Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06231998 - D8 70: , BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra nom; SUPERVISOR DONNA GERBER ,• '' Costs i Coin DATA: JUNE 23, 1998 SUsjtcT: REPORT AND AGRICULTURAL AGREEMENT, TASSAJARA AREA, DISTRICT 3 SPECWIC REQUEST{S}OR RtOOMMENDATIOK(S)i•ACKGROUND Alio J=FICATION Recommendation: 1, Consider and accept report from Supervisor Gerber regarding the Beard's direction to develop an agreement with the Town of Danville and the City of San Ramon for agricultural preservation in the Tassajara area. 2. Consider and accept report from the Community Development Depart- ment on approved/pending residential development in Contra Costa County. 3. Approve the Tassajara.Agricultural Preservation Agreement. Backer„ ound: On May 19, 1998, the Board authorized Supervisor Gerber to develop a proposal for an Agricultural Preservation Agreement with the Town of Danville and the City of San Ramon in order to maintain the agricultural character and General Plan designation for the Tassajara Valley area in District 3. Subsequently, the Town and City councils agreed to participate in developing an agreement. Community Development and County Counsel worked with Supervisor Gerber and representatives of the Town and City to develop an agreement. Several meetings were held to work out the language for an agreement and that language is before you now as Attachment A. i r 'i CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: L yts SIGNATURE: RECOMMtt4tMnOW Of COUNT"'ADMIMSTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF 110"D COMMITTEE .......APPIRME OTHER ACTION OF**#AD ON-_- �.0 n e 23 . 12 9 8 A1rMwmw AS RLCOSt r pato OtHEA ».�.. See the Attached Addendum for Board action. V OF i�Ul►ERVtIYORi I HRRRR'I CWJMIFT TKAT Tlllf 0 A TRUE .,,.-, MAN:MOW ,r,+ „ '"�'M AND CORRECT COPi'Or AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: � 000- AND INTRRED ON THE MINU'T'Lt�dF Tit 0 ASSENT: ..,,_. ._,,_, � Of SUPERVISO R&ON THE tl+l'R€S#OI X cc County Counsel XMITED June 23 , 1998 Community Development Directo PMIL SATCHELOA.CLEAK Of THE SOAAD OF SUPERVISORS AND AOMINISTRATOA M382 {t0188j sv ,DEPuTv Following the development of the language, the following public meetings were held involving the interested parties: 1. June 9, 1998, City of San Ramon City Council. public hearing. 2. June 12, 1998, meeting with approximately 80 property owners and others conducted by Supervisor Gerber, Danville Councilwoman Millie Greenberg and the Director of Community Development and the Agriculture Commissioner. 3. .June 16, 1998, Town of Danville Council: public hearing. At the meetings, there was a full presentation of the proposed Agricultural Preservation Agreement and related information. (Most of the information sheets developed and used for the meetings are attached to this report.) Can June 9, 1998, the City of San Ramon continued the matter until June 23, 1998. Can June 16, 1998, the Town of Danville voted to approve the Agricultural Preservation Agreement. The Agricultural areservation Agreement: The agreement establishes the preservation area; provides that parties to the agreement will retain and preserve the agricultural General Plan and lend use designation and zoning; discourage annexation of the area to service districts, the Town of Danville or the City of San Ramon; and seek to enhance the agricultural use and viability of the area. It also states that there will be no effect on existing property rights of landowners under applicable law and the existing County General Plan and zoning. County General Plan Policies reflect voter approved Measure C-1990(County General Plan page 3-14). This policy is also codified in the County Code at section 82-1.024: "To the extent feasible, the County shall enter into preservation agreements with cities in the county designated to preserve certain laird in the county for agriculture and open space, wetlands, or parks." The Boundaries: Attached is a map that shows the boundaries of the proposed Agricultural Preservation area. The agreement describes the location of the boundaries. Agricultural Viabiiltvt An issue that came up early in public discussion was whether or not these lands are viable as agricultural. Please note the attached zoning regulations in the County Code that describe the possible uses for the various agricultural