HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05102005 - D3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .;:�"f: �� .•
' Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY AICP Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR �o:. �_- County
rq cuvK'�
DATE: MAY 10, 2005
SUBJECT: MUTUALLY AGREEABLE URBAN LIMIT LINE — MEASURE J
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
CONSIDER the motion approved at the Urban Limit Line Task Forces Summit held on April 28, 2005,
which defines a project description and alternatives for analysis in an Environment Impact Report,
ACKNOWLEDGE letter from Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District, and DETERMINE
actions to be taken.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
On April 28, 2005, the Board of Supervisors and the sub-regional ULL Task Forces met for a third
summit on the development of a mutually agreeable ULL. The participants in the third summit
discussed a range of issues related to identifying a mutually agreeable ULL as envisioned in Measure
J. The summit participants specifically discussed the steps and procedures that are necessary to
initiate and complete the environmental review process before a ballot measure proposing a mutually
agreeable UL L can be placed on the November 2006 Countywide General Election Ballot. Attached
for Board members consideration is an April 29, 2005 letter from Martin Engelmann, Deputy Director,
Planning, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, transmitting the transcribed motion from the third
summit held on April 28th. This motion defines the "project " to be analyzed in an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) as Plan C — Compromise presented by Contra Costa Council, Home Builders
Association, Save Mount Diablo, Greenbelt Alliance, and California Alliance for Jobs(1/24/2005), plus
the 6 amendments to Plan C authored by Councilwoman Amy Worth (Orinda)at the first ULL Summit
on 2/26/2005, plus the proposed expansion of the County's existing Urban Limit Line at the locations
identified by East County Cities: Antioch, Brentwood, and Pittsburg and Central County Cities:
Concord and Clayton. The motion also identifies the following "alternatives"to be analyzed in the EIR:
Plan C plus the 6 amendments authored by Councilwoman Worth; Plan C plus 4 of the amendments
authored by Councilwoman Worth, specifically amendment#'s 1, 2, 4, and 6 previously supported by
the Board (4/19/2005), and Plan C, by itself.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON o APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER%
SFE A1T?K*t6Z>
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A.TRUE AND
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
_UNANIMOUS(ABSENT 0 ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
AYES: NOES: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Contact: Patrick Roche, CDD-Adv. Plan (925-335-1242) ATTESTED O 1
cc: CAO JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Clerk of the Board SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Counsel
R. McCleary, CCTA �
61 DEPUTY
May 10, 2005
Board of Supervisors
Mutually Agreeable ULL—Measure J
Page 2
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued
A clear sentiment Y
expressed b several participants at the April 28th summit was a desire to initiate the
p
EIR process based on the project description and alternatives defined in the approved motion. It was
suggested by several summit participants that the EIR process should begin now that a project
description and alternatives have been defined in the motion, and the discussions leading toward the
identification of a final proposal for a mutually agreeable ULL should continue while the EIR is in
preparation. Several participants even suggested that a decision on a final proposal for a mutually
agreeable ULL await the results from the EIR. Implied in the April 28th motion is that the 18 cities
voting in favor of the motion are now asking the County(more specifically the Board of Supervisors), in
its capacity as the Lead Agency designated under the Principles of Agreement (see attachment), to
initiate the EIR process based upon the project description and alternatives defined in the motion.
Following the April 28th summit, the Chair, Board of Supervisors, directed a procedural question to
County Counsel regarding a vote by the County as the Lead Agency to initiate the EIR process, as
distinct from the County Board of Supervisors voting on a final proposal fora mutually agreeable ULL
as called for in the Principles of Agreement. Attached for your consideration is a memorandum from
County Counsel (dated 5/4/2005) addressing this procedural question.
Should the Board be inclined to agree with summit participants that the EIR process proceed now
based upon the April 28th motion, staff recommends that funding be arranged and secured through
the CCTA to undertake this effort. At their April 20, 2005 meeting, CCTA approved a motion indicating
that they would pay the costs for preparation of an EIR. Staff recommends that a funding agreement
with CCTA provide for the full recovery of all EIR preparation costs incurred by the County, including
both EIR consultant and staff costs. Additionally, staff recommends that the funding agreement
provide for the indemnification of the County in the event that there is a legal challenge as to the
adequacy of the EIR. Staff suggests that having such a funding agreement in place should be a
prerequisite before the County, acting as Lead Agency, formally initiates preparation of the EIR.
