The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 07161996 - D5 p. s TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: JULY 16, 1996 SUBJECT: URBAN LIMIT LINE SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. DETERMINE whether or not to place an advisory measure on the ballot that would change the urban limit line in the Tassajara Valley. A. IDENTIFY boundary of area proposed. 2. DETERMINE whether or not other areas within the County should be placed on the ballot for urban limit line consideration. A. IDENTIFY boundary of area proposed. FISCAL IMPACT: None known at this time. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: On July 9, 1996, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to place an item on the July 16 agenda to determine whether or not to ask the voters to retain all or a portion of the Tassajara Valley area within the urban limit line. A map of the urban limit line in the Tassajara Valley area is provided showing the boundaries of projects in the area. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: —YES SIGNATURE: _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON July 16, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED— OTHER X See Addendum for Board action. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE,AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE XITNANIMOUS(ABSF.NT ) MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. AYES: NOES: ATTESTED July 16, 1996 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PHIL BATCHELP,CLERK OFTHE BOARD OF SUPE SORSCOUNT ' MINISTRATOR VA:dg BY DEPUTY ull.bo Contact: Val Alexeeff(646-16211) CC: County Administrator County Counsel GMEDA Departments Tassajara Valley/Urban Limit Line Board Order July 16, 1996 vp a #040 4I.17 s c{ r MCwvw CppAM ti cau.r Hou+vO sin= i rri rr,r oe ,a z �- ¢'�_� IL X Yi a°13{p s s?c T f7FF' co ,,3�r'["s.�'��,,yl"�`�.+'' u� 3 ►oto 2 h �04 llpTvf to CVOtl YM"'CCYI ♦� ..�Y�f h�T4 h�.r Y: U ' Pj Qt Ac�cn�'t`^ft!"4S1 r n + ��4�� e�>�r , _70 5�r��3.`rV.�'�• 'y,� ,'�.�a„� �g�� -k'�...� �,4r'..� 3 a s - S y�}�X j �! F 1��k,;C7YR �,y�'1k �A-- r; '� 1'-...yl'I�r,L ra*."• R��ir7�'w v•syr ' .�r^ ,�� m7 �ti, � �'r� 'X kF`Si' �b i�'�i �� r N •Y1h# � •�J+ ♦ e ilp Y L.yy� T�� y� M(�yM�� t�wkC��fw{{ij��,¥k,�.1'��4� � r•, ,A�� 1 r� �:�'`�{.1•r� ty.�„(pi0•� a r' �'n' ��s>M� Y.'� ��5f�,,y6 Y'' G•�' '�Y ELr 7 x t ipM y rylc v r ��a rL” t GI•r• , b �1, VSA ¢ � ` 7^ c,1}}�Qw�.p rL'PW SGP' -'J jE g n4 NOANVO r � g %QW Mir w ow P ADDENDUM TO D. 5 JULY 16, 1996 On this date the Board of Supervisors considered issues related to urban limit lines Countywide and/or any specific area thereto, and a proposed advisory ballot measure for the November 5, 1996, General Election. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented a staff report on the matter. The following persons presented testimony: Jim Blickenstaff, 2410 Talavera Drive, San Ramon, Mt . Diablo Sierra Club, presented written comments which were read by the Chairman Smith; Tom Koch, 2682 Bishop Drive #206, San Ramon, representing Shapell Industries; Jim Jakel, 2694 Bishop Drive, Ste 121, San Ramon, Executive Director, Contra Costa Council; Curt Kinney, 2439 Ascension Drive, San Ramon, presented written comments which were read by Chairman Smith; Linda Best, 3182 Old Tunnel Road, #E, Lafayette, representing the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association; Guy Bjerke, P.O. 5160, San Ramon, representing the Home Builders Association; Mark Armstrong, P.O. Box 218, Danville, representing the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association, read a letter from the Association; Janet Homle, 21167 Oro Grande Place, Cupertino, spoke for Cheryl Rapp; Dr. Nolan Sharp, 4510 Camino Tassajara, Danville, Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association; Joe Case, 8651 Camino Tassajara, Danville; Gordon Rasmussen, 6000 Highland Road, Pleasanton; Joan Case, 8651 Camino Tassajara, Danville; Dorothy Silva, 173 Dogwood Place, San Ramon; Tom Mooers, 500 Ygnacio Valley Road #250, Walnut Creek, Greenbelt Alliance; Jack Bishop, 2800 Finley Road, Pleasanton. The Board discussed the matter. Supervisor Rogers moved to consider a measure on the ballot with appropriate input from the cities and planning commission and following that input to return to the Board of Supervisors for decision. Supervisor Smith seconded the motion. Supervisor Bishop expressed support for a Countywide measure but not an advisory vote. The Board discussed the motion. Supervisor DeSaulnier expressed opposition to the motion and he moved a substitute motion to not consider this issue at this time . There was no second to the substitute motion. Supervisor Torlakson expressed opposition to directing staff to come back with a ballot measure but he expressed support if the motion were to direct staff to comeback with a report on how to fullfill the General Plan five year review process and look at the lines . Supervisor Bishop and Supervisor Smith indicated concurrence . IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Community Development Department staff, following appropriate input, is DIRECTED to report to the Board of Supervisors on a process for the evaluation of the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line and the General Plan five year review process . Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' ao bw before addressing the Board. Name.- • Z's- I am speaking for myself or • wank of o�nEsatioN 01Eac ONE: / _ 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #= MrmmCoents will be: for _ 1 wish to Weak on the abject of � i do not wish to speak but leave Comments for the Board x9t --to den S LAW OFFICES OF GAGEN, MCCOY, MCMAHON & ARMSTRONG WILLIAM E. GAGEN, JR. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DANVILLE OFFICE GREGORY L. MCCOY ' PATRICK J. MCMAHON 279 FRONT STREET MARK L. ARMSTRONG P. O. BOX 218 LINN K. COOMBS DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526-0218 STEPHEN W. THOMAS TELEPHONE: (510) 837-0585 CHARLES A. KOSS FAX: (SIO) 838-S98S MICHAEL J. MARKOWITZ MICHAEL W. CARTER NAPA OFFICE RICHARD C. RAINES 1001 SECOND STREET, SUITE 31S VICTOR J. CONTI July 16, 1996 NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94559-3017 BARBARA DUVAL JEWELL TELEPHONE' (707) 224-8396 ROBERT M. FANUCCI FAX: (707) 224-5817 ALLAN C. MOORE PATRICIA E. CURTIN PLEASE REPLY TO: STEPHEN T. BUEHL ALEXANDER L. SCHMID Danville CHARLES A. KLINGE DANIEL A. MULLER Chair Jeff Smith and Members of the Board of Supervisors c/o Clerk of the Board 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Item D. 5 and Issues Related to Urban Limit Lines and Proposed Advisory Measure for the November 5, 1996 General Election Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association Dear Chair Smith: The Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association requests that the Board of Supervisors decline to put an advisory measure on the November 5th ballot concerning adjustments in the urban limit line in the Tassajara Valley. Under the particular facts and state of the Tassajara Valley planning process, such a measure at this time is premature. It would not allow for meaningful participation by the voters because the Tassajara Valley General Plan Amendment and Zoning Study, previously authorized by the Board of Supervisors, is not completed. A decision on voter participation should await completion of that study and planning process which includes County completion ofa final environmental impact report. In 1990, the voters approved the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan. Virtually every precinct in the County, including the San Ramon Valley, rejected the alternative Greenbelt Initiative and supported the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan. The 65/35 Plan with its urban limit line locations was adopted by the Board of Supervisors following a series of public hearings and as part of an ongoing update of the County's General Plan. The Board and the public had the benefit of that public planning process in making their decisions. After a similar public process, that Board and cities had previously adopted in 1988 the framework for a Countywide Transportation Plan and referred it to the voters for consideration. These two initiatives, 1988 Measure C and the 1990 Measure C, confirm that the Board of Supervisors will involve the W1 Chair Jeff Smith and Members of the Board of Supervisors July 16, 1996 Page 2 voters in making decisions on planning issues where appropriate. A ballot measure at this time for the Tassajara Valley as proposed by Donna Gerber is not appropriate. That her campaign manager! Richie Ross, apparently believes that a Tassajara Valley ballot measure would be timely to help her political campaign does not mean that it is the correct time to meaningfully involve the voters in planning and policy decisions related to the Tassajara Valley. If the Board of Supervisors, following completion of the planning process and with input from local officials and members of the public, determines that one or more of the legislative decisions relating to the Tassajara Valley Study should be submitted to the voters for their consideration, the Board has the statutory ability to do so at that time by way of initiative or referendum. Based on previous direction from the Board as part of its Dougherty' Valley planning process, the Tassajara