Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05162006 - D.6 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY AICP Costa +° S a .rti ;• .r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR _ ;:• `� County DATE: MAY 16, 2006 SUBJECT: FOLLOW-UP REPORT ON PROPOSED 2006 VOTER-APPROVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE BALLOT MEASURE (COUNTYWIDE) (COUNTY FILES: GP#06-0001 AND ZT#06-0001) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPT report from the Community Development Director on the proposed 2006 Voter- Approved Contra Costa County. Urban Limit Line; DIRECT staff as to which project elements are to be included in the Initial Study for the ballot measure. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: , X YES SIGNATURE L./RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE +APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S)- ACTION OF BOARVIN APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND VOTE OF SUPERVISORS ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF - UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Contact: P. Roche,CDD-Adv. Ping. (Ph#925-335-1242) ATTESTED cc: CAO JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Clerk of the Board SUPERVIS ND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel Mayor/City Manager (19 Cities) Chair, CCTA BY DEPUTY GAAdvance Planning\adv-plan\ULL Ballot Measure\BoardOrder5-19-06Word(2).doc FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of the Board's action could vary, depending upon the level of environmental review required to analyze the chosen project elements. BACKGROUND / REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION A. SUMMARY OF BOARD ACTIONS CONCERNING COUNTY'S NOVEMBER 2006 VOTER- APPROVED URBAN LIMIT LINE BALLOT MEASURE. On March 7, 2006, the Community Development Department presented to the Board of Supervisors a proposed November 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line ballot measure. The Board requested that staff return with additional information. On May 9, 2006 staff presented the Board with a report responding to this request and recommending certain revisions to the ballot measure. The report noted that staff had determined that the recommended revisions would not necessitate the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff recommended that a revised Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration be prepared and re-circulated. The Board was also asked for direction as to next steps. During the May 9, 2006 meeting, Supervisor Piepho asked the Board to consider four new proposals for inclusion into the ballot measure. Following the Board's discussion of the matter, one of the four proposals was withdrawn by Supervisor Piepho. Staff was directed to return to the Board on May 16, 2006, with preliminary comments as to whether the three remaining proposals might tend to have a significant effect on the environment, potentially requiring an extensive and time-consuming environmental review. Supervisor Piepho was asked to provide staff with additional details outlining two of her proposals concerning residential development outside the Urban Limit Line. Staff has been provided with those details and these preliminary comments are based on that information. The Board stressed that it was a first priority that the Urban Limit Line ballot measure be submitted to the voters at the November 7, 2006 General Election. If an EIR were required, this goal could not be achieved. The Board indicated that it wanted to be advised as early as possible if the proposed additions to the measure would jeopardize the primary objective of placing the Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line measure on the November 2006 ballot. B. TIMELINE OF STEPS NECESSARY TO MEET BOARD OBJECTIVE OF NOVEMBER 7, 2006 ULL BALLOT MEASURE The County Elections Officer has previously advised that ballot measures should be submitted 110 days before the date of the General Election to give the Elections Office sufficient time to prepare, publish, print and distribute the ballot and voter pamphlets. While the legal deadline for submission is 88 days, the Elections Office has advised that 110 days allows a more reasonable time for public notice, publishing the arguments and rebuttals, and sending the absentee ballots to military personnel serving overseas. With respect to the November 7, 2006 election, that would make July 20, 2006, the date by which the Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line ballot measure should be submitted. In order to meet this deadline, the following actions would need to occur by the dates indicated below. This schedule is based on the assumption that the Board accepts the Elections Office scheduling recommendations and that the measure approved by the Board would have no Page 2 BACKGROUND/ REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued significant environmental impacts and could be approved under CEQA by adoption of a negative declaration. This chart assumes a 110 day schedule. KEY MILESTONES DATE Final Board Action Defining May 16, 2006 Project Elements Prepare Revised Initial Study May 17-25,2006 Issue Revised Initial Study and May 26, 2006 Notice of Intent to Adopt Negative Declaration 30-Day CEQA Review Period May 26-June 26,2006 Submission Deadline for Board June 27,2006 Agenda Item on 7/11/06 Complete Board Report and July 5,2006 Resolution, including proposed final ballot measure Agenda Packet to Board July 6,2006 Board Meeting to Consider CEQA July 11,2006 Determination and Resolution on Ballot Measure Post Notice of Determination July 11-20,2006 (CEQA) Prepare and Submit Certified Board Resolution and Ballot Measure to County Elections Officer 110-Day Deadline for Submission July 20,2006 of Ballot Measure to Elections Officer C. SUMMARY OF STAFF'S PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS UNDER CEQA. CEQA is concerned with effects on the physical environment. Action by a public agency is a "project" subject to review under CEQA if the action might result in a direct or indirect change in the physical environment. The CEQA Guidelines (at 14 Cal Code Regs § 15378) broadly define "project" to mean "the whole of. an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." The Community Development Department has determined that the proposed ballot measure is a project under CEQA and that it is not exempt from CEQA review. The project, as previously defined by the Board in 2005, was analyzed under CEQA by an Initial Study. The Initial Study concluded that an EIR was not required for the project as described at that time. A Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Negative Declaration, dated January Page 3 BACKGROUND/ REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued 27, 2006, was prepared and circulated. As a result of the Board's decisions in 2006, the scope of the project has changed. The Board has asked staff to provide it with a preliminary determination as to whether certain proposed revisions to the project can be reviewed under CEQA and still qualify for the November 2006 election before staff begins work on a new Initial Study. Immediately following this meeting, the Community Development Department will undertake an Initial Study of the revised "project." According to the Board's direction, that project will include some or all of the elements discussed below, in addition to the elements previously approved and outlined in staff's March 7, 2006 report to the Board. A summary of staffs preliminary assessment of each element's potential for environmental impact is shown in italics and will be explained in further detail below. It should be noted that, to meet the Board's goal of submitting the ballot measure to the voters in November 2006, the Initial Study must be completed within the next seven working days. This is a very aggressive schedule. The greater the number of new project elements to be considered and the more complex each project element is, the more time-consuming it will be to evaluate the potential environmental impacts, individually as well as cumulatively. One of the purposes of this report is to advise the Board, not only,whether certain projects may have a potential to create environmental effects, but also whether that possibility can even be studied, and appropriate General Plan and County Ordinance Code amendments prepared, within the time allowed. 1. Proposed Project Element - Concord Naval Weapons Station. Remove from the ballot measure a provision providing for an automatic review of the Urban Limit Line (ULL) in the vicinity of the tideland portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station when the land was determined to be surplus by the U.S. Department of Defense. The deletion of this language from the ballot measure was approved by the Board on May 9, 2006. [As previously discussed in the May 9, 2006 Board Order, the Community Development Department does not believe that the proposed action will have significant physical effects on the environment either directly or indirectly. This action can be evaluated by Initial Study within the time allowed.] 2. Proposed Prosect Element - Clayton Area. Revise the ULL in the unincorporated area near Clayton, in the vicinity of Marsh Creek Road, to avoid splitting certain parcels. The addition of this project element was approved by the Board on May 9, 2006. [As previously discussed in the May 9, 2006 Board Order, the Community Development Department does not believe that the proposed action will have significant physical effects on the environment either directly or indirectly. This project element can be evaluated by Initial Study within the time allowed.] 