If the Board is not inclined to assume the Lead Agency status for preparing the EIR that is based on
the April 28th motion, it is staff s understanding that under the Principles of Agreement a jurisdiction
could exercise the option of placing a ULL proposal before its own voters. In that event, it appears that
the jurisdiction opting to pursue its own ULL would then act as its own Lead Agency for purposes of
CEQA compliance (see County Counsel's memorandum, dated 4/22/2005, in reference to Lead
Agency status, previously provided under separate cover).
As a final matter, attached for the Board's information is an April 25, 2005 letter from the President,
Town of Discovery Community Services District, stating their opposition to a proposal that would
reduce the Urban Limit Line along the east side of Discovery Bay.
Attachments (4)
1. 4/29/2005 Letter from Martin Englemann, CCTA, to Dennis Barry, Community Development Director
transmitting advisory motion from the April 28, 2005 ULL Summit
2. Attachment A, Principles of Agreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line,Transportation Sales Tax
Expenditure Plan, Measure J
3. County Counsel memorandum, dated 5/4/2005, re: Vote Required for Initiation of Environmental
Processing
4. 4/25/2005 Letter from President, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.3
May 10, 2005
On this day,the Board of Supervisors considered the motion approved at the Urban Limit Line(ULL)
Task Forces Summit held on April 28,2005,which defines a project description and alternatives for
analysis in an Environmental Impact Report(EIR).
Supervisor Uilkema noted that the following persons had submitted written correspondence on this item,
which would become part of the record:
Oakley City Council;
John A. Gonzales,Knightsen resident;
James A. Gwerder,A. Souza and Son.
The public was invited to speak, and the following persons provided testimony:
William Glynn, Councilmember, City of Pittsburg;
Charles Abrams,Councilmember,,City of Walnut Creek;
Hon. Gregg Manning,Mayor, City of Clayton;
Ed Balico,Councilmember,City of Hercules;
Hon. Laura Hoffmeister,Mayor,, City of Concord;
Julie Pierce, Councilmember, City of Clayton;
Helen Allen,Councilmember,City of Concord;
Dennis Lopez, Byron resident;
David Fowler,Martinez resident;
Vincent Rover,Private Island Homes,Inc.;
Marilynne L. Mellander,El Sobrante resident;
Mike Daly, Sierra Club;
Paul Dickey,Moraga resident;
David Reid,Greenbelt Alliance;
Barry Hinds,Town of Discovery Bav-,
Ken Hambrick,Walnut Creek resident;
Kris Hunt,Walnut Creek resident.
Supervisor Glover noted that the Board, in agreeing to support what is now termed"[Alternative] C Plus
Four [of the Worth Amendments],"has already reached a point of compromise from the Board's initial
"hold the line"stand on the issues.
Supervisor Piepho said that the voice of the voters was heard when the ULL was approved in 1990,and
that the line was then much broader. She noted that the voter-approved line was further restricted in 2000.
Supervisor DeSaulnier said that he did not foresee a mutually agreed-upon ULL, and suggested the Board
give direction to staff to begin work on the County's EIR.He noted that there will be many milestones
and points for discussion in the process.
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.3
May 10, 2005
Page 2 of 2
Supervisor DeSaulnier proposed the following modified language for Worth Amendment Number 5: "An
exemption be included in Plan C with respect to the portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station that
would allow for the initiation of the review process for the ULL modification to commence automatically
at such time as the Department of Defense may indicate its disposition of the property, independent of the
timing of other reviews specified in Plan C."
Supervisor Piepho said she sees the EIR as a vital component for studying the line, so that discussions and
compromises can be based on the results of the study.