zoning designation. Supervisor Gerber has also begun exploring mechanisms for agricultural support funding sources which could be developed if the parties to the agreement wanted to pursue them as part of the cooperative planning process. Also, Supervisor Gerber held a meeting on June 4, 1998, with representatives of the Tri Valley Business Council',and Wente Vineyards to discuss the possible future appropriateness of viticulture in the Tassajara Valley. The Business Council has identified maintaining agricultural lands and viticulture as a major component of its economic planning strategies for the Tri Valley area. According to the Wente representatives, the climate and soils are perfect for premium wine vineyards and irrigation water would be necessary. if resources were available, it is apparently a viable possibility. Needfor Housl : Attached'reports and information sheets indicate numbers of units approved and proposed in Contra Cast, part of Alameda County and "Tracy are: 88,832, which is considered to be an incomplete number. Total number approved is 71,614. Fiscal Report: About$4,000 in staff resources has been expended in developing the agreement. TASSAJARA AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AGREEMENT RECITALS WHEREAS, the lands within the Tassajara area, generally east of and contiguous to the Town of Danville and City of San Ramon spheres of influence, and southeast of the Community of Blackhawk, are designated in the County General Plan for agricultural or other open space uses as defined in Section 65560 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the lands within Tassajara area are zoned solely for extensive agricultural and related land uses; and WHEREAS, the predominant use of land in the Tassajara area is for agricultural and grazing purposes; and WHEREAS, lands within the Tassajara area presently are not served with sewer, water, and urban levels of police and other services,which services would be difficult and expensive to provide; and WHEREAS, the lands within the Tassajara area have been designated as Agricultural Lands, an open space category on the adopted County General Plan's Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, the lands within the Tassajara area are located outside LAFCO-adopted municipal or urban service district spheres of influence; and WHEREAS, the County, the Town, and City hereby declare that the lands within the Tassajara area are worthy of retention in agricultural and other open space uses for the overall best interests of the Town,the City, the County, and the State. AGREEMENT 1. Agricultural Preservation Area Established. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the Town Council of the Town of Danville and the City Council of the City of San Ramon(the Agencies) agree that the Tassajara Agricultural Preservation Area is hereby established. 1 ATTACHMENT A 2. Location of Agricultural Preservation Area. The Tassajara Agricultural Preservation Area is generally bounded as described below and as shown on Exhibit A of this Agreement: — on the south by the Contra Costa-Alameda County line — on the west by the spheres of influence of the Town of Danville and the City of San Ramon and by the community of Blackhawk; -- on the north by the lands of the Mount Diablo State Park and the East Bay Regional Park District; -- on the east by lands owned by the Contra Costa County Water District in the Los Vaqueros Watershed. 3. Land Use Designation and Zoning Retained. The Agencies hereby all agree to retain and preserve the Agricultural Land Use designation and zoning within the Area and to discourage annexation to special districts for urban services and to the Town and the City. 4. Support for Agricultural Uses. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or shall be construed to discourage agricultural uses and enhancements, including necessary services that support such uses, that are allowed under the adopted County General Plan and current zoning. 5. Request LAFCO Cooperation. The Agencies request the Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra Costa County to honor this Agricultural Preservation Agreement for the Tassajara Agricultural Preservation Area and to continue to act in a manner consistent with the preservation of the aforementioned lands for agricultural and other open space purposes. 