3. Proposed Project Element - Incorporation of Antioch, Pittsburg and San Ramon Voter- Approved Urban Limit Lines. Revise the ULL in the unincorporated areas near Antioch, Pittsburg and San Ramon to reflect the urban limit lines approved by the voters in those cities. The Board's March 7, 2006 approval of this project element was not changed by its action of May 9, 2006. [As previously discussed in the May 9, 2006 Board Order and the March 7, 2006 Board Order, the Community Development Department does not believe that the proposed action will have significant physical effects on the environment either directly or indirectly. Reasons for this determination are discussed below. This project element can be further evaluated by Initial Study within the time allowed.] Page 4 BACKGROUND / REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION -_continued 4. Proposed Proiect Element - Inclusion of Brentwood General Plan Special Planning Areas G, H, and R Within the County's Urban Limit Line. This element would involve expanding the County's Urban Limit Line in the vicinity of Balfour Road and Deer Valley Road near Brentwood to bring inside the line approximately 1,300 acres of unincorporated area described in the City of Brentwood's General Plan as Special Planning Areas G, H, and R. [Based on its preliminary consideration of this element, the Community Development Department believes that there is a possibility that during the course of an Initial Study substantial evidence could emerge establishing that expansion of the line in the Brentwood area may have the potential to result in development that would not otherwise occur if the line were not expanded, resulting in environmental impacts sufficient to require the preparation of an EIR. Some of the factors that would enter into this evaluation are discussed in detail below. It is doubtful whether staff can thoroughly evaluate this project element by Initial Study within the time allowed.] 5. Proposed Project Element - Add Ballot Measure Language Providing for the Reconfiguration of Parcels of Prime Productive Agricultural Land Outside the ULL that are Smaller than 40 Acres. Supervisor Piepho has asked staff to consider the potential environmental effects of including the following language on the November 2006 ballot: "The 1990 65/35 Contra Costa Land Preservation Plan Ordinance directs the County to establish standards and policies designed to protect the economic viability of agricultural land, including such standards and policies as preservation agreements, conservation easements, and clustering as well as a minimum parcel size of 40 acres for new subdivisions of prime productive agricultural land located outside the urban limit line. There are numerous parcels of prime agricultural land smaller than 40 acres which pre-existed the Ordinance and may be developed with at least one residence each. To support active agriculture and protect the economic viability of agriculture on prime agricultural land on these smaller lots and to facilitate the use of clustering, preservation agreements and conservation easements, this measure would provide that the County's standards and policies also may include the reconfiguration of existing lots smaller than 40 acres by lot line adjustment or subdivision, so long as no additional parcels are created and the resulting parcels are no smaller in size as a result of such configuration." [Based on its preliminary consideration of this proposed project element, the Community Development Department believes that there is a possibility that, during the course of an Initial Study, substantial evidence of significant effect on the environment sufficient to require an EIR could emerge. Some of the factors that would enter into this evaluation are discussed in detail below. Staff believes it is unlikely that this project element, in addition to Proposed Project Element Nos.4 and 6, described herein, can be thoroughly evaluated by Initial Study within the time allowed. In addition, it is questionable whether, during this period, staff would have sufficient time to evaluate and prepare the Page 5 BACKGROUND/REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued appropriate General Plan and County Ordinance Code amendments for submission to the voters.] 6. Proposed Project Element - Add Ballot Measure Language Affirming that Clustering of Residential Units May be Consistent with Rural Residential Uses Outside the Urban Limit Line. Supervisor Piepho has asked staff to consider the potential environmental effects of including the following language on the November 2006 ballot: "The 1990 65/35 Contra Costa Land Preservation Plan Ordinance allows for the development of rural residential uses on land located outside the urban limit line. This measure would affirm that such rural residential uses may include the subdivision of land into parcels smaller than five acres within one mile of the urban limit line where (a) at least 75% of the lands proposed for subdivision are permanently preserved for agriculture or open space uses through the conveyance of development rights, grants and/or open space and conservation easements, (b) single-family dwellings are located on lots no less than one acre in size, (c) the overall density of development within the subdivision does not exceed one dwelling per five acres, and (d) such dwellings are located and designed consistent with the agricultural use and character of the surrounding area, and where feasible are clustered in groups of two to four dwellings to maximize active agriculture and open space uses and to minimize grading." [Based on its preliminary consideration of this element, the Community Development Department believes that this language could be viewed to represent a change in policy. As such, there is a possibility that, during the course of an Initial Study, substantial evidence of significant effects on the environment sufficient to require an EIR could emerge. Some of the factors that would enter into this evaluation are discussed below. Staff believes that it would be virtually impossible to evaluate this proposed project element, in addition to Proposed Project Elements numbered 4 and 5 above, by Initial Study within the, time allowed. In addition, if is doubtful whether, during this period, staff would have sufficient time to evaluate and prepare the appropriate General Plan and County Ordinance Code amendments for submission to the voters.] D. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF STAFF'S PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS UNDER CEQA. • Proposed Proiect Element 4 - Inclusion of Brentwood General Plan Special Planning Areas G, H, and R Within the County's Urban Limit Line. At the Board of Supervisors May 9, 2006 meeting, it was argued that the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed expansion of the County's Urban Limit Line in the Brentwood area are comparable to those pertaining to the proposed adjustment of the line in the Antioch, Pittsburg and San Ramon areas. The attorney for Pulte Homes expressed the opinion that: "If Brentwood approves Page 6 BACKGROUND/ REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued the project and they seek to annex, that will be the time that an EIR will need to be required." She indicated that, until that happens, any potential impacts resulting from the proposed line change would only be speculative. She asked that this legal question be referred to County Counsel and requested that the County's Urban Limit Line be expanded to include Brentwood Special Planning Areas G, H and R, following the adoption of a negative declaration. A similar request was made by the attorney for the Nunn family, another major property owner in the Brentwood area. During the course of the meeting, the Board asked the Community Development Department to confer with County Counsel about the law applicable to this situation, and we have done so. This report reflects input and concurrence by County Counsel. a. Legal Framework . CEQA requires a governmental agency to prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project "may have a significant effect on the environment." Public Resources Code § 21100. The CEQA Guidelines define "substantial evidence" as: "Enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached...." 14 Cal Code Regs § 15384(a). Substantial evidence is comprised of facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on the facts, and expert opinions supported by the facts. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, clearly inaccurate or erroneous evidence, and evidence of social and economic impacts that do not contribute to and are not caused by physical impacts on the environment do not constitute substantial evidence. Public Resources Code §§ 21080(e), 21082.2(c) and 14 Cal Code Regs § 15064(f)(5), 15384. The threshold requirement for preparation of an EIR is very low. If there is any doubt as to whether an EIR is warranted, the courts will resolve that doubt in favor of environmental review. Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.AppAth 1307, 1316-1317. In the case of a general plan amendment, the environmental analysis will generally focus on expected secondary or indirect effects, rather than specific identifiable consequences. In City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal. AppAth 398, 409, the county approved amendments that modified its general plan relating to land use regulation of unincorporated land located within a city's sphere of influence. The court held that the county failed to comply with CEQA in not preparing an EIR to analyze these changes. "`Even if a general plan amendment is treated merely as a 'first phase' with later developments having separate approvals and environmental assessments, it is apparent that an evaluation of a 'first phase-general plan amendment' must necessarily include a consideration of the larger project, i.e., the future development permitted by the amendment. Only then can the ultimate effect of the amendment upon the physical environment be addressed."' [Citing Christward Ministry v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal. App. 3d 180, 194.] Page 7 BACKGROUND / REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued CEQA does not permit public agencies to look at projects in isolation. As part of its Initial Study of the proposed expansion of the County's Urban Limit Line in the Brentwood area, staff would need to consider whether the proposed expansion of the line could potentially have cumulative or growth- inducing impacts. This means that staff must consider the proposed expansion of the County's Urban Limit Line in the Brentwood area against the backdrop of the environmental effects of other past, current, and probable future projects. CEQA requires an evaluation of the incremental effects of the project and whether they are "cumulatively considerable." Public Resources Code §21083(b)(2) 14 Cal Code Regs 15065(a)(3). "In short, 'a cumulative impact of a project is an impact to which the project contributes and to which other projects contribute as well. . . .' The CEQA Guidelines define cumulative impacts as `two or more individual effects which , when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.. . . An EIR must be prepared if the cumulative impact may be significant and the project's incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable."' Sierra Club v. West Side Irrigation District (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 690, 700-701. [Citing CEQA Guidelines.] CEQA also requires that an initial study analyze the potential growth-inducing impacts of the project. If there is a fair argument that a project might have a significant growth-inducing effect, an EIR is required. Environmental review cannot be forestalled until reasonably foreseeable future development is, in fact, proposed. See, Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 144, 150-153, 158.; Public Resources Code § 21151. As part of its Initial Study, staff would need to consider whether expanding the County's Urban Limit Line as proposed may act as a catalyst to development which might not otherwise be permitted if the line were not expanded. If substantial evidence were to emerge, sufficient to support a fair argument that expansion of the line may have a significant growth-inducing effect, then an EIR would be required. It is a matter of public record that the path of growth in the unincorporated areas adjacent to Pittsburg, Antioch, San Ramon and Brentwood, proposed to be included within the County's Urban Limit Line, will be through the cities and not through the County. There is no application pending in the County for development of these areas. Discussions with developers and related pre-development activities are occurring in the cities. As such, staff believes at this time and under these circumstances, that there would be insufficient evidence to show that the proposed adjustment of the line in the vicinity of any of the four cities would result in development in the County's jurisdiction that would not otherwise be permitted if the line were not expanded. However, as part of its Initial Study, staff would also need to consider whether a fair argument might be made that the proposed expansion of the County's Urban Limit Line in the vicinity of any of the four cities may result in development in any city's jurisdiction that would not otherwise be permitted if the line were not moved. The Community Development Department's preliminary evaluation of this issue begins with a review of Measure J. Measure J is a transportation sales tax expenditure plan approved by Contra Costa County voters in November 2004 fora 25-year period commencing April 1, 2009. The Measure J Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan includes Principles of Agreement for Establishing the Page 8 BACKGROUND/ REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued Urban Limit Line. The Principles of Agreement have been made part of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Growth Management Program. A copy of the Principles of Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Principle No. 8 states: "The new Measure C Growth Management Program will include a requirement that all jurisdictions must comply with either the 'Countywide ULL' or the 'local jurisdiction's voter approved ULL' before that jurisdiction would be eligible to receive the 18% return to source funds or the 5% CC- TLC' funds. In the absence of a local voter approved ULL, submittal of an annexation request to LAFCO 2outside the countywide voter approved ULL will constitute non-compliance with the Measure C Growth Management Plan." b. Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon The cities of Antioch, Pittsburg and San Ramon currently have voter-approved urban limit lines. That means that these cities could seek to pursue annexation of unincorporated territory within the area of their voter-approved urban limit lines and, if annexation is approved by LAFCO, permit the development of those areas without losing return to source funds. While this is no guarantee that annexation will or should be approved, the effect of having voter-approved urban limit lines means that these areas may be considered for annexation without the cities' jeopardizing their return to source funds. In other words, Measure J does not prevent Antioch, Pittsburg or San Ramon from making a request to LAFCO to annex areas within their voter-approved urban limit lines. Consequently, moving the County's Urban Limit Line to conform to the cities' lines would not appear to make it more likely that development will occur in those cities. For this reason, staff does not believe that a change to the environment, direct or indirect, is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the County moving its Urban Limit Line to conform to the cities' voter-approved lines. — c. Brentwood Contrast this with the situation in Brentwood. Attached as Exhibit 2 are excerpts from the Brentwood General Plan containing descriptions of Special Planning Areas G, H, and R. The Plan for Areas G and H identifies a mix of land uses(urban and open space) and contains estimates for the number of dwelling units (574 new dwelling units). During the course of public discussions in 2005 about the establishment of a "Mutually Agreed Upon Urban Limit Line," the City of Brentwood presented a map detailing plans for urban development in areas G, H and R. It is a matter of public record, including the public testimony presented at this Board's meeting of May 9, 2006, that if development is to occur in Brentwood Special Planning Areas G, H, and R, it will occur through the City. The attorneys for Pulte Homes and the Nunn family were very forthright in urging the County to approve an expansion of the County's Urban Limit Line in the Brentwood area. The line expansion is critically important to these developers because it removes a substantial barrier to the development of this area through the City of Brentwood. ' CC-TLC stands for Contra Costa Transportation For Livable Communities. 2 LAFCO stands for Local Agency Formation Commission. Page 9 BACKGROUND/ REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued Brentwood Special Planning Areas G, H and R are currently in the unincorporated area outside the Urban Limit Line. In order for the City to grant development approvals in these areas it must annex the land to the City. If Brentwood is going to annex these areas, it must either have its own voter- approved urban limit line or it must adopt the County's line to avoid losing return to source funds. Staff is advised that Brentwood currently receives approximately $413,000 in annual return to source funds. The Measure J expenditure plan has a term of 25 years. If the County expands its Urban Limit Line to include Brentwood Special Planning Areas G, H and R, and the new line is approved by a majority of voters countywide, the Brentwood City Council could take action to adopt the County's Urban Limit Line, without having that action approved by the City's voters. As the Board will recall, the City's voters recently rejected an expanded urban limit line, so this is an important consideration for the City. Once the County's line has been adopted by the City, the Measure J barrier to the annexation Special Planning Areas G, H and R would be removed. The City would be able to pursue annexation through LAFCO without losing its return to source funds. This is a summary treatment of a complicated issue. Absent an Initial Study, it cannot be determined to any degree of certainty whether or what potential direct and indirect effects on the environment might result from the proposed expansion of the County's Urban Limit Line in the Brentwood area. However, given the development pressure in this area, staff has serious concerns that, following