Valley planning process will evaluate whether or not the urban limit line in the Tassajara Valley should be adjusted. That determination will in part be dependant upon specific factual analysis with respect to the availability of infrastructure to address traffic, schools, water, sewer and other public service needs. If those infrastructure issues are not addressed to the satisfaction of County and local .officials, TVPOA recognizes that development in the Tassajara Valley will not be approved by the Board. The Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement provides a useful model in that regard. In addition, we recognize that providing some land use distinctions between Contra Costa County and Alameda County, Dublin, Danville and San Ramon at -- the south end of the Tassajara Valley is han important issue to be addressed in the planning process. The appropriate location of the urban limit line to address that planning issue can , only be effectively assessed through a comprehensive planning process. Creating such a line different than approved in 1990, for an advisory ballot measure this November would be arbitrary and unfair and would not likely address in the best and .most fair way these infrastructure and planning objectives. TVPOA. has played by the planning rules. It has paid the County close to one million dollars in application fees and EIR costs. it is only fair for the Board to allow that planning process to be completed without, being interrupted by a premature advisory ballot measure. If TVPOA must also participate in a Tassajara Valley election process, then at least it should await the completion of the Tassajara valley planning process. The Dougherty Valley legislative planning process . was not interrupted by an advisory measure. :If Gayle Bishop formally asked for it when she was running, I do not, believe the Board back then would have approved it. �oC�.►e w D, 57 Chair Jeff Smith and Members of the Board of Supervisors July 16, 1996 Page 3 Donna Gerber has stated her opinion that Camino Tassajara will turn out like Ygnacio Valley Road if the Tassajara Valley and the Dougherty Valley are developed. Therefore, she thinks the voters ought to now give input on whether the urban limit line should be modified to avoid that situation. TVPOA is well aware that if traffic analysis for the Tassajara Valley Study concludes that Camino Tassajara will be like Ygnacio Valley Road, then the Tassajara Valley General Plan Amendment will not be approved by this or any other Board. Tassajara Valley will only be authorized for development to the extent that traffic analysis using the TVTC traffic model confirms that such development, coupled with road improvements in Danville and San Ramon acceptable to those local officials, will not cause traffic level of service standards established in the Tri-Valley Action Plan in Danville and San Ramon to be exceeded. We do not need the results of an advisory ballot measure to reconfirm that political fact of life. The political and planning process for the Tassajara Valley has and will continue to be . time consuming, complicated and costly for TVPOA. Under the facts here, it serves no legitimate public purpose to require TVPOA to be engaged in a parallel, premature Tassajara Valley election process. Therefore, we respectfully request the Board -to reject Donna Gerber's request. In so doing the Board is not rejecting the public' s opportunity to make meaningful ballot measure decisions once more on the Tassajara Valley. All the Board is saying is the time is not right to provide such meaningful input. In the ordinary course of the Tassajara Valley planning process, County and local officials, with input from interested members of the public, will have the opportunity to evaluate whether the voters should make further decisions on the planning future for the Tassajara Valley, just like they did in 1990 with the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan. Ver truly yours, ark L. Armstrong MLA:kh cc: TVPOA, Inc. Attn: Jim Black F:\CLMLA\I993MMITH.LTR LAW OFFICES OF GAGEN, MCCOY, MCMAHON & ARMSTRONG WILLIAM E. GAGEN, JR. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DANVILLE OFFICE GREGORY L. MCCOY PATRICK J. MCMAHON 279 FRONT STREET MARK L. ARMSTRONG P. 0. BOX 216 LINN K. COOMBS DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 945 26-0218 STEPHEN W. THOMAS TELEPHONE: (SIO) 637-0585 CHARLES A. KOSS FAX'. (510) 838-5985 MICHAEL J. MARKOWITZ MICHAEL W. CARTER NAPA OFFICE RICHARD C. RAINES 1001 SECOND STREET, SUITE 315 VICTOR J. CONTI July 16, 1996 NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94559-3017 BARBARA DUVAL JEWELL TELEPHONE: (707) 224-8396 ROBERT M. FANUCCI FAX: (707) 224-5817 ALLAN C. MOORE PATRICIA E. CURTIN PLEASE REPLY TO: STEPHEN T. BUEHL ALEXANDER L. SCHMID Danville CHARLES A. KLINGE DANIEL A. MULLER _ Chair Jeff Smith and Members of the Board of Supervisors c/o Clerk of the Board 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Item D.5 and Issues Related to Urban Limit Lines and Proposed Advisory Measure for the November 5, 1996 General Election Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association Dear Chair Smith: The Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association requests that the Board of Supervisors decline to put an advisory measure on the November 5th ballot concerning adjustments in the urban limit line in the Tassajara Valley. Under the particular facts and state of the Tassajara Valley planning process, such a measure at this time is premature. It would not allow for meaningful participation by the voters because the Tassajara Valley General Plan Amendment and Zoning Study, previously authorized by the Board of Supervisors, is not completed. A decision on voter participation should await completion of that study and planning process which includes County completion of a final environmental impact report. In 1990, the voters approved the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan. Virtually every precinct in the County, including the San Ramon Valley, rejected the alternative Greenbelt Initiative and supported the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan. The 65/35 Plan with its urban limit line locations was adopted by the Board of ,Supervisors following a series of public hearings and as part of an ongoing update of the County's General Plan. The Board and the public had the benefit of that public planning process in making their decisions. After a similar public process, that Board and cities had previously adopted in 1988 the framework for a Countywide Transportation Plan and referred it to the voters for consideration. These two initiatives, 1988 Measure C and the 1990 Measure C, confirm that the Board of Supervisors will involve the Chair Jeff Smith and Members of the Board of Supervisors July 16, 1996 Page 2 voters in making decisions on planning issues where appropriate. A ballot measure at this time for the Tassajara Valley as proposed by Donna Gerber is not appropriate. That - her campaign manager, Richie Ross, apparently believes that a Tassajara Valley ballot measure would be timely to help her political campaign does not mean that it is the correct time to meaningfully involve the voters in planning and policy decisions related to the Tassajara Valley. If the Board of Supervisors, following completion of the planning process and with input from local officials and members of the public, determines that one or more of the legislative decisions relating to the Tassajara Valley Study should be submitted to the _ voters for their consideration, the Board has the statutory ability to do so at that time by way of initiative or referendum. Based on previous direction from the Board as part of its Dougherty Valley planning process, the Tassajara Valley planning process will evaluate whether or not the urban limit line in the Tassajara Valley should be adjusted. That determination will in part be dependant upon specific factual analysis with respect to the availability of infrastructure to address traffic, schools, water, sewer and other public service needs. If those infrastructure issues are not addressed to the satisfaction of County and local officials, TVPOA recognizes that development in the Tassajara Valley will not be approved by the Board. The Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement provides a useful model in that regard. In addition, we recognize that providing some land use distinctions between Contra Costa County and Alameda County, Dublin, Danville and San Ramon at the south end of the Tassajara Valley is an important issue to be addressed in the planning process. The appropriate location of the urban limit line to address that planning issue can only be effectively assessed through a comprehensive planning process. Creating such a line different than approved in 1990, for an advisory ballot measure this November would be arbitrary and unfair and would not likely address in the best and most fair way these infrastructure and planning objectives. TVPOA has played by the planning rules. It has paid the County close to one million dollars in application fees and EIR costs. It is only fair for the Board to allow that planning process to be completed without being interrupted by a premature advisory ballot measure. If TVPOA must also participate in a Tassajara Valley election process, then at least it should