Supervisor Uilkema clarified the Board's discussion points that the County's EIR should have as the
project description Plan C+5 of the Worth Amendments(1, 2,4,and 6,and 5 with modifications as
proposed by Supervisor DeSaulnier), and that the alternatives for study in the EIR be(1)the existing ULL
with no changes and(2)C +6 of the Worth Amendments+the East/Central ULL Task Forces' Proposal.
Supervisor Gioia proposed an agreement with CCTA in order that the EIR may be paid in full by CCTA.
He noted that the County could have adopted a Negative Declaration without incurring the expenses of an
EIR.He also proposed the agreement with CCTA provide an indemnity agreement. Supervisor Gioia said
the Board needs to be very clear on record that the Board is not in support of the East County proposed
Amendments.
Supervisor DeSaulnier suggested notifying CCTA and the cities to allow for responses back before going
on to the next step. He suggested a time period of 30 days,noting that extending the comment period
longer than 30 days could prohibit the placing of items on the 2006 ballot, only leaving the possibility of
a special election or the 2008 ballot.
Supervisor Glover requested that this matter be scheduled before the Board in 30 days.
By unanimous approval,the Board of Supervisors:
APPROVED an EIR project description to be defined as C+5(Plan C as presented on 01/24/05,
plus 1,2,4,5 and 6 of the six Worth Amendments,number 5 amended as proposed by Supervisor
DeSaulnier),with alternatives for study to be the existing line("no project")and C+all 6 Worth
Amendments+the East/Central ULL Task Forces' proposal,with all three alternatives to be
studied in equal depth; and DRIECTED staff to pursue an agreement with CCTA wherein CCTA
would fund the EIR,including both consultant and staff costs,and wherein CCTA's
indemnification of the County would be provided in the event of legal challenge.
Attachment 1
CONTRA COSTA
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
April 29,2005
,OMMISSIONERS: Dennis Barry
18net Abelson Co;� iunity Development Director
:�Ivir Contra Costa County
651 Pine St.,4th Fl.N. Wing
Donald P.Freitas Martinez, CA 94553
ke-Chair
RE: Transmittal of the Advisory Motion from the April 28h ULL Summit
"harfie Abrarns
Werlb Aleg68 Dear Mr. Barry:
VewellArnefich At the April 28h summit meeting of the Urban Limit Line Task Forces,the
John Gioia participants discussed the next steps M* developing the mutually agreed-upon urban
t'ederal Glover limit line as envisaged in Measure J. At the conclusion of its discussion,the group
Wkhael F.Wcaff made an advisory motion outlining its recommendations for the ULL project
description and alternatives for analysis in the Environmental Impact Report.
3r8d Nix Supervisor Glover,who was present at the meeting, agreed to bring the motion to the
10fie Pierce Board's attention.
mia wwwtes For your convenience staff has transcribed the motion,which reads as follows:
That the project be defined as C+ 6+ EastlCentral, and that the alternatives be
defined to mitigate potential impacts of the project, as defined Alternatives would
be C + 6, C + 4, and C We understand that this project description would not be
Robert K mccwty the "preferredplan"and that we are not by this action choosing a mutually
ExewtNe Diredor agreed-upon Urban Limit Line.
The motion was made by Councilmember David Durant of Pleasant Hill, seconded by
0
Councilmember Julie Pierce of Clayton. The vote was unanimously in favor among
3478Buskirk Ave. the 18 city representatives present.The City of Richmond's representative was not
Suite Im present. Furthermore, among the four Supervisors present,there were two noes,,one
:)wsent Hill aye,and one abstention.
�A 94523
RHONE:
)251407-0121
FAX:
)251407-0128
71tPYAv*w.ccta.net
Dennis Barry
April 29, 2005
Page 2 of 2
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions.
Sincerely,
Martin R.Engelm P.E.
