Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05092006 - D.2 'to: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSw Contra y. '` FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP o Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ��,,.__ :s County r�CCU t DATE: MAY 9, 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 a follow report from the Community Development Director on the proposed 2006 Voter- Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line ballot measure, and, CONSIDER next steps for placing the measure on the ballot for General Election to be held on November 7, 2006, as recommended by the-Community Development Director. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE ' RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI� E APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Y Pr'D'D�NUW"� �7T/K,t-tE� I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND VOT,E OF SUPERVISORS �,/ ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ANIMOUS(ABSENT y ) SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN AYES: NOES: 7� ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Contact: P.Roche,CDD-Adv. Ping. (Ph#925-335-1242) ATTESTED 05A)`1 /O C, cc: CAO JOHN CULLE�OF THE BOARD OF BOARD OF Clerk of the Board SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel Mayor/City Manager (19 Cities) Chair,CCTA DEPUTY r May 9, 2006 Board of Supervisors Follow-up Report on 2006 Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure_ Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION At the March 7, 2006 meeting, the Board of Supervisors received a report from,the Community Development Department on a proposed Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line ballot measure and considered a resolution which would have submitted ballot measure language to the County Elections Officer for the June 2006 Primary Election. After receiving public testimony, the Board determined to postpone placing before County voters a proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure until the November 2006 General Election.,;The Board requested that staff return to a future meeting with a report on several issues raised at the March 7th meeting in advance of the deadline for securing placement of a measure on the November 7, 2006 General Election ballot. Staff was requested to follow-up on four key issues identified by Board members at the March 7th meeting: 1. Implications for incorporating into the countywide Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line ballot measure the Urban Limit Line maps approved by voters in the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg. 2. Compliance with the Urban Limit Line requirements underthe Measure J Growth Management Program for both the County and the Cities. 3. Review of the City of Clayton's request for Urban Limit Line boundary modifications in the Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan area and whether this request would trigger additional environmental review under'the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 4. Review of the Urban Limit Line ballot measure in relation to planning for Discovery Bay's infrastructure, as referenced by Supervisor Piepho. The following is in response to the issues raised by Board members at the March 7th meeting: P 1. Incorporating Antioch and Pittsburg Voter-Approved Urban Limit Lines In the draft ballot measure presented to the Board on March 7th, staff had recommended the proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line map reflect the Urban Limit Line boundaries in the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg based on the local voter approval of Urban Limit Line maps for each city, which occurred during the Special Election conducted in November 2005. In public testimony before the Board at the March 7th meeting, some had suggested that the voter-approved Urban Limit Line map for each city might be repealed. Whetherthe Urban Limit Line measures in Antioch and Pittsburg will be repealed or supplanted with a new line is speculative. Staff had originally recommended that the County's Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line reflect each city's new voter-approved Urban Limit Line to honor and respect the will of people in Antioch and Pittsburg based on a duly held election. It is unclearto staff what value to the planning process, or value to City-County relations,would be served by presenting voters in a countywide election an Urban Limit Line that disregards the outcome of elections held in Antioch and Pittsburg. May 9, 2006 Board of Supervisors Follow-up Report on 2006 Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure Page 3 BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION - continued Measure K approved by voters in November 2005 by voters Antioch established a voter- approved Urban Limit Line for.the City of Antioch and it included the Roddy Ranch site. Staff notes that Measure K also included a Development Agreement for the Roddy Ranch site. Once executed or approved, a Development Agreement effectively limits the powers of government to apply newly enacted ordinances to ongoing development,and, unless otherwise provided in the agreement, the