HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11042003 - D4 DA
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Date: November 4, 2003
On this date,the Board of Supervisors considered the Board sponsored Urban Limit Line (ULL)
voter initiative (requiring voter approval for specified ULL expansion) for possible placement on
the March 2, 2004 Ballot.
Supervisor Glover advised at this time he will bring this proposal back sometime in May 2004
for the November 2004 Ballot, to allow for continue dialogue over the issue of Shaping Our
Future and Urban Limit Line(ULL).
The Chair invited those who wished to address the Board. The following persons presented
testimony:
Pete Laurence, Mayor, City of Clayton, 6000 Heritage Trail, Clayton;
Lee Huo, Greenbelt Alliance, 1601 N. Main Street, Walnut Creek;
Mike Daley, Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter, 729 Everett Street, El Cerrito;
Dr. William Glynn, 166 Heron Drive, Pittsburg;
Julie Pierce, Shaping Our Future, City of Clayton, 1526 Haviland Place, Clayton.
Supervisor Greenberg suggested that this matter be brought back.in December for further
discussion. The Board then took the following action:
DECIDED that the Urban Limit Line (ULL)voter initiative(requiring voter
approval for specified ULL expansion)will not be placed on the March 2, 2004
ballot and will return this issue in December for further discussion.
AW �- v
s •j t
Pnunued 1 �iarpor&t1 ¢� =
r Cniaxril
PerER A.LAURLN_E,AIAYOR
�' Jut.ie K.I7,sucE, vicr�M ra+
COMMUNITY GREGORY J. MANNING
DF,VELOPMENT (925) 673-7340 6000 HERITAGE TRAIL • CLAYTON, CALIFORNIA 94517-1250 DAVIr>T. 5Hu=.Y
ENGINEERING (92 5) 673-9760 TELEPHONE (925) 673-7300 FAX (925) 672-4917 WILLIAM R. WALCLITM
November 3, 2003
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Proposed Ballot Measure,Urban Limit Line
Dear Chairman DeSaulnier and Supervisors:
Most of us supported the Urban Limit Line (ULL) concept and its passage during the 1990
Election, and it has helped greatly to save our County and to improve planning decisions. But
just as some salt is good for the stew and too much is ruinous, there is such a thing as too much
planning by either fiat or by ballot box,which can indeed be harmful to our County.
Some of us think the actual line drawn in haste for the 1990 ballot measure was "close" but too
arbitrary, needing some clarification and delineation along portions of its edges. Some of us
think the Board's 2000 decision to shift 17,0100 additional acres from the "urban side" to the
"rural side" was a subsequent missed opportunity to constructively provide that refined
delineation. By correcting none of the city areas that deserved to be on the "urban side" of the
ULL, and solely adding large areas to the "rural side", the County unnecessarily created more
hardship, distrust and conflict than was either needed or logical.
Currently,through the"Shaping Our Future"process and with individual city efforts, we all have
another great opportunity to make adjustments on both sides of the ULL. These adjustments can
solve most if not all of the concerns of the cities and adjacent agencies, as well as protect those
huge areas of the County that we all want protected. Such a reasoned review of the areas and
concerns is yours and our job as elected officials, which could well lead to cooperation amongst
all of us in solving together our interrelated regional issues of growth, transportation and habitat.
Such a result could also become the basis for logically extending these agreements for many
more years into the future for the good of all.
For the County to instead abdicate your and our elected responsibilities and turn it over to the
County's voters as a whole would be a lot like turning over complex matters to the voters
directly, such as the running of your Juvenile Hall, which Building Codes to enforce, and
whether County Supervisors should ever get a pay raise.
1
Letter to County Board of Supervisors re:ULL Ballot Measure
November 3,2003
Page 2 of 2
It seems to me that since the Supervisors can change the ULL lines already with a 4/5ths vote,
your proposed Ballot Measure is not necessary. But if a Ballot Measure is desired to save
yourselves and successors from feared bad judgment in the future, such a Ballot Measure should
be done .AFTER we have all made the existing ULL as accurate as we can. That would be a
ULL that would emerge by consensus after the next six (6) months or year of negotiation and
deliberation with the"Shaping Our Future"process, and with others.
The Clayton City Council will be addressing this issue of a proposed Urban Limit Line Ballot
Measure at our regular City Council meeting scheduled for November 4, 2003 in the evening
AFTER you have met. But in the meantime, as one Mayor, this is my response to your request
for input: DO NOT PROCEED at this time with the ULL Ballot Measure.
Sincerely,
pl;lz
Peter A. Laurence
Mayor
cc: Clayton City Council
City Councils(18)in Contra Costa County
2