a review of all of the evidence, the Initial Study could conclude that expanding the County's Urban Limit Line to include Brentwood's Special Planning Areas G, H and R could raise a fair argument that expanding the line might have significant growth-inducing effects, resulting in potential impacts on the environment that would require the preparation of an EIR. • Proposed Project Element 5 - Add Ballot Measure Language Providing for the Reconfiguration of Parcels of Prime Productive Agricultural Land Outside the ULL that are Smaller than 40 Acres. As staff understands it, this proposed addition to the November 2006 ballot measure would amend the General Plan to allow for the creation of new parcels, smaller than 40 acres in the Agricultural Core (AC), through lot line adjustment or subdivision, provided that no additional parcels are created and further provided that the new parcels are no smaller that those they are replacing. In 1990 the voters approved Measure C, mandating that: "The County shall establish standards and policies designed to protect the economic viability of agricultural land. These standards and policies shall include a minimum parcel size for prime productive agricultural land located outside the Urban Limit Line to 40 acres." [emphasis added in bold italics] There are numerous legal parcels in the Agricultural Core, smaller than 40 acres, which existed before the voters approved Measure C-1990. The intent of this proposal is to encourage the reconfiguration of the smaller parcels in the Agricultural Core to form a larger and more viable agricultural unit and, in exchange, allow the clustering and creation of new legal lots under the 40 acre minimum. Page 10 BACKGROUND/ REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued 1 Before it commences an Initial Study, staff has been asked to provide the Board with a preliminary determination as to whether there is a possibility that the Initial Study of this project element might reveal substantial evidence which would support a fair argument that this proposed project element may have a significant effect on the physical environment. The mix of clustered residential units in the vicinity of larger agricultural areas could potentially conflict with certain agricultural operations. To take one example, staff would have to consider the potential effects of the spraying of pesticides-and herbicides in the newly-formed, larger agricultural areas in the vicinity of a cluster of homes, families and children. Staff would also have to determine whether the creation of new parcels of less than 40 acres would be consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements. Any decision affecting land use and development must be consistent with the General Plan. See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 570. "A project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment." Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4t" 342,378. The Initial Study Checklist form, set forth as an appendix to the CEQA guidelines, includes the following question to be addressed under Section IX, Land Use and Planning: "Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan. . . or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?" The 40 acre minimum parcel size was established to avoid or mitigate the loss of prime productive farmland. This proposed project element would have to be evaluated in great detail to determine whether the proposal would conflict with the 40 acre requirement. In addition, the subdivision of land which would create a cluster of "ranchette" housing in the Agricultural Core (AC) is inconsistent with the General Plan (source: page 3-25, Land Use Element, c. Agricultural Core (2) under subheading PUBLIC, SEMI-PUBLIC, LANDFILL, AND OTHER OPEN SPACE USES).Staff is gravely concerned that it will not have sufficient time to analyze this proposed project element within the seven days currently allowed for the Initial Study. The most that can be said at this time is that the proposal raises a "red flag" mandating a thorough review of the evidence and creating a possibility that an EIR could be required. Finally, to the extent that this proposal would require changes to the County's General Plan and/or zoning ordinances, those changes would have to be identified and the appropriate amendments, internally consistent with the rest of the General Plan and other ordinances, would have to be written within the next seven days in order to be placed on the proposed ballot measure and be circulated with the Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Negative Declaration. It is doubtful whether this would be possible in the time allowed. • Proposed Project Element 6 - Add Ballot Measure Language Affirming that Clustering of Residential Units May be Consistent with Rural Residential Uses Outside the Urban Limit Line. Page 11 BACKGROUND/REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued In general terms, this proposed project element would allow the creation and clustering of one-acre lots within a one-mile area outside the Urban Limit Line, on the condition that at least 75% of the land proposed for subdivision would be permanently preserved for agricultural or open space uses and that overall density of the development would not exceed one dwelling per unit per five acres. Staff is seriously concerned that the proposed "affirmation" of existing policy could be viewed as a significant "shift" in the County's policies regarding development in outside the Urban Limit Line, requiring the preparation of an EIR. In City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino, supra, the court found a negative declaration to be inappropriate because amendments to the county general plan did not only clarify the plan's language, they changed the plan's land use policies by eliminating requirements that would have had the effect of limiting potential impacts of development. Limited "rural" residential uses may be permitted in the Agricultural Lands (AL) and Delta Recreation Resource (DR) land use designations. Urban uses are not permitted. Subdivision of land which would create a clustering of "ranchette" housing in the Agricultural Core (AC) is inconsistent with the General Plan (source: page 3-25, Land Use Element, c. Agricultural Core (2) under subheading PUBLIC, SEMI-PUBLIC, LANDFILL, AND OTHER OPEN SPACE USES).The Rural Residential Development Standards in the Conservation Element of the General Plan at page 8-24 (Implementation Measure 8-(2) mandates that: . "Ag ricultural/OpenSpace subdivisions are considered a long-term rural/residential use of the land. Parcel size shall be a minimum of 5 acres in lands designated Agricultural Lands and 20 acres in land designated Delta Recreation and 40 acres in lands designated prime productive agricultural lands." [emphasis added in bold italics] One acre lots are considered to be "urb-an uses" under the General Plan. A one acre lot would fall under the County's R-40 Residential Zoning District. The R-40 district is deemed consistent with the Single Family Residential - Very Low Density (SV) designation under the General Plan (source: Table 3-5, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020). The SV designation is classified as an urban use and is not included in the uses generally classified as "non-urban uses" (source: page 3-23, Land Use Element, under subheading PUBLIC, SEMI-PUBLIC,LANDFILL, AND OTHER OPEN SPACE USES). In addition, Policy 3-49 in the Land Use Element under POLICIES FOR THE EAST COUNTY AREA further identifies one acre parcels as urban uses and requires that sewer or water connections be available to such parcels. An Initial Study would be necessary to determine whether there is substantial evidence which would support a fair argument that this proposed project element may have a significant effect on the physical environment. To take one example, staff would have to consider how sewage and water would be dealt with. If no water or sewer connections are available, the one-acre lots would have to rely on wells for drinking water and septic systems, with an adequate area onsite, to leach the raw waste water. County Ordinance Code section 420-6.505 establishes that when both a well and septic system are required, the total lot area must be at least 40,000 square feet (just under one acre). However, adopted County Environmental Health Regulations establish certain setback requirements that may call into question whether a series of well and septic systems could be located on one-acre lots. Soil and water table conditions would also have to be considered, as well as potential impacts to the groundwater and aquifer. Page 12 BACKGROUND / REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued This proposed project element also raises a "red flag" mandating a thorough review of the evidence and raising the potential for review by EIR. Staff believes it would be virtually impossible to evaluate this proposed project element by Initial Study, in addition to Proposed Project Elements numbered 4 and 5 above, in time to be placed on the November 7, 2006 ballot. Finally, as noted above, to the extent that this proposal would require changes to the County's General Plan and/or zoning ordinances, those changes would have to be identified and the appropriate amendments, internally consistent with the rest of the General Plan and other ordinances, would have to written within the next seven days in order to be placed on the proposed ballot measure and be circulated with the Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Negative Declaration. Staff believes it would be virtually impossible to do this in the time allowed. E. FINAL BOARD DIRECTION ON PROJECT ELEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN EIR If the Board's first priority is that the County's Urban Limit Line ballot measure be placed before the voters on November 7, 2006, at the conclusion of this meeting staff will need to know which proposed project elements are to be included in the Initial Study. 