rules, regulations,and official policies governing permitted uses, density, design, improvements, and construction are those in effect when the Development Agreement is executed. When the Antioch voter's approved Measure K, they entered into a Development Agreement for the Roddy Ranch site. The voter-approved Development Agreement substantially immunizes the project from challenges and the opportunity for legal challenges of Measure K has expired. Staff stands by its original recommendation to the Board that the County's Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line should reflect the boundary of a city's Urban Limit Line when it is approved by voters in that city. Like the City of San Ramon, in which the city's voters approved an Urban Growth Boundary as part of the approval of a new General Plan, elections were held in the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg in which voters considered and approved an Urban Limit Line map.This approach for local voter approval of an Urban Limit Line is consistent with Principles of Agreement for establishing an Urban Limit Line as approved under Measure J. 2. Compliance with the Urban Limit Line Requirement under the Measure J Growth Management Program At the March 7t" meeting there was discussion among Board members about the implications for the County and the cities in seeking countywide voter approval of an Urban Limit Line in terms of how this action would fulfill the Urban Limit Line requirement under the Measure J Growth Management Program. Attached for the Board's consideration is a legal analysis recently submitted to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority by its own legal counsel that addresses such questions(see Attachment"A"). Staff directs the Board to the March 29, 2006 memorandum from Nossaman, Guthner, Knox, & Elliot, which posed and addressed several questions concerning a city's ability to rely on the voters' approval of a countywide Urban Limit Line ballot measure. This legal analysis essentially concludes that if a majority of voters countywide approve the Urban Limit Line ballot measure it may be relied upon by any city for compliance with the Measure J Growth Management Program requirement for a voter approved Urban Limit Line, even if a majority of voters in that city reject the measure. However, if the measure is rejected by voters countywide, but approved by voters in a jurisdiction (City or County), the jurisdiction cannot rely on the measure for the purposes of compliance with Measure J. May 9,2006 Board of Supervisors Follow-up Report on 2006 Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure Page 4 BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION - continued 3. City of Clayton's Urban Limit Line Boundary Request Subsequent to the March 17th meeting, the City of Clayton ,has substantially modified their original request for changes to the County's Urban Limit Line boundary in the vicinity of Marsh Creek Road. Attached for the .Board's consideration is an April 17' 2006 letter from Councilmember Julie Pierce to the Chair, Board of Supervisors;transmitting a revised proposal to modify the County's Urban Limit Line boundary in the Marsh Creek Road area (see Attachment "B"). The new revised proposal removes approximately 29 acres from the city's original request that could accommodate up to 22 dwelling units under the Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan. As more fully explained in their letter, the City of Clayton is now requesting to modify the County's Urban,.Limit Line boundary as part of-the proposed ballot measure by shifting the acreage of the "half in"/"half out" parcels fully inside the Urban Limit Line. The proposed boundary shift would place approximately 30 acres of deed restricted land area inside the Urban Limit Line.''The overall net effect of the proposed boundary shift would be to place 1.2 acres of potentially developable land inside the Urban Limit Line, which would have the potential to yield two (2) new dwelling units under the Marsh.Creek Road Specific Plan. Staff has reviewed the latest proposal from the City of Clayton, particularly in reference to the instruments of deed restrictions for the approximately 30 acres of land area that would be moved inside the Urban Limit Line under the proposal.The deed restrictions, which effectively limit the development rights for any additional residential units, were secured by the County under Minor Subdivisions approved in 1979 and 1984. The development rights that were granted to the County are in the form of negative easements which run with land. These easements cover several parcels along Marsh Creek Road. On the southside of the road the easement restricts any structure other than an agriculturally related structure above the 680 elevation, and there other additional development limitations relating to setbacks and flood control easements for the Mount Diablo Creek which traverses these parcels. On the northside of the road anything other than an agriculturally related structure above the 720 elevation is restricted. Staff is satisfied that these deed restrictions effectively limit any residential development potential to only the area most suitable for residential development and already inside the Urban Limit Line. This would mean that shifting the Urban Limit Line boundary to .bring inside the line portions of the affected parcels with deed restrictions, as proposed by the City of Clayton, would.not result in new residential development and would not result in new effects on the environment requiring further CEQA review. 