await the completion of the Tassajara Valley planning process. The Dougherty Valley legislative planning process was not interrupted by an advisory measure. If Gayle Bishop formally asked for it when she was running, I do not believe the Board back then would have approved it. Chair Jeff Smith and Members of the Board of Supervisors July 16, 1996 Page 3 Donna Gerber has stated her opinion that Camino Tassajara will turn out like Ygnacio Valley Road if the Tassajara Valley and the Dougherty Valley are developed. Therefore, she thinks the voters ought to now give input on whether the urban limit line should be modified to avoid that situation. TVPOA is well aware that if traffic analysis for the Tassajara Valley Study concludes that Camino Tassajara will be like Ygnacio Valley Road, then the Tassajara Valley General Plan Amendment will not be approved by this or any other Board. Tassajara Valley will only be authorized for development to the extent that traffic analysis using the TVTC traffic model confirms that such development, coupled with road improvements in Danville and San Ramon acceptable to those local officials, will not cause traffic level of service standards established in the Tri-Valley Action Plan in Danville and San Ramon to be exceeded. We do not need the results of an advisory ballot measure to reconfirm that political fact of life. The political and planning process for the Tassajara Valley has and will continue to be time consuming, complicated and costly for TVPOA. Under the facts here, it serves no legitimate public purpose to require TVPOA to be engaged in a parallel, premature Tassajara Valley election process. Therefore, we respectfully request the Board to reject Donna Gerber' s request. In so doing the Board is not rejecting the public's opportunity to make meaningful ballot measure decisions once more on the Tassajara Valley. All the Board is saying is the time is not right to provide such meaningful input. In the ordinary course of the Tassajara Valley planning process, County and local officials, with input from interested members of the public, will have the opportunity to evaluate whether the voters should make further decisions on the planning future for the Tassajara Valley, just like they did in 1990 with the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan. iark truly yours, L. Armstrong MLA:kh cc: TVPOA, Inc. Attn: Jim Black F:\CLMLA\19938\SMITH.LTR Request to Speak Form 14s ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete fib form and place it in the box near the speakers rostrum before addressing the Board. 1Van�e: v �,LJ�JC *hone• �� / • -`�3�r' I am rpealang for nhrW ,or organha ion: a m of o�nisatioN fC�C ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item #. My comments will be: general _for_#gainst _ x/' . _ i wish to speak on the abject of 1 . �41to speak but leave oom for the Board t0 corader.' �F1-`N r/h on� •�'�, -A � , - � �.. _ ��_N�i c,c� c?2 �S.Pa� . �'.�ma,,.J- �� _/arty! ��.� _ _ _. /mac.`rJ��m�o�� C1�' S.� .r - Mount Diablo Regional Group Sierra Club - San Francisco Bay Chapter P.O. Box 4457, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. Y'c/ (:TKF s f � C i lldscv . � �� GGU�r�c� cow de-t ONE .NARITIytE PLAZA 23RD FLOOR SAV FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 411:1.3677 192-7077 MCQUAID, METZLER, MCCORMICR {x VAN ZANDT LLP FAX(4415)392.3969 FILE Y;;NBRR DIRECT 01A:. July 16, 1996 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County c/o Application and Permit Center 651 Pine Street, 2d Floor, North Wing Martinez, California Re: Hearings on Club Hyatt, County File # DP953089, LP932099, July 16, 1996 Honorable Supervisors: We represent the Club Hyatt Project (the "Project") and we are submitting this letter in response to the letter, dated July 11, 1996, submitted on behalf of the Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Local 2850 by its attorney, Mr. Andrew Kahn of Davis, Cowell & Bowe. we disagree with the points raised in Mr. Kahn's letter and most especially with his conclusion that the Negative Declaration proposed for the Project is legally insufficient. For the reasons cited herein, we believe the negative declaration is sufficient under the California Environmental Quality Act VICEQA") and believe Mr. Kahn,s letter rails to provide any substantial evidence to support his conclusions. First and foremost, Mr. Kahn states that the legal standard to be used in this situation is whether "no 'fair argument, can be made that the project May cause an environmental impact. . . . (emphasis in original) . Mr. Kahn cites to Quail Botanical gardens Foundation v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal. App. 4th 1597, 1603. However, the Quail~ Case dealt with a negative declaration which was used as the initial study for a project. ZAL at 1600. The accurate legal standard for determining whether a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report (WEIR") is required is contained in Cal. Public Resources Code J 21166. Section 21166 states: When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible 3t%RCM8%VANt M2%3YATT.LTB, A LI.