1. Proceed With the March 7, 2006 Ballot Measure Including Only the Minor Revisions Approved on May 9, 2006. This course of action would involve revising the Initial Study to incorporate the two minor revisions to the ballot measure, pertaining to the Concord and Clayton areas, approved by the Board on May 9, 2006. Staff is confident that an Initial Study and Notice of'lntent to Adopt a Negative Declaration can be accomplished within the timeframe for the Board to consider a resolution to place the County Voter- Approved Limit Line measure on the ballot for the General Election on November 7, 2006. 2. Direct Staff to Include in the Initial Study an Evaluation of Proposed Project Elements 4, 5 and 6 Outlined Above. Staff is seriously concerned that the inclusion of any or all of these project elements may jeopardize the Board's primary goal of presenting the County Voter-Approved Limit Line measure on the ballot for the General Election on November 7, 2006. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to review these project elements within the time available, and each of these propose project elements carries with it a risk that substantial evidence will emerge to support a fair argument that an EIR will be required. In addition, with regard to the two agricultural residential development proposals, it is doubtful whether staff would be able to evaluate and prepare appropriate amendments to the General Plan and County Ordinance Code for submission to the voters as part of the ballot measure in the time available. 3. No Change to Urban Limit Line Map for Antioch, Pittsburg and San Ramon. If the Board feels that the proposed map changes to the County Urban Limit Line for the Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon areas are comparable to the Brentwood proposal, it could choose as a matter of policy not to conform the County's Urban Limit Line to the lines approved by the voters in those cities. This course of action would eliminate the argument that the County has acted inconsistently with respect to the proposed line changes in the Brentwood, Antioch, Pittsburg and San Ramon areas and the threat of a lawsuit on CEQA grounds as.a result of the perceived inconsistency. Page 13 BACKGROUND / REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued Attachments (2 items) Exhibit 1: Principals of Agreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line Exhibit 2: Special Planning Areas G, H And R Brentwood General Plan, 2001-2021 & Brentwood's 2005 Ubran Limit Line Proposal Page 14 EXHIBIT "1" PRINCIPLES OF AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHING THE URBAN LIMIT LINE TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN ATTACHMENT A PRINCIPLES OF AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHING THE URBAN LIMIT LINE 1. The Board of Supervisors shall have, with the ULL will be considered as the Countywide Voter concurrence of each affected city, adjusted the Approved ULL once it is ratified by the voters. existing County ULL on or before September 6. If a Town or City disagrees with the mutually 30, 2004, or as expeditiously as possible given agreed upon ULL, it may, as an alternative, de- the requirements of CEQA, to make the existing velop and submit to its voters an "alternative County ULL coterminous with city boundaries ULL", or rely upon an existing voter approved where it previously intruded inside those incor- ULL. porated boundaries. 7. If no Countywide mutually agreed upon ULL 2. The process to develop the ULL shall have.begun is established by March 31, 2009, only local by July 1, 2004 with meetings in each sub region jurisdictions with a voter approved ULL will be between one elected representative of each city eligible to receive the 18%return to source funds and the county. The subregional meetings) will or the S% TLC funds. be followed by meetings between all of the cities 8. The new Measure C Growth Management Pro- bed the county, each being represented by one gram will include a requirement that all jurisdic- elected representative. The discussion will in- tions must comply with either the"Countywide clude both the suggested ULL as well as criteria ULL" or the "local jurisdiction's voter approved for establishing the line and future modifications ULL" before that jurisdiction would be eligible to the ULL. to receive the 18%return to source funds or the 3. On or before December 31, 2004, the County S% CC-TLC funds. In the absence of a local and the cities will cooperate in the development voter approved ULL, submittal of an annexation of a new mutually agreed upon ULL and criteria request to LAFCO outside the countywide voter for future modifications.To be considered a final approved ULL will constitute non-compliance proposal, the plan must be approved by 4 mem- with the Measure C Growth Management Plan. bers of the Board of Supervisors and 3/+ of the 9. The new ULL, unless amended, will be in place cities representing%of the incorporated popula- through the end of the sales tax extension(March tion. 31, 2034). 4. The County will be the lead agency in preparing 10. The Countywide voter approved ULL Measure a Master EIR on the proposed Countywide"mu- will include provisions for periodic review (S mally agreed upon ULL". years) as well as provisions for minor (less than S. After certification of the Master EIR, the proposal 30 acres) nonconsecutive adjustments. shall be submitted to the voters for ratification by November 2006. The new mutually agreed upon MAY 26, 2004 25 EXHIBIT "2" SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS G, H, AND R BRENTWOOD GENERAL PLAN, 2001-2021 BRENTWOOD'S 2005 URBAN LIMIT LINE PROPOSAL Chapter//, Land Use Element Special Planning Area G BACKGROUND This special planning area, consisting of approximately 370 acres, is bounded by Balfour Road to the north, Deer Valley Road to the west and south, and the Strickler/Silos Property to the south and east. The land is predominantly vacant but includes a commercial kennel, truck rental business, and cattle grazing uses. The site is hilly in Balfour Rd. nature and slopes gently from Balfour Road to southern part of Deercre the site, and then drops steeply r down to Deer Valley Road. Elevations on the property range '" from 200 feet above sea level adjacent to Balfour Road and rise to just over 400 feet in the southern portions of the property. In the northeast portion of the property is a 32-acre site owned by the Contra Costa County Flood Control Department, which will be used in the future as a flood control basin. POLICY DIRECTION SPA G will form a boundary between Brentwood and future Antioch developments on the northern and western edges of the property. The SPA will serve as a prominent gateway into Brentwood. In the future, Balfour Road and Deer Valley Road will be a major crossroads carrying traffic between Brentwood and Antioch, to and from Livermore, and to and from the Highway 4 Bypass. This major arterial intersection provides an opportunity tor develop retail commercial uses at the northwestern corner of the property. A variety of ranchette estate and very low density single-family uses with a neighborhood park are envisioned for the balance of the site with an urban reserve area along Deer Valley Road. The residential portion of the SPA shall have a maximum residential density of no more than 1.0 unit per acre. The flood control facility in the northeastern portion of the property shall be developed as a joint flood control facility and park site. Including the flood control basin, park sites and hillside open space, approximately 40%of the site should be open space uses. This area contains significant habitat value for protected wildlife. The City shall analyze this area in conjunction with a Habitat Conservation City of Brentwood General Plan, 2001-2021 Page ll. 1-33 Chapter ll, Land Use Element Plan prior to annexation. A suggested land use mix is as follows: • Open Space and Parks— 150 acres • General Commercial Uses—25 acres • Residential Uses— 195 acres The maximum number dwelling units envisioned for this SPA is 195. DESIGN OBJECTIVES: • Include a gateway element through open space, signage, and landscaping that will provide a unique entrance into the City of Brentwood. • Provide a mixture of single family, retail commercial, and open space land uses. • Concentrate the commercial uses near the southeast corner of the intersection of Deer Valley Road and Balfour Road. • Incorporate large amounts of parks and open space into the site and preserve the large hillform on the southern end of the Special Planning Area. City of Brentwood General Plan, 2001-2021 Page H. 1-34 Chapter ll, Land Use Element Special Planning Area H BACKGROUND This special planning area, which is approximately 450 acres in size, is located in the southwestern portion of the General Plan area. It is bounded on the north by Balfour Road, on the east by the approved Suncal (formerly Spanos) golf course development, on the west by portions of Deer Valley Road, and on the south by open space that is