4. Discovery Bay Infrastructure Needs and Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure Under separate cover to Supervisor Piepho, staff responded in a memorandum to certain planning issues raised by the President, Board of Directors, Town of Discovery Community Services District, in his comment letter on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for the Proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure. A copy of this memorandum is provided under Attachment "C". May 9, 2006 Board of Supervisors Follow-up Report on 2006 Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure Page 5 BACKGROUND/ REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION - continued Recommended Next Steps Staff recommends the following as the next steps in placing a countywide Urban Limit Line ballot measure before voters at the November 2006 General Election: 1. Revise the Urban Limit Line ballot measure Revise the ballot measure to remove the automatic review provisions for the tideland portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station, as requested by the City of Concord in their February 28, 2006 letter and in testimony before the Board on March 7m Revise the ballot measure to also reflect the latest Urban Limit Line boundary modification request from the City of Clayton as described in the April 17th letter from Councilmember Julie Pierce and map attachment. 2. Re-Circulate Initial Study/Checklist and Notice of Intent To Adopt Negative Declaration If the Board agrees to the revisions to the ballot measure as listed in #1 above, these changes would alter the project description making it necessary to re-circulate the Initial Study/Checklist and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration. Re-circulation is a prudent course of action, so as to remove any claim that the County has not consider the environmental effects these revisions to the ballot measure, albeit minor revisions to the ballot measure. Staff is prepared to re-circulate the Initial Study/Checklist and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration within the week. 3. Set Date for Board Action On Resolution Calling for Election on November 7, 2006 If the Board agrees to the revisions to the ballot measure as listed in #1 above, it would be advisable to set a calendar date for a future Board meeting to consider adoption of a resolution calling for an election on the Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line ballot measure for the November 7, 2006 General Election. As noted in prior reports to the Board, the County Elections Official has advised that sufficient time is needed by that office to prepare, print, and distribute the ballot and vote pamphlets, particularly for those requesting absentee ballots. Staff recommends the Board set a tentative date of June 20 or June 27 to adopt a resolution calling for an election. May 9,2006 Board of Supervisors Follow-up Report on 2006 Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure Page 6 Attachments (3 items) Attachment"A": CCTA - Planning Committee report, 4/5/2006, Subj: Review of Legal Counsel's Analysis of the ULL Options Attachment"B": Letter from Councilmember Julie Pierce, City of Clayton, to John Gioia, Chair, Board of Supervisors, dated April 17, 2006, Subj: Revision of Proposed Urban Limit Line in Clayton Attachment"C" Memorandum from Dennis M. Barry, Community Development Director, to Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III, dated April 24, 2006, GAAdvance Planning adv-plan\ULL Ballot Measure\050906bo2006voteruilballotmeasure.doc Attachment "A": CCTA - Planning Committee report, 4/5/2006, Subj: Review of Legal Counsel's Analysis of the ULL Options CCTA—Planning Committee April 5,2006 Subject Review of Legal Counsel's Analysis of the ULL Options Summary of Issues Authority's legal counsel has evaluated the various options and outcomes associated with the Measure J ULL requirements that would result in local compliance with the Growth Management Program given that a Mutually Agreed Countywide ULL(a MAC-ULL)has not been achieved Recommendations Receive legal counsel's analysis,release it to the County Board of Supervisors(BOS)and local jurisdictions for information,and consider amending the Measure J Expenditure Plan for improved clarity regarding compliance. Financial Implications Future compliance with the Measure J Growth Management Program will hinge upon a jurisdiction's adherence to a voter-approved ULL.Jurisdictions that are unable to comply with this requirement would not receive their share of 18 percent local street maintenance and improvement funds,or have access to the 5 percent funding for Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC)available through Measure J. Options n/a Attachments Memorandum from Nossaman Guthner Knox and Elliot,LLP regarding ULL implementation issues,March 29,2006. Changes from Committee