Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06072005 - D4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS _ r' Contra �� �s FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP �� Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR = �'4 County K� DATE: MAY 10, 2005 COU 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 Y 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 Xs 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 SIGNATURES : ACTION OF BOARD ON Qco ' ' APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _OTHER, I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND VOTE OF SUPERVISORS CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND UNANIMOUS (ABSENT blQ)46} ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF AYES: NOES: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Jxwnetj of: contact: Patrick Roche, CDD-Adv. Plan (925-335-1242) ATTESTED o cc: CAO JOHN SWEETEN, CLERIK OF THE BOARD OF Clerk of the Board SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel R. McCleary, CCTA BY , DEPUTY r May 10, 2005 Board of Supervisors Mutually Agreeable ULL—Measure J Page 2 BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued A clear sentiment expressed b several participants at the April 28th summit was a desire to initiate the p Y 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. Followingthe 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 for a 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 CCTAp rovide 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 q Y 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 o tin to pursue its own ULL would then act as its own Lead Agency for purposes of opting 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. 4129/2005 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 5/412005, re: Vote Required for Initiation of Environmental Processing 4. 4/25/2005 Letter from President, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District Attachment 1 CONTRA COSTA TRANSPOR TA TION AUTHORITY April 29, 2005 '_30MMIssIONERs: Dennis Barry Janet Abelson Community Development Director hair Contra Costa County b51 Pine St., 4th F1.N. Wing Donald P.Freitas vice-Chair Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Transmittal of the Advisory Motion from the April 28th ULL Summit ;harlie Abrams Warie Alegria Dear Mr. Barry: YewellAmerich At the April 28th summit meetingof the Urban Limit Line Task Forces the John Gioia participants discussed the next steps in developing the mutually agreed-upon urban =ederal Glover limit line as envisaged in Measure J. At the conclusion of its discussion,the group made an advisory motion outlining its recommendations for the ULL project 1Aichae!F.Metcalf description and alternatives for analysis in the Environmental Impact Report. p y p P 3rad Nix Supervisor Glover,who was present at the meeting, agreed to bring the motion to the Julie Pierce Board's attention. Wada Viramontes Fory our convenience staff has transcribed the motion, which reads as follows: That the project be defined as C + 6 + East/Central, 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 Cobert K.McClearythe `p xecutive Director referred plan" and that we are not by this action choosing a mutually agreed-upon Urban Limit Line. The motion was made by Councilmember David Durant of Pleasant Hill, seconded by Councilmember Julie Pierce of Clayton. The vote was unanimously in favor among 3478 Buskirk Ave. the 18 city representatives present. The City of Richmond's representative was not Suite loo present. Furthermore, among the four Supervisors present, there were two noes, one :leasant Hill aye,�and one abstention. �A 94523 SHONE: ?251407-0121 =AX- ?251407-0126 7ttP:/1www.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 OCTA Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair BOS Supervisor John Gioia Jane Pennington, Clerk of the Board CADocuments and Settings\Martin.MRE\My Documents\Wpf les\GMP\ULL\Ltr-D Bary summit.doc Attachment 2 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITU RE PLAN ATTACHMENT A PRINCIPLES OF AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHING THE URBAN 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 ULL 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 C E Q A, 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" 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 5% 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 LA F C O 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 3/4 of the with the Measure C Growth Management Plan. cities representing 3/4 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 U LL Measure tually agreed upon ULL". will include provisions for periodic review (5 5. 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 R 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor Phone: (925) 335-1800 Martinez, CA 94553 Fax: (925)646-1078 Date: May 4, 2005 To: Board of Supervisors From: Silvano B. Marchesi, County Counsel '.• f . Re: Vote Required for Initiation of Environmental Processing }- 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, § 65858) 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 3/4 of 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 Attachment 4 . . ..... ... .. 05 P- 7 R E DISCO MY TOOF DISCOVERY BAY APRo02825 DAA CLERK BOARD 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.doran 1234(�,)sbcglobal.net V.President-David Piepho d.piepho@sbcglobal.net Treasurer-Ray Tetreault r.tetreault8431 @sbcglobal.net Director-Barry Hinds bhinds 1234@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 Bethel Island MAC Board Members Contra Costa Times Newspapers ' Brentwood/DB/Oakley Press '