6. Review; amendment. This agreement will be reviewed by the Agencies upon mutual consent of the three jurisdictions. Any proposed changes shall be considered in concert with the LAFCO review of spheres of influence for cities and agencies. 7. No Effect on Existing Property Rights. This Agreement is not intended and shall not be construed to affect the property rights of land owners under applicable law and the existing County General Plan and zoning. 2 8. Effective Date. This Agreement is effective on the date of the last signature on behalf of one of the Agencies. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA By: Jim Rogers, Chair,Board of Supervisors Date Approved as to form: Victor J. Westman,County Counsel By: Assistant County Counsel TOWN OF DANVILLE By: Richard L. Waldo, Mayor Date Approved as to form: Robert B. Ewing, City Attorney CITY OF SAN RAMON By: Hermann Welm, Mayor Date Approved as to form: Robert Saxe, City Attorney 3 .11.1.. ......... .._...... ._....._. .........1.11.1. . ... _ ..... .......... .._...... ........ ........ .............._............ _........ ......... ........1 ...... _ ........ ........... EXHIBIT A yizsN _'"� �' d.,,,..�v '�,' S � `3a'd _3 rte- y--r •,•r ��`° ��•� �8 i �, � .:Cx r� '°`,..4 a r.. _ ii C.�' .,, �g ,+ 't � x - �-v--'<---•— -- — � Wit) 1 � ! l r a- ,may At k ti f. R .\ � r i ,K YY w .+<. ,_�. Safi � � 6• kr a .q [ ' __�� :. A n«jC� Rfi la 1� g3 ���' \ F�tint.. E .1.1.11__, �� R- �., �� e x ��• v.=YSti4' i .��"� r� - •. F R F I E tee- _•� ... . ' \�E i / t 1 1 a i i t 1 " 1 t 15 HL __`_-- ----- 110 r- t m _— .. � :�_ �� �. .. � % � n r...r—'-.,.�✓ �s 7 a .. �- _.1.111_-� y`i _ R : if YY _. ¢ E ---- -r,._..... ... ILI s .a � n 'fi � %• � F 9 .1111.tl_ _ , - � � �` p• _.______1__ � 1 ("�_ ?1.111-$— /M e � � x _. ...._. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......._. ...... ...... ........ _........... ........ ....._............................_...._. .__....... ......... ......... ......._. .............................. MECHANISMS FOR ADDING VALUE TO AGRICULTURAL LAND • Supporting New Agricultural Uses — Create Value (e.g., viticulture) • Land Trusts • Permanent Agricultural Easements • Purchase Agricultural Land • Purchase Development Rights • Right to Farm Ordinance Possible Source Mechanisms of Funding for Laud Trusts • Sonoma County example of a i/4 cent sales tax. • Marin County example of using a portion of the transportation sales tax for open space land purchases. • New Jersey example where 13 counties and 53 towns have voted to approve an increase in property taxes to purchase open space. • Martinez Regional Land Trust purchased Mount Wanda and is now working toward purchasing Sky Ranch in order to preserve the areas as open space. • Contra Costa County Land Trust has been established by the Board of Supervisors and is a County-wide vehicle for funding preservation acquisitions. Possible uses for ar cultural zoned lune include: A-2 General Agricultural District Uses permitted in the A-2 district as follows: 1) All types of agriculture, including general farming,horticulture,floriculture, nurseries and greenhouses,mushroom rooms,dairying, livestock production,fur farms,poultry raising,animal breeding,aviaries,apiaries, forestry, and similar agricultural uses; 2) Other agricultural uses, including the erection and maintenance of sheds,warehouses, granaries,dehydration plants,hullers,fruit and vegetable packing plots,and agricultural cold storage plants on parcels at least ten acres in size and the buildings for the storage of agricultural products and equipment; 3) A stand not exceeding two hundred square feet for sale of agricultural products grown on the premises; 4) A detached single family dwelling on each parcel(5 acres minimum); 5) Poster home or family care home where no more than six minors reside on property; 6) A family day care home for twelve or fewer children. Lases with land use permit: 1) Home occupations; 2) Publicly owned parks and playgrounds; 3) Dude ranches,riding academies and stables,and dog kennels; 4) Publicly owned buildings and structures; 5) Commercial radio and television receiving and transmitting facilities but not including broadcasting studios or business offices; 6) Wind energy conversion systems,except when used only as an accessory to an allowable residential or agricultural use; 7) A family care home where care