Background Last month,the Authority's legal counsel orally presented an analysis of ULL implementation issues to the Authority in the context of the County's proposed ballot measure that would have put a non-MAC- ULL before the voters in June 2006.Action on this ballot measure has been postponed by the Board of Supervisors(BOS),specifically to address a number of outstanding issues including those that pertain to Measure J GMP compliance. Legal Counsel has prepared the attached memorandum to address the implementation issues that have arisen in the non-MAC-ULL environment. Legal Counsel notes in its memo that the ULL provisions of Measure J are unclear or ambiguous in many respects,and suggests that a clean-up amendment to the ULL Principles in the Expenditure Plan may be warranted to address the unforeseen circumstances that currently exist. The proposed amendment to the Expenditure Plan would clarify that a local jurisdiction"may rely upon (i)a MAC-ULL; (ii)a countywide voter approved line(regardless of whether it has also been approved by the voters in the local jurisdictions seeking to rely on the line);or(iii)a locally voter approved,city specific urban limit line."As noted in Counsel's memo,the amendment is subject to approval by a majority vote of the Authority Board,which could only be overturned by action of a majority of the cities having a majority of the incorporated population and the BOS. \\Sharri2\my documents\05-PC Packets\2006W4\Brd11r-ULL Options.doc 7-1 ATTACHMENT an ES110"Up MEMORANDUM To: Commissioners,Contra Costa Transportation Authority From: Nossaman,Guthner,Knox&Elliott,LLP_ Date: March 29,2006 Re: Urban Limit Line/Implementation Issues This memorandum addresses issues raised at the March 15, 2006 meeting of the Board related to the County's possible submittal to the voters in November of amendments to the county's urban limit line ordinance to extend the period of the ordinance from its expiration in 2010 and to adjust the line in certain respects to reflect local voter-approved initiatives in November 2005 that created local urban limit lines. It supplements our memorandum to the Board dated March 14,2005 and relates to implementation issues regarding the urban limit line ("ULL")requirement in Measure J as reflected in the Measure J Transportation Expenditure Plan Growth Management Program("GMP"). The GMP incorporates by reference the Principles of Agreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line ("Principles")that are the primary statement of intent with respect to implementation of the ULL requirement contained in the GMP. The ULL requirement contained in the GMP together with the Principles are the basis for the discussion that follows. As previously noted,the ULL requirements are unclear or ambiguous in many respects. STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. If the County places an initiative on the November ballot seeking to modify the current County ULL and to extend the term of that planning instrument for 20 years, could,under any of the following circumstances, such initiative be available to a local jurisdiction for purposes of compliance with the ULL requirements in the GMP and Principles: a. A majority of the voters in the County approve the initiative and the voters within the local jurisdiction that currently does not have a locally voter approved ULL also vote in favor of the initiative? b. A majority of the voters in the County approve the initiative but the voters within the local jurisdiction reject it? C. The initiative is rejected by a majority of the County's voters,but is approved by the voters within the local jurisdiction? 7-2 ULLMEMO.DOC Memorandum March 29, 2006 .Page 2 2. Assuming there is a valid ULL for.GMP ULL compliance purposes,what steps must a local jurisdiction take to affirm application of the ULL? SHORT ANSWERS La. If a majority of the voters within the County approve the initiative, it may be relied upon by any jurisdiction the voters of which also voted in favor of the initiative for purposes of compliance with the Measure J GMP ULL requirement. Lb. If a majority of the voters within the County approve the initiative,but the voters within a local jurisdiction reject it;we conclude that the local jurisdiction may rely on the initiative for purposes of Measure J GMP ULL compliance. I.c. If the initiative is rejected by the voters within the County,but approved by the voters within a local jurisdiction,we conclude that thejurisdiction may not rely on,the initiative for purposes of Measure J GMP ULL compliance. 