Deputy Director,Planning
cc: Commissioner Janet Abelson,Chair CCTA
Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair BOS
Supervisor John Gioia
Jane Pennington, Clerk of the Board
CADocuments and Setfings\N4arfin.MRE\My Documents\WpfiIes\GMP\ULL\Ltr-D Barry summlitdoc
Attachment 2
TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN
ATTACHMENT A
PRINCIPLES O F AGREEMENT FOR
ESTAB �LIHING THE U
RBAN LIMIT LINE
1. The Board of Supervisors shall have, with the November 2006.The new mutually agreed upon
concurrence of each affected city, adjusted the U L L will be considered as the Countywide Voter
existing County ULL on or before September Approved ULL once it is ratified by the voters.
30, 2004, or as expeditiously as possible given 6. If a Town or City disagrees with the mutually
the requirements of CEQA, to make the existing agreed upon ULL, it may, as an alternative, de-
County ULL coterminous with city boundaries velop and submit to its voters an "alternative
where it previously intruded inside those incor- ULL", or rely upon an existing voter approved
porated boundaries. ULL.
2. The process to develop the ULL shall have begun 7. If no Countywide mutually agreed upon ULL
by July 1, 2004 with meetings in each sub region is established by March 31, 2009, only local
between one elected representative of each city jurisdictions with a voter approved ULL will be
and the county.The subregional meeting(s) will eligible to receive the 18%return to source funds
be followed by meetings between all of the cities or the S%TLC funds.
and the county, each being represented by one 8. The new Measure C Growth Management Pro-
elected representative. The discussion will in- gram will include a requirement that all jurisdic-
clude both the suggested ULL as well as criteria tions must comply with either the "Countywide
for establishing the line and future modifications ULL St or the "local jurisdiction's voter approved
to the ULL. ULL" before that jurisdiction would be eligible
3. On or before December 31, 2004, the County to receive the 18%return to source funds or the
and the cities will cooperate in the development S% CC-TLC funds. In the absence of a local
of a new mutually agreed upon ULL and criteria voter approved ULL, submittal of an annexation
for future modifications.To be considered a final request to LAFCO outside the countywide voter
proposal, the plan must be approved by 4 mem- approved ULL will constitute non-compliance
bers of the Board of Supervisors and % of the with the Measure C Growth Management Plan.
cities representing%of the incorporated popula- 9. The new ULL, unless amended, will be in place
tion. through the end of the sales tax extension(March
4. The County will be the lead agency in preparing 31, 2034)_
a Master EIR on the proposed Countywide "mu- 10. The Countywide voter approved ULL Measure
I'll.
tually agreed upon ULL will include provisions for periodic review (5
S. After certification of the Master EIR,the proposal years) as well as provisions for minor (less than
shall be submitted to the voters for ratification by 30 acres) nonconsecutive adjustments.
JULY 21, 2004 27
Attachment 3
Office of the County Counsel Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, 9th Floor Phone: (925)335-1800
Martinez, CA 94553 Fax: (925)646-1078
Date: May 4, 2005
To: Board of Supervisors
E
~4
From: Silvano B. Marchesi, County Counsel ' µ 4
Re: Vote Required for Initiation of Environmental Processing .
r
u
SUMMARY
The Board can initiate the environmental processing of the Measure J(2004)ULL Project and
establish a project description with a simple majority vote.
BACKGROUND
In light of the motion adopted on April 28, 2005,by the Contra Costa County Transportation
Authority's Urban Limit Line Task Forces,we have been asked whether a decision by the Board of
Supervisors to support the motion would require a 4/5 vote.
DISCUSSION
The advisory motion adopted by the Task Forces establishes the proposed project and the alternatives,
for purposes of an environmental impact report. If this motion is voted on by the Board of Supervisors,
it will require a simple majority vote, that is, an affirmative vote of three Supervisors. (Gov. Code, §
25005)
A number of statutes require a"super-majority"vote, such as the adoption of an interim zoning
ordinance as an urgency measure(Gov. Code, § 65 85 8) and the adoption of a resolution of necessity
in anticipation of condemnation proceedings. (Gov. Code, § 1245.240)We are not aware of any
statute requiring a super-majority vote in order to initiate the environmental process or to establish the
project description and alternatives for an EIR.