protection and supervision of 13 or more children in the provider's own home. Cather allowable uses are: I) Hospitals,animal hospitals,eleemosynary and philanthropic institutions,and convalescent homes; 2) Churches,religious institutions, and parochial and private schools,including nursery schools; 3) Community buildings,clubs,and activities of quasi-public,social, fraternal or recreational character, such as golf,tennis and swimming clubs, and veterans' and fraternal organizations not organized for monetary profit; 4) More than one detached dwelling unit on a lot or parcel of land; 5) Medical and dental offices and medical clinics; 6) Merchandising of agricultural supplies and services incidental to an agricultural use; 7) Canneries,wineries and processing of agricultural products and buildings for the storage of agricultural products on parcels less than ten acres in size; 8) Slaughterhouses and stockyards; 9) Rendering plants and fertilizer plants or yards; 10) Livestock auction or sales yards; 11) Living accommodations for agricultural workers; 12) Commercial recreational facilities when the principal use,is not in a building; 13) Retail firewood sates; 14)Recycling operations intended to sort and/or process material for reuse; 15)Museums in which objects of historical,artistic,scientific or cultural importance are preserved and displayed. A-20 Exclusive Agricultural District Uses permitted include the same as A-2 with the following exceptions: 1) A stand may be 400 square feet; 2) A detached single-family dwelling on each legally established lot(no smaller than 20 acres); 3) Foster home or family day care uses are not permitted. Uses with a land use permit include the same as A-2 as well as: 1) Cold storage plants; 2) Nurseries and greenhouses; 3) Mushroom houses; 4) Processing of milk not produced on premises; 5) tail and gas drilling including the installation and use of only such equipment necessary and convenient for drilling and extracting operations. Does not include: 1) Retail firewood sales; 2) Commercial recreational facilities; 3) Recycling operations; 4) Slaughterhouses and stockyards; 5) Museums; 6) Publicly owned parks and playgrounds; 7) Family care home; 8) More than one detached dwelling unit on a lot or parcel of land. A-40 Exclusive Agricultural District A-40 conforms to A-20 with the following exceptions. A-40 does not allow the following uses: 1) Hospitals,philanthropic institutions,convalescent homes and animal hospitals; 2) Churches,religious institutions; 3) Community buildings,clubs; 4) Medical and/or dental offices and clinics; 5) tail and gas drilling; 6) No building or other structure permitted on a lot smaller than 40 acres. A-80 Exclusive Agricultural District A-80 conforms to A-20 with the same exceptions as A-40,except that no building or other structure may permitted on a lot smaller than 80 acres. SOURCE: Contra Costa County Code Chapters 84-38, 84-80, 84-82, and 84-84 Agricultural Data for Contra Costa. County Major types of agriculture in Contra Costa County include: • Dairy farm and dairy processing • Cattle and other livestock • Food grains, feed grains, hay and flour/grain mill products • Fruits, nuts, vegetables, processed fruits/vegetables beverages • Sugar • tail bearing crops and fats and oils • Miscellaneous crops • {greenhouse and nursery products The food industry generates over a billion dollars in annual sales and contributes a third of a billion dollars to the personal income of Contra Costans. Source: Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, University of California at Berkeley Approximatenumber of already approved but not built housing units'in Contra Costa County and approximate number of approved and currently under construction'housing units in Centra Costa County*: Antioch 5,103 Brentwood 5,407 Clayton 78 Concord 399 Cypress Lakes 1,333 Danville 800 Delta.Coves 550 Discovery Bay'West 2,000 Dougherty Valley 10,910 El Cerrito 39 Hercules 192 Moraga 141 Pinole 58 Pittsburg 2,937 Richmond 1,055 San Ramon 717 Other small projects 1,445 Total 33,947 Approximate number of already approved but not built housing units in Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore (preliminary)": Pleasanton 4,987 Dublin 5,722 Livermore 5,354 (Housing starts approved since 1988. information not available as to horn many have actually been completed.) Total 