designated within Special Planning Area J. The City has annexed- Balfour Rd approximately 92 acres for development of future High School and Middle School campuses. Q POLICY DIRECTION The general focus for this special planning area is to provide residential opportunities for the nearby intersection of Balfour Road and the Highway 4 Bypass while respecting the natural topography of the site. The hill areas shall be restricted to ranchette estate residential development and recreational opportunities or natural open space. As planned, the area shall contain a mix of ranchette estate, very low density and low density single family residential developments designed around a possible nine-hole golf course. The overall density envisioned for the residential portion of the site shall not exceed 2.0 dwelling units per acre. Open space (excluding a golf course) shall comprise,at least 35 percent of the site. The site contains additional open space in the form of an urban reserve area and a future park site, as well as a planned high school and middle school. A small 10-acre neighborhood commercial area is also contemplated in the northeast portion of the SPA to serve the surrounding residential area. This area is has significant habitat value for protected wildlife and shall be analyzed in conjunction with a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to application to the City for annexation or other development entitlements. A suggested land use mix is as follows: • Open Space and Parks— 158 acres • Public Facilities—90 acres • General Commercial Uses— 10 acres City of Brentwood General Plan, 2001-2021 Page ll. 1-35 Chapter Il, Land Use Element • Residential Uses— 192 acres The maximum number of dwelling units envisioned for this SPA is 384. DESIGN OBJECTIVES Design residential projects to maximize the advantage of open space/golf course views. • Ensure that the design of residential areas facilitates pedestrian and bicycle access to commercial areas. • Locate school sites to minimize impacts on residential areas and vice versa. City of Brentwood General Plan, 2001-2021 Page 11. 1-36 Chapter ll, Land Use Element Special Planning Area R BACKGROUND SPA R, consisting of PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY approximately 615 acres, is j bounded by Deer ValleyIs Road on the west, Antioch city limits on the north, rf Brentwood city limits and l�` the Shadow Ridge development on the east, AW and Balfour Road on the south. This area is located l°I M in the western portion of the Planning. Area and is Flim cr�ek currently outside the City limits and the City's Sphere of Influence. This area does not currently have land use designations, as that would be premature due to the need for future land use planning, and environmental analysis of this land. City of Brentwood General Plan, 2001-2021 Page ll. 1-53 4 W Ct p 4 N �„{,. C -s'�rF �• T � s''�rt •�*` l a 1 cfl tD CP G.W p p 6T cc rk ? �^, a,9£" c e x� r i r r `. � §�'� `� ie�,� �'`' ,i� �i-'3 � ��, �•� � °, w �� �' o o No N xtr Y o oG14 H v �c p � n � Nov � kMA r 1w� �t N w N n o O• ' a � � F.�'� `'!. '� ` 1�� � i �{5 � i".f,. � r�`:>«•�``'�r �:,-�ff� ekar �*{ v. � G'+ � 4D,e 5 »< 1a C at OAF n ' A c-� rn o N �f " z• ` _r vr�' y^rtt {' trc x s a,• � - \ '•� s 4 F��t f_,T fiJ i+� ....•'.� �. �,. R . x i 65 lO. � y? O � f' �5 ..��' •�.. I t � � � - �S* ��1'i"S �� .�jH�4z�#V�� 13.. �'��^?k �� �� �" �,� o t"o °% co r" s r "�r�' .,z._• � -,r'�,°- y � o`�,.�'•., , � r � �•r �},�' ..� � � � ,� ,fir �' � � 5,.�;�.. o w c ro s o o A 1 J ca s? s�Wi F V©l �.a X25 �,� �� r✓tr '' '1 � ����t��^� � „8��p���', v'•`o ,,�t �5.,��� �"�� �,�, ` ����: o N c G o ��, '3� m� j . �•xy� t !�., ;.d�j�C'� £���.�� ,�. e.. �-s' ;. � :�- yti'Ix�� u ,�»-e.,•�t'' p er �, �O y ° o m _,r , .fi''' r.;. n m o 7.`�,:'!` D dF . 'o.t.'t ,,q YY✓;`,',`,� � ° � �v� ..t4�r"` Tr��� > `' e 'tS. °� n '3 � tk M1 � o o �' P N o CD ol w 4 0 fW-110 oo �� o O C U N N N? lo' �w 0 • 10 7 CD A O ; A c �. 5 m m � � Cis ICILA W)1>06 <=Oftontra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us> ar)r./46 net> cc: Subject: Data posted to form 1 of 05/10/2006 02:57 PM http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.ht m Username: Former Council Person Angel Sudario UserAddress: 550 Lakeview Dr. UserTel: (925) 516-7186 UserEmail: sudarioa@yahoo.com AgendaDate: Option: D.1 AgendaItem: Remote Name: Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; YComp 5.0.0.0; SV1; (R1 1.5) ; NET CLR 1.0.3705) Date: 10 May 2006 Time: 14:57:14 Comments: Please vote no to include board member Peipho's amendment to Brentwood's urban limit line. We the people voted "NO ON L" ! We are proud that we defeated it. You are elected to represent us and respect our vote. Thank You Cafifpt,�ia ,'N­ ative P SocletN ,I East Bay Chapter P O Box 5597, Elmwood Station.Berkeley, CA 94705 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine Streets Martinez, California Dear Esteemed Supervisors. The California Native Plant Society is a non-profit organization of more than 10,000 laypersons and professional botanists organized into 32 chapters throughout California. The Society's mission is to increase the understanding and appreciation of California's native plants and to preserve them in their natural habitat through scientific activities, education,and.conservation. The East Bay Chapter of CNPS (EBCNPS) is concerned with the recent proposal to extend the Urban Limit Line(ULL)for Contra Costa County without an apt environmental assessment of this process. The extension of a ULL into habitat known to be occupied by CEQA protected species is an action that can be.argued significant enough to require an EIR/EIS. EBCNPS is providing the following list of plants in the Vml region where the expansion of the ULL will occur. The area west of Brentwood is our Vml region which includes Lone Tree Valley, Briones Valley, Deer Valley, Horse Valley,Marsh Creek, etc. Please see the list that follows for specific species and ranking. Thank you for your consideration of the environmental impacts of your proposed action. Sincerel Lech Naumovich Conservation Analyst East Bay Chapter California Native Plant Society � c�fe�fo f�E�i�ese�afio� o f+��fo��i� a�afi�e fro 1 r C -rj Natme Pf�m 0 TetN atTfq tS co CEQA-Protected Rare and Unusual Plants of the Vml Region (Covering the Southeast Antioch and Lone Tree Valley-to-Marsh Creek Areas) 2006 (Statewide Rare Plants in Upper Case) Rank in East Bay Species Common Name Habitat A2 Allenrolfea occidentalis iodine bush Alkali areas *A2 ARCTOSTAPHYLOS Mt.Diablo manzanita Chaparral;Sand or Sandstone AURICULATA *A2 ARCTOSTAPHYLOS Contra Costa manzanita Chaparral;Sand or Sandstone MANZANITA SSP. LAEVIGATA A2 Atri lex ar entea var.mohavensis silverscale Alkali areas *A2 ATRIPLEX CORONATA VAR. crownscale Alkali areas;Grassland; Vernal Pools CORONATA *A2 ATRIPLEX DEPRESSA brittlescale Alkali areas;Grassland; Misc. Wetlands *A2 ATRIPLEX JOAQUMANA San Joaquin saltbush Alkali areas;Grassland;Misc. Wetlands *A2 BLEPHARIZONIA PLUMOSA big tarplant Grassland; Scrub *A2 CALOCHORTUS PULCHELLUS Mt.Diablo fairy-lantern Chaparral;Serpentine; Woodland Al Calycadenia multi landulosa sticky cal cadenia Rock,Tallus or Scree; Scrub A2 Cal ste is se ium ssp. limno hila hedge bindweed Misc. Wetlands Aix Camissonia campestris ssp. Mohave suncup Grassland; Scrub;Sand or Sandstone cam estris(historical-1940) A2 Chamaes ce ocellata ssp.ocellata valley spurge Sand or Sandstone *Al CONVOLVULUS SIMULANS small-flowered morning- Grassland; Serpentine;Misc. habitats glory A2 Cryptandia microstach s Tejon crytantha Chaparral; Woodland A2 Cyperus erythrorhizos red-rooted cyperus Riparian AI Delphinium hansenn Hansen's larkspur Chaparral; Woodland Al Descurainia pinnata ssp. menziesii tansy mustard Chaparral;Rock,Tallus or Scree A2 Dicentra chrysantha golden ear-drops Burns; Dry open Slopes; Misc. habitats A2 Downin is insigms cupped downin is Vernal Pools Aix Downingia ornatissima var.eximia -Solano downingia Vernal Pools;Misc. Wetlands (historical-1956) Aix Epilobium cleistogamum(historical- cleistogamous boisduvalia Vernal Pools 1907 A] Eriastrum pluriflorum many-flowered eriastrum Chaparral; Forest; Woodland A2 Eriogonum anulosum angle-stemmed erio onum Sand or Sandstone;Misc.habitats A2 Eriogonum luteolum var. luteolum golden carpet Gravel; Sand or Sandstone; Serpentine AI Eriogonum nudum var.pubiflorum naked-stemmed buckwheat Dry Oen Slopes; Misc. habitats *At ERIOGONUM TRUNCATUM Mt.Diablo buckwheat Chaparral;Grassland; Sand or Sandstone; Misc. habitats *A2 ERODIUM MACROPHYLLUM round-leaved filaree Grassland;Scrub A2 Eryngium vaseyi Vasey's coyote-thistle Alkali areas; Vernal Pools A2 Eschscholzia caes itosa tufted poppy Chaparral *A2 GALIUM.ANDREWSII SSP. serpentine bedstraw Chaparral; Serpentine;Woodland c�af fo flee > erel lion a f cwf.,w. u.gra l Calif0 O arma Natme Plaxt S GATENSE A2 Gi.tho sis.diffusa ssp.robusta southern bluecu Burns;Misc. habitats Al Guillenia flavescens yellow-flowered Serpentine thelypodium A2 Hesperevax acaulis var.ambusticola fire evax Burns; Dry open Slopes;Misc. H.s arsiflora is more common) habitats *A2 HESPEREVAX CAULESCENS (H. hogwallow starfish Vernal Pools s arsiflora is more common) *A2 HESPEROLINON BREWER] Brewer's western flax Grassland;Serpentine *A2 JUGLANS CALIFORNICA VAR. Northern California black Riparian HINDSII walnut A2 Le idium dictyotum var.acutidens sharp-toothed pepper-grass Alkali areas A2 Litho hragma bolanderi Bolander starflower Misc.habitats Al Lupinus bicolor var.tridentatus (var. miniature lupine