We note that the Principles of Agreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line in Measure J provides
for the development of a"new mutually agreed upon ULL." (Principles, #3) Principle#3 further
states,
Board of Supervisors
May 4,2005
Page 2
"To be considered a final proposal,the plan must be approved by 4 members of the
Board of Supervisors and 3/4of the cities representing 3/4 of the incorporated
population."
However,, the motion adopted by the Task Forces and that may be voted on by the Board of
Supervisors does not relate to the establishment of the urban limit line per se,but to describe a project
for purposes of preparing an EIR. Thus, we believe that a simple majority vote on a similar motion will
not conflict with the provisions of Measure J.
SBM:s
ttachment 4
A
05 MAY -2 PM 1: 11 RECEI
DIKOVERY %-:1-CTO V�N OF t VFRY BAY APR 2 8 2 0 05
SAY
CLERK BOA-90 OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
1800 Willow Lake Road,Discovery Bay,CA 94514
Telephone: (925)634-1131 Fax: (925)513-2705
Board Members
President-Bob Doran r.doranl234@sbcglobal.net
V.President-David Piepho d.piepho@sbcglobal.net
Treasurer-Ray Tetreault r.tetreault843 I @sbcglobal-net
Director-Barry Hinds bhinds l 234@a sbcglobal.net
April 25,2005 Director-Shannon Murphy-Teixeira s.murphy,teixeira@sbcglobal-net
Honorable Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street,Room 106
Martinez,CA 94553-1293
RE:opposition to the Proposal of a Reduction in the Urban Limit Line(ULL)
Honorable Board of Supervisors:
The Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District would like to go on record in opposition to the proposal
of a reduction in the Urban Limit Line(ULL)along the east side of Discovery Bay.
The Town of Discovery Bay Board of Directors additionally opposes any recommendation of reducing or
elimination of land within our current Urban Limit Line. We feel it is offensive and short sighted to suggest that
land be removed from one community to serve the appetite of another.
No longer are the unincorporated towns and communities of far East County without local leadership and direction.
To suggest that land be taken in a"Rob Peter to pay Paul" fashion does nothing to provide solutions. To do so,
would create animosity between the county,cities,and the surrounding communities.
Our communities,and the respective land mass contained within the current ULL are small. A further reduction of
the ULL would jeopardize our abilities to provide local jobs, schools, recreation, and infrastructure to our own
citizens. We wish to maintain the continued opportunity to provide local infrastructure.
We believe we are all in this together,and must continue to work in partnership to arrive at solutions that we can all
live with. We look forward to the opportunity to do so.
Respectfully,
Bob Doran,Board President
Town of Discovery Bay CSD
Cc. .. ,
Byron MAC Board Members r ,
Bethel Island MAC Board Members
Contra Costa Times Newspapers
Brentwood/DB/Oakley Press
... -. ..
:...,...........:..::..*.:............:.:..:..;..t:.. ,.........:rv..........................".',.:..,..v....:..,..,..:.......,....n.v.,w.........:..:....�w....:....._.....':.;......�....:........w...,.:�....,..n..,:�....:. -.itso.Y..ir:w.vt.::.:..,-,,.-..w..,+'..;..,,:,:,.:w:r•iY.wa:.,yyX•++�fl.RN.,a:r.:..4,::.XA,...'..v.v..'n.,�..Y...ti,.9.G;...-...n,.".YN•:,.v.,.,a'rtXhA.,.n•S.,N....k,Yi,.
.M..,.,...:.,v
,r..r...,s..�..':.....�.u,.f.'+.t...�.n:.a..,.:.......:.......:nr�.,.-...,n ..- .,...-:.fi:r,.,.-............r.,r.............A....r.n,...,•.,.,....5r....1..v....r..,.,Y..�..:vw.,,b.n.:.x..,...a.�.`
,.
.....;..
c., nvu,,.X..2,-ax.:,..-....:.n+..':..fis,..-r,.i,:,v-.,:.:...,w.s:•na,r.,...,.:-a^.�i:..+.a.:nay.,. ..1 .. ,i., '. .:.: f�
r.
..:.... .. ...::....:............. ...... ,v v w,,.:.ry ., ,.,... ,.r,.- ...-. .'rr..... N,Y11.3,.t A, µv.
