments will be: g Tal for against X
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
Request to Speak Form
( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in box near the speakers' nostrum
before addressing the Board.
Name. UOU
C>
�G
Address: �Aj -V-/%-o , C-S,L,/
I am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of orpnization)
CHECK ONE-
1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #� Date-,—L--L--4f
My comments will be: general —for agaunsty_—0
1 wish to speak on the subject of
1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board
to consider:
DATE:
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. /
NAME: �t so- /Lan ^ PHONE:
rrII T
ADDRESS: �`1 �G.I.VLUy C+ CITY:
I am speaking formyself OR organization: (NAME OF ORGAN17NT10N)
Check one:
I wish to speak on Agenda Ite #
My comments will be: gen for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
DATE: 7- %6
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. /- q
NAME:_ E PHONE: 63
ADDRESS:
I am speaking formyself OR organization:
(NAME OF ORGA:VV.-XTIOx)
Check one:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item
My comments will be: gen for against
I wish to speak on the subject of >V,
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider.
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.
Name: fUL� Jl/�C`C Phone: -`/D (o3 Y �(
Address: �,� �3 L C° Ckr-4L f
1 am speaking for myself or organization: ,ka) 3- Cyf� &9,VW
of oranizati m)
CHECK ONE:
wish to speak on Agenda Item # 7 3 Date: wL Ua `��5-
My comments will be: general zc for against .
I wish to speak on the subject of
_ 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board
to consider:
Request to Speak Form
( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) '�J
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers rump
before addressing the Board.
Name: 1' Phone: 7
Address: /? Ina�i/9 a L�'l�G`�i may; -4�
I am speaking for myself or organization: � y�
(flame of orpnizatio��
CHE ONE:
1 wish to speak on Agenda Item # L3 Date:
—LL-'7— %-L
My comments will be: general for against
1 wish to speak on the subject of
1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board
to consider.
Request to Speak Fora '
( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' m
before addressing the Board.
Name: STEVE G�t��E-�--T Phone:
Address City: C-e,�wX.rZ)
1 am spearing for myself or organization:
(Acme of organization)
CHECK ONE-
1 garish to speak on Agenda Itemfagmnst-.
My comments will be: for
1 wish to speak on the subject of
do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board
to consider.