Misc.habitats umbellatus is more common) *Aix MADIA RADIATA(HISTORICAL- showy madia Alkali areas;Grassland 1941) A2 Malacothrix floccifera woolly malacothrix Burns;Chaparral; Woodland; Misc. habitats A2 Microseris campestris San Joaquin microseris Grassland;Vernal Pools A2 Microseris elegans elegant microseris Grassland;Vernal Pools Al Mimulus latidens broad-toothed Vernal Pools;Misc. Wetlands monke flower A2 M osurus minimus ssp.minimus common mouse-tail Freshwater Marsh;Vernal Pools A2 Myosurus sessilis sessile mouse-tail Grassland;Vernal Pools A2 Navarretia atractyloides holly-leaved navarretia Rock,Tallus or Scree; Sand or Sandstone areas *Al NAVARRETIA COTULIFOL]A cotula navarretia Misc. Wetlands A2 Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. adobe navarretia Vernal Pools ni elliformis A2 Orobanche vallicola California broom-rape Forest; Woodland Al Pectocarya penicillata winged pectocarya Misc.habitats A2 Penstemon hetero h Ilus var.purdyi foothill penstemon Chaparral;Forest;Grassland Al Pentachaeta alsinoides tiny pentachaeta Grassland Al Pentachaeta exilis ssp. exilis meager pentachaeta Grassland A2 Phacelia tanacetifolia tansy phacelia Gravel; Sand or Sandstone A2 Pilularia americana villwort Vernal Pools;Misc. Wetlands A] Plagiobothrys infectivus dye popcomflower Misc.habitats A2 Plectritis ciliosa ssp. insi nis long-spurred plectritis Grassland; Woodland A] Trifolium gambelii(Included within bull clover Alkali areas;Grassland; Serpentine; T.fucatum in Jepson Manual) Misc. Wetlands A2 Tropidocarpum gracile slender tro idocarpum Alkali areas;Grassland A2 Vulpia microstachys var.confusa hairy-leaved fescue Dry Open Slopes;Grassland; Sand or auciflora is more common) Sandstone; Scrub NOTE: Some of these plant species are only known from the area historically and have not been reported for quite some time.It should not necessarily be assumed,however,that they no longer exist here as they may be on private land or hard-to-reach areas where surveys have not been done for a long time, if ever. In recent years,several plant species have been rediscovered in the East Bay that had not been reported in the area since the late 1800's or early 1900's. Dates indicated for historical species refer to the last known record in the Alameda-Contra Costa Counties area,not necessarily the area described in the title. . ° V cated(o ffie pre-vervafion of California "alive flora i w., Native soclet Explanation of Ranks *Al or*A2: Species in Alameda and Contra Costa counties listed as rare,threatened or endangered statewide by federal or state agencies or by the state level of CLAPS. A1x: Species previously known from Alameda or Contra Costa Counties,but now presumed extirpated here. Al: Species currently known from 2 or less regions in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. A2: Species currently known from 3 to 5 regions in the two counties,or,if more,meeting other important criteria such as small populations,stressed or declining populations,small geographical range, limited or threatened habitat,etc. AM Species with taxonomic or distribution problems that make it unclear if they actually occur here. 0,11c�ted� u `ie f ayes r fio� o fror ma naffix AOM ADDENDUM to D.6 May 16, 2006 Page I of 3 ADDENDUM to D.6 May 16 2006 On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered accepting a report from the Community Development Director and County Counsel on the content.and process regarding possible placement of an Urban Limit Line (ULL) measure on the November 6, 2006 ballot. Patrick Roche of the Community Development Department reviewed the possible project elements 1 through 6 as outlined in the Board Order on pages 4 through 6. Mr. Roche noted that the inclusion of element number 4 (the inclusion of Brentwood Planning Areas G, H, and R) may result in development that would not occur were the line not expanded and so, based on preliminary"review, would likely trigger the need for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He further noted that proposed element number 6 (the addition of language affirming that clustering of residential unites may be consistent with Rural Residential Uses outside the ULL) was also likely to trigger an EIR based on possible environmental effects that could emerge during the Initial Study. Supervisor Piepho thanked staff for preparing this report, and said she would like to note for the record inaccurate press commentary that the Board is moving the line: She said I' we are not moving the line, but are actively looking at potential future movement. She professed a desire to move forward.in staff's proposed timeframe in order to meet the deadlines for the November 2006 election. She presented the following question: If the Brentwood line is supported locally and adopted by Brentwood voters, could there be a provision to allow the Board, by a 4/5 vote, to make the line coterminous with the County's line? She further proposed the development of an ad-hoc committee to review the County's ranchette policy and determine what policies may or may not need to come before the Board for review. Chair Gioia asked for clarification, asking if Supervisor Piepho was suggesting that proposed elements 5 and 6 (on pages 5 and 6 of the Board order) be removed from consideration as far as the proposed elements of the Project Description. Supervisor Piepho responded that yes, she would like to pull those two elements out of the context of this ULL discussion and have those discussions separately at the ad-hoc committee level. She said the farming community has requested this consideration and she thinks it is important. Supervisor DeSaulnier commented on Supervisor Piepho's proposal to add a provision whereby the Board could, by a 4/5 vote, change the County line as it pertains to Brentwood in order reflect changes that could be made by Brentwood voters. He said it was his understanding of Measure J that the County wouldn't have to do that because, for eligibility for Measure J Return to Source (RTS) funds, a voter-approved City of Brentwood line would supercede the County's line. 4 I� ADDENDUM to D.6 May 16, 2006 Page 2 of 3 Dennis Barry, Community Development Director, responded that for the County it is not just about Measure J, but it is a General Plan Amendment and Ordinance we are adopting. Supervisor Uilkema asked if the County automatically incorporates voter-approved lines. Mr. Barry responded that it is not an automatic process, but that it could be built into the County's periodic review process. " Supervisor Piepho asked how frequently the review process takes place. Mr. Barry responded that reviews occur every five years. Supervisor Uilkema asked why wouldn't that then apply to any city; a number of cities could go to their voters to adopt lines for their jurisdictions, why wouldn't those cities then be entitled -- shouldn't this be a general principle rather than specific to Brentwood? Cecily Talbert, representing Pulte Homes, said she supports Supervisor Piepho's proposals-and noted that Brentwood's line was approved in 1990. Ms. Talbert said she believes the Supervisor is only suggesting the portion of Brentwood's line that was approved by voters in 1990. David Reid, East Bay Field Representative for the Greenbelt Alliance, noted that many cities are relying on the line for compliance with Measure J. He urged the Board to go back and review the proposal as it was made, hammered out by a five-year compromise through the input of stakeholders. Lech Naumovich of the California Native Plant Society cited other impacts, noting there are over 60 CEQA protected plants in that area. Ron Brown, Executive Director of Save Mt. Diablo, supported staff's recommendation .and said it is important to,have the line on the November ballot. Jay Lutz, Walnut Creek resident, urged the Board not to overcomplicate the matter, and suggested that"the voters of Brentwood have spoken." County Counsel Silvano Marchesi considered what the importance would be for the County to change a line that has already been changed by voters of a jurisdiction. He said it would seem possible that the Board could indicate its support of an annexation to LAFCO if it so desired. Supervisor Glover said he is very concerned with the legal issues raised today. ADDENDUM to D.6 May 16, 2006 Page 3 of 3 U Chair Gioia referred to the Board Order and said the Board appears to unanimously agree with items 1, 2, and 3. As for items 5 and 6, he noted discussion about developing an ad- hoc committee comprised of Supervisors Glover and Piepho to address those issues. By a unanimous vote with none absent, the Board of Supervisors took the following action: APPROVED staff's recommendations on Proposed Project Elements 1, 2, and 3 from the Board Order as written; DELETED Proposed Project Element 4 from the motion, DIRECTING that Brentwood's urban limit line should remain the same as was approved by County voters in the year 2000; and DIRECTED Proposed Project Elements 5 and 6 to an ad-hoc committee for review. co CO r4--, CL 0 .01 -0 0 co LA Aa On ca U co U) IL J a) Cl) LIJ -'CIO E ul E cn CL. C: 0 co -0 a) > co 40-: Ul 111 0C L 0) 0 Z5 Q) !:,�. L- -L. C- 0 U) W -Z— 0 co U) .2 '% -0 Nm 0 0 CL n 0 m ca 0 CU 46 x 0 U) c (D vi 0- C3 U) Q) W U, T -0 -0 , co t co o v a m -Jt ll X 0 ° o co O o CD O C15 C� S.1 cco t11En .. — N O 10 N W W O a cn V N tz C - man O O O �- �"� 4 to O w-- co N O- � O � � ,► N d O to l� p »-• O O C o vaW N N co O 3 3 �' _ ❑ ° s -0 = c c6 4`2 Z i. N. CD co m � n. vi —co m Al CL o 3 co 0 CD Cd caC- 0) tz O co 0) o s 0 —cr3 CL 00 co C�l 0 *01 ca Ul 0) N O n in ` � O � � U O CD o D CL ccs `N ? va �. C � V CL taG -✓,. z O � O� N cb N T N N p O �01 O tip W N `� •NNS, ¢ �.. Q 05 2 4 ' ai 0 N � N _ O o o o m a N tv �- O tll O y v (. v = N to to � U O p> If- CL to v) N cv O 13) N p O � fl- ✓ O O N o dr v � o o o V 0 'C5 � rnx o N N • a+_ { Fri _a e tet to m z r 1 r- 6`CD N (y -< WO X X as m z ti PRESORTi.. c7 y FIRST CLASS is A tJ -i cn s to 00 to zR€fll mm tG � of � = o n ' o µ mnz p W 0 010 1y 4 Ai C}E38st00 0 ' mzz 3a 0 a to z o i Project Description for noticing: Bellecci &Associates, Inc. (Applicant)—Haytham &Heather Abed (Owner), County File#RZ053164: The applicant requests approval to rezone a 2.28 acre parcel from A-2 (General Agriculture) to R-40 (Single Family Residential). The subject property's address is 321 North Gate Road in the Walnut Creek area. (A-2) (ZA: M-16) (CT: 3383.02) (Parcel#138-070-004) For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (no Environmental Impact Report required) has been issued for this project. . 