....,:,..., .1 .. .. ....
M1
v
a
@.5/09/2005 20: 16 925-6259859 OAKLEY PAGE 02
0TY
0-
LEY
A �i,r IAMIT111";ilf(Ito 1-11-%PT- 1111tTA
CTTY OP 0AXITY
37,31 Main strcct
Onldry.(A 94561
925 625 7000 tel May 9, 2005
9 410 5 62 5 0191 flax
wunv.C,1.0k)k Icy.Ca.us
M m.o R
Nit An(ICTS011 Office of the Clark of the Board of Supervisors
VICE MAYOR Contra Costa County
Brad N1'IV 651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553
Brucr Connelley Contra Costa Cou oard of Supervisors Item D.3
Carol RION
Kcvin Romick Urban Limit Line and Urban Limit Line Environmental Impact Report
Discussion Board
Dear Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors".
We wish to address three points for your discussion this morning. We apologize
for not being able to personally attend and speak with you.
EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Whatever your ultimate decision on the Urban Limit Line (ULL) is, and as lead
agency under Measure J, that is clearly yours to make, the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the ULL should study as broad an option as possible, with a full
range of lesser options. Picking such an option will both more fully meet the legal
requirements of an EIR and will allow the process of negotiation to go forward.
Both the County Counsel and the Attorney for CCTA agree that regardless of what
option is studied, the lead agency retains the power to pick its desired choice at
the end of the process. Accordingly we urge you to accept the full description of
"Plan G + 6 + East County" as It has become known., for the EIR project
description-
NO DISCOVERY BAY LAND REDUCTION IN THE ULL
In the ULL discussions, there has been some mention of reducing the ULL for
County land. We believe that it is in the best interests of all our residents, that
Contra Costa County move towards the Santa Clara County Zoning policy that
strongly discourages urban development by the County. Having said that, we
must deal with the situation as is currently exists. Thus although Discovery Bay
would never have been allowed to develop under the Santa Clara standard, it is
clear that the County does not have the financial wherewithal to provide the level
of municipal services that the Santa Clara Ordinance calls for, to wit., equal to the
nearest city. It Is also clear that the residents of Discovery Bay want to
incorporate. We in Oakley understand that feeling and respect it. We also know
that incorporating under current state requirements is extremely difficult and
requires a community to attain a population level higher than Discovery Say
currently has. We also know that the land Discovery Bay is seeking to include
was always included by the County within the ULL, is not good for agricultural
20:16 925-6259859 OAKLEY PAGE 03
Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
May 91 2005
purposes, and is immediately adjacent to Discovery Bay. Given all of that, it is
appropriate to leave the Discovery Bay land within the ULL.
CLAYTON'S REQUEST
The City of Clayton has requested a very modest amount of land that is nearly all,
if not all, parcels that are split by the recent revision to the line. What is just as
important to consider, is that Clayton's request is supported by all the cities. At the
Walnut Creek ILL meeting, nearly all participants believed that agreement had
been reached for Plan C + 69 the Amy Worth amendments. It is difficult for
anyone to find fault with Clayton's request. The lack of clear answer back as to
what could be wrong with its request has hurt the County's position in these
negotiations. We urge the County to take Clayton off the table as an issue by
accepting its very modest request_
Weurge continued discussions privately and that all parties proceed with an open
mind in the spirit of compromise.
Thank you for your consideration of these items.