16,063 Approximate number of already approved but not built housing units in Tracy (preliminary) ***: Mountain House 15,105 Tracy Hills 5,499 Total 21,604 Grand 'Total of Approved Units: 719614 * Source: Contra Costa County Community Development Department "City staff of Pleasanton,Dublin and Livermore ***Cowell Ranch Environmental Impact Report Approximate number of proposed but not yet approved housing unitsin Contra Costa County#: 3,318 Approximate number of proposed but not yet approved housing units in Livermore##: South Livermore 1,400 North Livermore 12,500 Total Proposed but not approved housing units in Contra Costa County and Livermore: 17,218 Total approved and proposed housing in Centra Costa County, Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin,and Tracy: #SOURCE:Contra Costa County Community Development Staff ##SOURCE:Alameda County Staff Grand Total of all approved and proposed housing units listed above. 889832* * Includes most of Contra Costa County and limited areas in Alameda and San Joaquin Counties CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 661 Pine Street, N. Wing - 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: 336-1290 Fax: 335-1299 TO: BOARD OF OUPE VISORS FROM. �ENNIS . BARRY, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOP NT DIRECTOR DATE: JUNE 17, 1998 SUBJECT: APPROVED/PENDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT As requested by the Board, our Department has prepared an estimateof approved unbuilt housing units both in the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the County. Data was obtained from all cities except Lafayette, Martinez and Walnut Creek. Development within those cities is assumed to be relatively low and, thus, the inability to obtain their data has little impact on the total approved and pending residential development unit data presented in the attached table. Information obtained from the cities is more precise than the information presented for the unincorporated areas. Due to the size of the unincorporated area and the extensive number of applications, the data presented has a higher margin of error. As you can see from the attached table, there are 3,318 residential units which have pending applications, there are 26,195 units that are a part of approved subdivisions for which construction has not commenced, and there are 7,837 units remaining for subdivisions which are currently under construction. The total estimated pending and approved residential unit count is estimated at 37,265 units. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 335-1276 or Catherine Kutsuris at 335-1237. cc: Catherine Kutsuris H:\homelawncxt\catherinelgerber.mem __ r n n vQ C�3 > Cz z z m -�-i p Z �► m I r- M rr- 0 p p —{ N t rt p Z <, _ cr cr 4n 0 0 0 0 0 ct�� oo © OD V (DtTl V 00 n) tU m O 0 �. O � t o c�Jt � v cr Cr o- cr 57 U (u CD rn v Z z � � m zz o 0 vdi (o C� o a) v w .i p w o f m cr cr s v m � � rn � m a a 0 o cn 0 _ , v /�/��� O t� �� /„��� /"C< �N�y /♦ �"yJ� SL1 CI] �. Z -4 iY 3Y lY ( � 0) /S+� co 3' Itt' V CD w A•` ' cr CT C� 7JT� cr cr Z Z Z ' 0 0 0 CL _ OD _ W C�7 N co a) 0)< cZo V -� C? C:3 CC1 fJ0 (n C O a Cr C3` � taD {q (D (D ° Z rn z z ct� C' o o cr }ICY 1V N 01 Q LU � C rn. N0) . a p ... N ED mow+. O cr r _ _....._. ._.. ..... ...__.... ......... ......_.. ....... ........ ......._. ._.._.... .............._._..................... _........ ......... ......... ......._. . __ ........................... 00 . . 00 N C Z z 2: o -' m `v CD CL CL � CJt " to �t cJ V 0 or w, � o sue ec d d tri ti N c � :rrn va -� X -f 0 d yOi a 3 -moi, -�+, © < CSD N t_D (D O 0 ho ciwansC/) , v, �; -� a ru v o 3 c Sr o o (D a. CL ro d O- CIO < C ,-* < c _0 0 Er M "a O O,r < N Q r....h. sip a, y ., r O d < -� 'L7 a. C " s ""� p_ C7 © 00 O CS C?D a v ( 0) 0 'C3 C d d CD N N T3 C) c a o tip J d t0tri0p pp t77W �' �Wci3 Cn N a W 0 i fn a. to rr CD a H d �. .: S tb V 00W N i . CD Ca lu < a. o tr lD a � � v CL!�- a. m Cn w --1 oa) co car oo 0) � CL r z 0 .................................. ........_ .... ._... ......... ......... ......... .._...... ....._... ... ........................ ......... _..... ......... ........ ......_...... ......... ........ ......... ADDENDUM TO ITEM D,8 June 23, 1998 Agenda On May 19, 1998, the Board of Supervisors directed that within 30 days, the Community Development Department (in consultation with County Counsel), work with Supervisor Gerber to develop a Memorandum of Understanding on the proposed Agricultural Preservation Agreement, and an amendment to the urban limit line, to be considered by the Town of Danville, the City of San Ramon, and the Board of Supervisors. On this date, Supervisor Gerber presented slides and a report on the proposed Agricultural Preservation Agreement for the Tassajara area, and informed the Board there were two parts to her report, one part concerned the number of housing units approved or pending in the area, and the second part was regarding California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issues. Supervisor Gerber further advised the Board that there had been several public meetings on this matter. In response to suggestions made at those meetings, an agriculture viability committee was established, and the appropriateness of viticulture in the Tassajara area was studied. Supervisor Gerber requested that the Board approve the Tassajara Agricultural Preservation Agreement. Dennis Barry, Community Development Director, presented the staff report. He noted that the Community Development Department had been requested to determine the number of units available for development in the County, and found that the number of estimated pending and approved residential units is 37,265. Mr. Barry advised that there was no allocation of units that are allowed for by the General Plan, for which no entitlements have yet been sought. Mr. Barry further advised the Board that consideration of the Agricultural Preservation Agreement is not a "project" subject to CEQA, and is considered exempt. The Chair opened public comment, and the following people presented testimony: Millie Greenberg, Councilmember - Town of Danville, 674 Sheri Lane, Danville; Dick Waldo, Mayor - Town of Danville, 510 La Gonda Way, Danville, Robert M. Duchi, 1440 Maria Lane, Ste. 2000, Walnut Creek; Michael Baublitz, 245 Lee Street, No. 108, Oakland; Frank Pereira, Children's Land Alliance, 6040 Alhambra Valley Road, Martinez; Jeff Wiedemann, 2303 Norris Canyon Road, San Ramon; Gloria McLaughlin, 96 Alves Lane, Bay Point; Cory Soltau, D.V.M., 240 Joseph Lane, Danville; Julie Hites, 3180 Teigland Road, Lafayette; Garden Camber, 12237 Alcosta Blvd., San Ramon; Roberta Schwarz, 1405 Fountain Springs Circle, Danville; Jim Blickenstaff, Mt. Diablo Sierra Club, Talavera Drive, San Ramon; Steve Williams, 2050 Diablo Road, Danville; Joe Herr, 2109 Granite Drive, Alamo; Sandee LaViolette, 2305 Norris Canyon Road, San Ramon (presented a letter signed); Bob Schultz, 118 Kingswood Circle, Danville; Heather Schlichting, P.O. Box 221407, Anchorage, Alaska; Patricia Willy, 900 Ina Drive, Alamo; Richard Rollins, 325 Preakness Court, Walnut Creek; Kari Wheeler, 6000 Highland, Pleasanton; Diana Mittelberger, 3015 Bernard Avenue, San Ramon; Stephen Morgan, 10780 Morgan Territory Road, Clayton; Judie Brown, 7101 Camino Tassajara, Pleasanton; Leonard J. Silva, 4149 Wells Street, Pleasanton, 1 Debbie Pereira, 1505 Finley Road, Danville; Tom Hall, Ph.D., 5900 Highland Road, Pleasanton; Frank Orem, Sierra Club, 1720 Argonne Drive, Concord; Tom Mooers, Greenbelt Alliance, 1372 N. Main, Ste. 203, Walnut Creek; Bob Hoffman, 5505 Old School Road, Pleasanton; Roxanne Lindsay, for Senator Rainey, 2301 Norris Canyon Road, San Ramon; John Philip, 1072 Grayson Road, Pleasant Hill; Wes Clark, 27 Millbrook Court, Danville; Del Olson, 957 Alfred Avenue, Walnut Creek, Ricky Webb, 235 Laurel Glen Court, Danville; Benson Tongue, 3434 Tupelo Drive, Walnut Creek; Art Weber, Gray Panthers, 1403 Addison Street, Berkeley; Antonio I-II<ites, 3180 Teigland Road, Lafayette; Jim Black, 350 Second Street, Los Altos; Alan Billingsley, Sedway Group, 3 Embarcadero Center, San Francisco (presented maps and graphs); Anne Mudge, 55 Francisco Street, Ste. 600, San Francisco; Ted Russell, 4 Embarcadero Center, San Francisco; Jeanne Pavao, 5010 Discovery Point, Byron; Sarah Mora, Farm Bureau, 5554 Clayton Road, Concord (presented slide program); Jeanne Jeha, 261 Valle Vista, Danville (presented slide program); John Pereira, 1505 Finley Drive, Pleasanton; Brenda Morris, 7058 Morgan Territory Road, Livermore; Jahn Viano, Contra Costa Farm Bureau, 192 Morello Avenue, Martinez; Tim Koopmann, Contra Costa/Alameda Cattlemen's Association, P.O. Box 177, Sunol; Jim