4. Debbie Sittser/CD/CCC To Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC@CCC 05/02/2006 08:04 AM cc bcc Subject RZ053164 project description History � r This�message h s been�eplie to S ^ Attached is the project description for RZ053164 which is going to the Board on May 16th. If you have any questions, Rose Marie Pietras is the planner and her number is 335-1216. 1 will bring the labels down in a few minutes. Thanks, Debbie RZ053164 BOS nokice.doc Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC To cctlegals@cctimes.com 05/03/2006 09:39 AM cc bcc Subject Publication Request-Bellecci Hi Anashia, Please publish the attached legal notice in the CCTimes: One day only, Saturday,'May 6, 2006 Reference PO#: 1156 Please confirm receipt of request. Should you have any questions, please call me at the number listed below. Thank you, Kathy Sinclair Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 925.335.1902 B ellecci-051606.doc cctlegals@cctimes.com To KSinc@cob.cccounty.us As 05/03/2006 09:48 AM cc Please respond to cctlegals@cctimes.com bcc Subject Re: Publication Request-Bellecci The email that you have just sent has been received by the Legals desk at Contra Costa Newspapers/Hills Newspapers. Legal Notices will be processed based on the next available deadline (or requested publication date) . If a quote or proof has been requested, they will be provided once the notice has been processed. If you are requesting general information, we will respond as soon as possible. Thank you. NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS WALNUT CREEK AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday,May 16, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Room 107 (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: Bellecci &Associates, Inc. (Applicant)—Haytham &Heather Abed (Owner), County File #RZ053164: The,applicant requests approval to rezone a 2.28 acre parcel from A-2 (General Agriculture) to R-40 (Single Family Residential). The subject property's address is 321 North Gate Road in the Walnut Creek area. (A-2) (ZA: M-16) (CT: 3383.02) (Parcel #138-070-004) The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory o he-County of Contra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below (a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The location of the subject site is 321 North Gate Road in the Walnut Creek area. For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (no Environmental Impact Report required)has been issued for this project. If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, May 16, 2006, at 12:45 p.m. in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and (4) provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call Rose Marie Pietras, Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1216 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, May 15, 2006 to confirm your participation. Date: May 3,2006 John Cullen, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administr4tor �Lnj��S� By Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF: Bellecci &Associates, Inc. (Applicant)—Haytham&Heather Abed(Owner), County File #RZ053164: The applicant requests approval to rezone a 2.28 acre parcel from A-2 (General Agriculture)to R-40 (Single Family Residential). The subject property's address is 321 North Gate Road in the Walnut Creek area. (A-2) (ZA: M-16) (CT: 3383.02) (Parcel#138-070-004) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited Certified Mail with Contra Costa County Central Service for mailing by the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice, on the above entitled matter to the following: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LIST I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, at Martinez, California. Dated: May 3, 2006 atherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk 138060001 138060008 138060009 ANDERSON MARC W GIFFIN ROBERT J & LINDA J TRE SMITH BRIAN E & LOREE K 325 NORTH GATE RD 325 NORTH GATE RD D 325 NORTH GATE RD C WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 138060010 138060015 138060019 ANDERSON MARC LOZA RONALD N & LINDA B AMIN BHUPEN 325 NORTH GATE RD A 3698 OAK CREEK CT 3694 OAK CREEK CT WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 138060020 138070004EL-ABED HAYTHAM & HEATHER 138070009 BEKAKIS BRENDA TRE STEWART CHRISTOPHERH 23 KERLEY CT 319 NORTH GATE RD WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 321 NORTH GATE RD WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 138070010 138070011 138070012 EVANS J SCOTT & ELAINE M BOND SANDRA LEE TRE LIU TE-NTNG E &HSIAO-LAI 3133 SHIRE LN 3129 SHIRE LN 946 MORELLO AVE WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 MARTINEZ CA 94553 138070019 138070020 138070021 LEY MARIA TRE VALECH NATHAN & LISA JACOB DEBORAH M TRE 3112 SHIRE LN 3116 SHIRE LN 3120 SHIRE LN WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 138070022 138070023 138070024 SCHOLZ JUDYTH M TRE OLIVER FREDERICK GAYLORD SANDRA J TRE 3124 SHIRE LN 2977 YGNACIO VALLEY RD #156 1052 CHOCTAW CT WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 138070028 138070029 138070030 MAGANA MIKE & MONA TRE SPEER ROBERT E& CAROL C KING LLOYD K & ELIZABETH A 3115 BRONCHO LN 3119 BRONCHO LN 3123 BRONCHO LN WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 138070034 138070035 138070036 RADEVA EKATERINA N PARIS ALEX T& DOROTHY M TRE HOJIWALA FAMILY LTD 3114 BRONCHO LN 3118 BRONCHO LN 3552 ERIS CT WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 138070037 138070038 138070039 ALIFERIS JAMES HUDSON MANAGEMENT CO HUDSON MANAGEMENT CO 3126 BRONCHO LN 1035 DETROIT AVE#100 1035 DETROIT AVE #100 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 CONCORD CA 94518 CONCORD CA 94518 138070040 138070044 138070045 HUDSON MANAGEMENT CO GARDNER JACQUELYN L SHEALOR MIKE W & LISA A 1035 DETROIT AVE #100 638 OAK ST 323 NORTH GATE RD A CONCORD CA 94518 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94117 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 DC7 138091004 138091005 138091006 GILLIE RAYMOND & CHRISTINA TRE HENSON KAREN H TRE LOFTHOUSE JAY& CAROL 3129 HAMBLETONIAN LN 3135 HAMBLETONIAN LN 3141 HAMBLETONIAN LN WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 138091007 138091008 138091009 SAN JUAN ELAINE SECURITY PACIFIC REAL ESTATE RAFOTH MILDRED J 3147 HAMBLETONIAN LN 1555 RIVIERA AVE#E 3159 HAMBLETONIAN LN WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 138091010 138091011 138091012 LIVSHITS YONI &OLGA MILLER JAMES L JR CONTRERAS ARCHIE 3165 HAMBLETONIAN LN 3171 HAMBLETONIAN LN 3177 HAMBLETONIAN LN ;WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 138091013 138091019 138091020 STROEHMANN JOY S 'BARDSLEY NORMA ELLEN TRE DELAOSSA BRENDA 1 3183 HAMBLETONIAN-LN 3134 HAMBLETONIAN LN 3140 HAMBLETONIAN LN WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 138091021 138091022 138091023 BECKES BYRON.H &JUTTA H PIZZA CATHERINE M TRE BRAND WILLIAM F & DARYL B 3146 HAMBLETONIAN LN 3152 HAMBLETONIAN LN 3158 HAMBLETONIAN LN WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 ,138091024 138091025 138091063 PAINTER SHEILA A WUENNENBERT-STAPLETON KATRIN HUDSON MANAGEMENT CO 3164 HAMBLETONIAN LN 1035 DETROIT AVE#100 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 3170 HAMBLETONIAN LN CONCORD CA 94518 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 1138091064 138100015 138100016 (HUDSON MANAGEMENT CO THORP STANLEY P LUKKES RONALD & VIRGINIA TRE 11035 DETROIT AVE#100 172 GLEN CT 2050 SHELL RIDGE TRL CONCORD CA 94518 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 ry - 138100017 DELUCA SEBASTIANO &RITA A TRE 2040 SHELL RIDGE TRL :WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 J , BUILDING INSPECTION PUBLIC WORKS CONTRA COSTA FIRE DISTRICT Interoffice ENGINEERING SERVICES Interoffice Interoffice it Historical Resources Info Systems Foundation Center, Building 300 Native American Heritage Comm. CA Fish &Game Region III ' 1303 Maurice Avenue 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 P.O. Box 47 Sonoma State University Sacramento, CA 95814 Yountville, CA 94599 Rohnert Park, CA 94928-3608 Central Sanitary District Contra Costa County Water District City of Walnut Creek 5019 Imhoff Place P.O. Box H2O P.O. Box 8039 Martinez, CA 94553 Concord, CA 94524 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Mt. Diablo Unified School District Upper Ygnacio Valley HOA 1936 Carlotta Drive 851 North Gate Road Concord, CA 94519 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 r it I'f