a*q eMA
Pat Anderson
Ma*yor
1 00
Brad Nix
Vice Mayor
Carol Rios
Councilmember
Kevin Romick
Councilmember
Bruce Connelley
Councilmember
2
C. S t,c� a
d �a
L
<cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us>
net> cc:
Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
05/06/2005 01:17 PM http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.ht
m
******************************************************************************
Username: John A. Gonzales
UserAddress: P.O. Box 369 Knightsen, Cal 94548
UserTel: 925-260-4728
UserEmail: jagktac@goldstate.net
AgendaDate: 05/10/05
Option: Selected
AgendaItem: D.3
Remote Name: 67.115.112.169
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)
Date: 06 May 2005
Time: 13:17:30
Comments:
D.3 CONSIDER recommendation of the Urban Limit Line Task Forces
emanating from the April 23, 2005 Summit for the County to act as the lead
agency for a Countywide urban limit line environmental impact report, and
DETERMINE actions to be taken. (Dennis M. Barry and Patrick Roche, Community
Development Department) (All Districts)
Honorable Board of Supervisors,
I would like to express my deep concern over changing the urban limit line in
any way from it's current location. There are several reasons other than the
obvious purpose to control rampant growth and protect our food baring
agricultural land.
Now even more important will be the complicated unattainable process in
bringing all the agencies together. The lack of a mutual agreement where to
move the current line will likely never occur due to the vast differences
between communities and regions in our county. There is an inability to agree
on what areas to take and what areas to leave. This will certainly create a
major delay in the process of implementing those funds immediately. The
measure C tax money is crucial to the upgrading of the outdated transportation
system which currently plagues and dangers all of us today. The purpose of
Measure C was to tax the citizens with the promise of controlling growth at
the same time in order to improve infrastructure. That is why it passed.
Let's leave the line where it is now and not try to reinvent an already over
complicated issue. All the cities and communities have an eternity to expand.
In addition, what gives the cities the rights to take current planned areas
from
other communities when they haven't even fully developed the balance of open
areas within their own. . There is no immediate threat to life and property to
move the ULL. Let's move on to focus more on transportation and smart growth.
These are the real needs of the citizens in Contra Costa County.
Sincerely,
John A. Gonzales
A. SOUZA & SON �
105 E.10TH STREET TRACY,CALIFORNIA 95376 (209)835-8330
RECEIVED - FAX(209)832-8355
MAY 0 9 2005
CLERK BOARD OF BUPERNISORS
Clerk of the Board CONTRA COSTA CO. May 6, 2005
ATTN: Kathy Sinclair VIA FAX
651 Pine Street, Room 106 925-335-1913
Martinez, CA
94553
RE: Board of Supervisors May 10, 2005 Agenda Item D.3
Kathy,
Please read this letter regarding Agenda Item D.3 into the public record and
include it in the Supervisors' agenda packages.
Concerning the ultimate location of the Urban Limit Line near Byron, and around
the Byron Airport in particular, the following facts are most pertinent and must be
considered.
The Urban Limit Line around the Byron Airport is unique, in that its purpose was
to support the economic viability of the County's investment in the Byron Airport.
(Please refer to the language in the voter approved Measure C 1990).
On November 16, 1999, the Byron Municipal Advisory Council presented the
Byron Township General Plan (BMAC Plan) to the Board of Supervisors. This plan is a
vision document developed and supported by the residents and landowners in the Byron
Area. Among other things, the BMAC Plan considered airport-supporting commercial
and industrial uses in the vicinity of the Byron Airport. At that Board meeting, staff was
directed to consider the document in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUC
Plan) that was being developed at the time. The ALUC Plan did consider and incorporate
the BMAC Plan, which folded in nicely with the safety considerations of the ALUC Plan.
Around that same time frame (1999), the Urban Limit Line issue was being
studied. In the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Regarding
Contra Costa County Potential Modifications to the Urban Limit Line dated November
15, 1999, the Board accepted the staff report stating that regarding the Byron/East County
Airport Area, "The precise identification of changes was to be deferred pending the
conclusion of the Airport Land Use Plan by the County's Airport Land Use
Commission".
(�C: OCS P
C,aDLxj�U
RE: Board of Supervisors May 10, 2005 Agenda Item D.3 May 6, 2005
Therefore, previous actions of the Board, the local community and the voters of
Contra Costa County call for land use planning around the Byron Airport that will
support it, and make it an economic engine instead of a drain on County resources.
Please consider this in any deliberations and studies made of the Urban Limit Line in this
area.
Sincerely,
James A. Gwerder
A. Souza& Son
cc: Senator Tom Torlakson
Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher
Congressman Richard Pombo
2