Sayer, Greenbelt Alliance, 530 Bush Street, Ste 303, San Francisco; Clarence Gribbon, 611 Pine Creek Road, Walnut Creek; Frank Kord, My Brothers/Partners, 44322 Parkmeadow Drive, Fremont; Marion Sharp, 4510 Tassajara, Danville; Guy Bjerke, Home Builders Association, P.O. Box 5160, San Ramon; Renae Parker, 5500 Highland Road, Pleasanton; Brent Parker, 5500 Highland Road, Pleasanton; Gordon Rasmussen, 6000 Highland Road, Pleasanton; Charles Holman, 5400 Johnston Road, Pleasanton; Seth Adams, Save Mount Diablo, P.O. Box 5376, Walnut Creek (showed pictures); Nolan Sharp, D.V.M., 4510 Camino Tassajara, Danville (presented letter); Scott Erickson, 4975 Camino Tassajara, Danville; James McMullan, 5800 Highland Road, Pleasanton; Mike Vukelich, Farm Bureau, P.O. Box 20060, El Sobrante; Jeff Ryan, 5870 Bruce Drive; Don Wood, 2900 Camino Tassajara, Danville; Lori Warner, 4975 Camino Tassajara, Danville; David Favello, 2677 Oak Road, Ste. 202, Walnut Creek; Torn Koch, Shapell Industries of Northern California. The Chair read comments from the following people into the record: Kristi Miramontes, 6621 Johnsten Road, Pleasanton; Summer and Roxanne Walters, 1217 Skyerest Drive, #3, Walnut Creek; Olga Arabian, 107 Kingswood Circle, Danville; Robert Arabian, 107 Kingswood Circle, Danville; Dorothy Silva, 173 Dogwood Place, San Ramon; Wilma Shannon, 8181 Camino Tassajara, Pleasanton; Michele Kourey, 5466 Blackwood Drive, Danville; Mary Ann Hoisington, 959 Hawthorn Drive, Lafayette; Janice George, 3368 Deer Hollow, Danville; Jo Ann Schultz, 118 Kingswood Circle, Danville; Paul Speroni, 245 Joseph Cane, Pleasanton; Nancy Janes. 8000 Morgan Territory Road, Livermore; Donna Mendonca, 5300 Camino Tassajara, Pleasanton, 2 W.G. Morgan, 6040 Morgan Territory Road, Clayton; Bill Mendonca, 5300 Camino Tassajara, Pleasanton; A. Elaine Willman, 4405 Deer Ridge Road, Danville; Jane Young, 3881 Deer Trail Lane, Danville; John Brockman, 3688 Deer Trail Drive, Danville; Selma Brockman, 3688 Deer Trail Drive, Danville; Bette Brockman and Jim Richards, 1463 Lawrence Road, Danville; Steve Condie, South East Danville Association, 412 Triomphe Court, Danville; Mark Goldberg, Blackhawk Homeowner's Association, 4125 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Danville; Doug Lacey, 5825 Old School Road, Pleasanton; Ross Rasmussen, 7600 Sikes Road, Dixon; Ernie Hites, 259 Joseph Lane, Pleasanton; George Hites, 259 Joseph Lane, Pleasanton; Jay Lutz, 1370 Las Juntas, Walnut Creek; Mike Cowley, 5320 Camino Tassajara, Pleasanton; Betty Glick, 139 Kingswood Circle, Danville; Thomas Lehnert, 340 Pardiso Drive, Danville; Lawrence Ferry, 6450, 6460 Highland Road, Pleasanton; Dianne G. Adams, 3855 Cottonwood Drive, Danville; Carol Gribbon, 611 Pine Creek Road, Walnut Creek; Bruce Lillis, 5700 Highland Road, Pleasanton; Karen Tyerman, 112 Kingswood Circle, Danville; Janice Bradley, 7900 Carneal Road, Livermore; Vera Reinstein, 8100 Carneal Road, Livermore; Karen Rasmussen, 6000 Highland Road, Pleasanton; James R. Richards, 5750 Highland Road, Pleasanton; Claire Tongue, 3434 Tupelo Drive, Walnut Creek; Ann Rossovich, 5150 Camino Tassajara, Danville; Delbert Thompson, 6821 Johnston Road, Pleasanton; Eric K. Rossovic, 5150 Camino Tassajara, Danville; Ronald Ferry, 5656 Johnston Road, Pleasanton; Rhonda Ferry, 6450 Highland Road, Pleasanton; Gene Martin, 5620 Highland Road, Pleasanton; Barbara Martin, 5620 Highland Road, Pleasanton, Betty Banke, 1563 De Soto, Livermore; Margaret Leonardini, 2001 Victorine Road, Livermore; Joan Dartulovich, 7102 Donal Avenue, El Cerrito; Don Foster, 8501 Camino Tassajara; Danville; Larry Warner, 4975 Camino Tassajara, Danville. All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the Board discussed the matter. Following the discussion, Supervisor DeSaulnier moved to continue the matter for 90 days. He suggested that the Community Development Department report back to the Board at that time on the proposed Agricultural Preservation Agreement, and include a facilitative process to get all the stakeholders together. He also suggested that the Agriculture Department report to the Board on the viability and kind of incentives that could be given to invigorate agriculture growth in Tassajara Valley as part of the Agricultural Preservation process, and to again ask if Danville and San Ramon would do cost sharing and estimate the