�uTHo LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLI:DINC PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA LOS ANCSLE9,CALIFORNIA MC tJAID, METZLEP, 1T CCOR ICK & VANT ANTZAND 1 LL? Board of Supervisors July 16, 1996 Page 2 agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs: (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report. (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact statement. (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. The standard of review to be applied to the lead agency-'s decision in the case of a determination under section 21166 not to require a subsequent or supplemental SIR on a project is "the traditional, deferential substantial evidence test. " gra Club y. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1318. "The court decides only whether the administrative record as a whole demonstrates substantial evidence to support the determination that the changes in the project or its circumstances were not so substantial as to require major modifications of the EIR. " I�L Here there is more than substantial evidence in the record to support the County negative declaration. Mr. Kahn's letter fails utterly to provide the Board with any evidence that any of these changed circumstances have occurred. His anecdotal statements about changes and cumulative impacts are merely that and do not rise to the level of "substantial evidence. " Newberry 912rings W4t2r AGa I nV. County of San Bernardino (1984) 150 Cal.App. 3d 740, 749. Therefore, without any substantial evidence to support Mr. Kahn's position, his arguments must be rejected. Mr. Rahn also states that the County cannot rely on tiering of the EIR while the "first tier" documents are undergoing revision. However, the legal standard is whether the changes brought by the project are outside the scope of the original EIR and whether there are changed circumstances caused by the proposed project which require a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Mr. Kahn has failed to provide any evidence that any such changes exist in this case and further he fails to articulate any specific impacts from the Project on the changes he does cite. s:�saes�vwxa�i�ssrrr.s.� MCQUAID, METZLER, MCCORItiIICK & VAN ZAINTDT LLP __. .. ......... -- -- --- ----. _ -. Board of Supervisors July 16, 1996 Page 3 Therefore, Mr. Kahn's letter fails to present substantial evidence in support of his contention and must be rejected. N&W erre, 150 Cal. App. 3d at 749. Mr. Kahn argues that the change from an office building to a health club is a substantial change from the old use. However, Mr. Kahn fails to support his contention that this change will cause a change in the environmental impact analysis. In fact, as to traffic the analysis shows that the peak hour traffic use of the facility will actually decrease. As to the argument that the Board is not looking at a true project but at a piece of a project, the case cited by Mr. Kahn dealt with a situation where a city took the position that no ETR would be required for changes to a general plan as long as somewhere down the road an EIR was required. Christward Ministry v. suparior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 193. This is clearly not our case. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that a health club as opposed to offices would have a growth-inducing effect on the neighborhood. The space utilized by the health club would be less than the office space and whether it would cause any growth is more speculation. See Merz V. Board of Supervisors (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 933 . Finally, as to Mr. Kahn*s assertion that the County may not require "interested parties to sift through a variety of documents and files, " is an exaggeration at best. The case cited by Mr. Kahn dealt with a situation where a negative declaration cited to no less than 19 separate environmental studies. Emmington v. Solana County (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 491, 496. This is clearly not our case where only an EIR and a supplemental EIR are the basis of the analysis. For the foregoing reasons, the Unions arguments should be rejected and the negative declaration approved. sincerel , F Michael Va Za dt cc: County Counsel 3 VMG6%VANa_XI18YAST.LT%