cost of doing a process like this. He further recommended that the Board request County Counsel to come to the Board with a full CEQA review in terms of some of the questions and comments suggested by the speakers. Supervisor DeSaulnier then asked that the Board direct the Community Development Department to report back on options to establishopen space funds, and view Sonoma County, Marin County, and other jurisdictions in the state to see how that could be done, and research further on how the Board could obtain meaningful funds to put into the Agricultural Trust Fund He further recommended that there be a report on housing elements in the County, who has them, who is in compliance, and who isn't in compliance. He suggested that the Board, again in 90 days, ask the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to submit a written report on jobs and housing projections, and recommended that they report on the inter-regional partnership to the Board. 3 _ _. Supervisor Uilkema seconded the motion, and inquired if it included the legal issues discussed today. Supervisor DeSaulnier acknowledged that it did, and advised the Board that the matter needs to be resolved in a short time frame, unlike the proposed Marsh Creek Agricultural Preserve. Supervisor Rogers suggested that the Board request the study for July 28, 1998, which is a date between Supervisor Gerber's suggestions and Supervisor DeSaulnier's suggestion. Supervisor Canciamilla informed the Board that he was not supportive of the July 28, 1998, date, and would support Supervisor DeSaulnier's motion. He also stated that he was very interested in the responses from the City of San Ramon and the Town of Danville. Supervisor DeSaulnier urged that a vote be taken on his motion, and suggested that the Board consider the possibility of a moratorium after that vote. The Board took the following action: A. CONTINUED for 90 days, consideration of the proposed Agricultural Preservation Agreement for the Tassajara area; DIRECTED that the Community Development Department prepare for the Board of Supervisors a report on a facilitative process for agricultural preservation in the area, including: estimation of costs involved in the process, with inquiry into whether Danville and San Ramon will share in the costs; review of compliance status of County jurisdictional housing elements; present viable options for open space and agricultural trust funding; and DIRECTED that the Agriculture Department provide to the Board within 90 days, an assessment of the viability of agriculture and related incentives, in the Tassajara area; DIRECTED that County Counsel review the California Environmental Quality Act requirements relative to this issue; and DIRECTED that the Association of Bay Area Governments be requested to submit a report within 90 days on projected jobs and housing in the area, and on the Interregional Partnership. The vote on this action was as follows: Ayes: Supervisors Uilkema, DeSaulnier, Canciamilla and Rogers Noes: Supervisor Gerber Absent: None Abstain: None Supervisor Gerber then moved that the Board return on July 14, 1998, at 4:00 p.m., with a proposed moratorium for the Board's consideration relative to the Tassajara',Agricultural Preservation issue. Supervisor Canciamilla seconded the motion. Supervisor Rogers inquired if the motion included giving William Falik, Esq., (the 55 homeowner's representative) an opportunity to be heard. Supervisor Gerber responded it did, and Supervisor Canciamilla concurred. Silvano Marchesi, Assistant County Counsel, advised that for clarification of the motion, a 415ths approval vote is needed, and a report and findings that would support it. So implicit in the motion would be the preparation of those documents. Supervisor Gerber stated that was acceptable, and Canciamilla again concurred. Following further discussion, the Board took the following action: B. DIRECTED that the Community Development Department and County Counsel prepare for the Board's consideration on July 14, 1998, at 4:00 p.m.,',appropriate documentation relative to an ordinance for a possible moratorium to stay development in the Tassajara area until pertinent issues have been studied. 4 The vote on this action was as follows: Ayes: Supervisors Uilkema, Gerber, DeSaulnier, Cancimilla and Rogers Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None 5