2. Measure J is silent in respect to any necessary steps for a local jurisdiction to"accept"or confirm a countywide ULL for compliance purposes. However,the Authority Board,.by action taken at the July 2005 Board meeting, imposed a requirement that each local jurisdiction that proposed to rely on a countywide line(not a mutually agreed upon countywide line) for compliance purposes, affirmatively,before April 2009, affirm its support of the countywide ULL measure. RECOMMENDATION Since the Principles are less than entirely clear as to the intent of the drafters with respect to the meaning of a"voter approved"ULL,we suggest that the Principles be amended to make express that a local jurisdiction may rely upon(i)a mutually agreed upon countywide line; (ii)a countywide voter approved line(regardless of whether it has also been approved by the voters in the local jurisdiction seeking to rely on the line); or(iii)a locally voter approved city specific urban limit linea In accordance with Ordinance 88-01 as amended, the Principles,which are incorporated into and made a part of the GMP which in turn is a part of the Transportation Expenditure Plan, can be amended,inter alia,.to take into consideration"unforeseen circumstances"by majority vote of the Board, subject to overrule by a majority of the cities having a majority of the incorporated population and the Board of Supervisors. Ordinance 88- 01,as amended, section 8. 7-3 ULLMEMO.DOC Memorandum t March 29, 2006 Page 3 DISCUSSION Introduction. The Principles address the manner in which a ULL can be adopted and the extent to which an adopted line can be relied upon by a local jurisdiction for Measure J GMP compliance purposes. The Principles were adopted at a Board meeting following extended negotiations as to the requirements for and conditions to compliance with a ULL. The Principles basically identify at least two options for adoption of a ULL;the adoption pursuant to the process outlined of a mutually agreed upon countywide line("MAC-ULL"), and if no MAC-ULL is in place by April 2009,by reliance upon and compliance with a"voter approved"ULL. Unfortunately the definition of a"voter approved"ULL is not contained in the Principles and in fact several potentially contradictory reference are contained in the Principles as to what the drafters meant when they used the term. The crux of the analysis that follows is to determine to the extent possible what the drafters meant when they referenced a"voter approved"ULL; as noted several interpretations are possible. To date there has been no litigation seeking to clarify the intent of the drafters; accordingly the analysis that follows depends to some extent upon existing jurisprudence which may be indicative of a result, such as Proposition 219 discussed immediately below, and our understanding of what the drafters may have intended. 1. Proposition 219 As indicated in the Introduction immediately above,Proposition 219,while not directly on point,may indicate a framework for analysis of and possible resolution of the interpretation of the requirement in the Principles that the local jurisdictions rely on and comply with a"voter approved"ULL. Proposition 219 was approved by California voters in 1998 and addresses whether an initiative's implementation can be made dependent upon the action of the voters within subordinate districts within the jurisdiction which is conducting the vote. Briefly, it provided several amendments to the California Constitution relating to state and local initiatives and ballot measures. Pursuant to Proposition 219,amendments to the state Constitution were adopted providing that a statewide initiative could not include or exclude any political subdivision based on the vote cast in a political subdivision. A parallel provision related to city and county measures was added as Article 11 Section 7.5 providing that: (a)A city or county measure proposed by the legislative body of a city, charter city, county,or charter county and submitted to the voters for approval may not do... [t]he following: ULLMEMO.DOC 7-4 Memorandum March 29,2006 Page 4 (1) Include or exclude any part of the city, charter city,county, or charter county from the;application or effect of its provisions based upon approval or disapproval of the city or county measure, or based upon the casting of a specified percentage of votes in favor of the measure,by the electors of the city, charter city,county, charter county, or any part thereof. The changes to the Constitution were proposed, in part,as a response to Proposition 172 on the November 1993 ballot. Proposition 172 enacted a statewide.sales tax increase and provided that the revenues from the tax increase would go only to the counties that voted in favor of the measure.? Article 2 §8(e),Article 2 §11(b)and Article 11 §7.5 now require that state and local ballot measures apply in the same way in all parts of the jurisdiction(state or local)affected by the measures;regardless of how any individual part of that jurisdiction voted.3 Therefore,'a ballot measure may not provide that it,or any specific provision thereof,applies only in those areas that voted in favor of a measure., Proposition 219,would effectively preclude attempting to make application of an ULL within a city dependent upon passage of the countywide measure in the city. Its implications with respect to application of a countywide ULL to a city for purposes of the.city's . compliance with Measure J is less clear since the ULL compliance requirement is contained in Measure J,a separate initiative,'"and would not be part of the County's ULL measure. However, as discussed below, we conclude that,the Prop 219 broader principles may be a reasonable basis for determining application of a countywide line for local jurisdiction Measure J GMP ULL compliance purposes. As noted above, these conclusions are based solely on certain assumptions. as'to the intent of the drafters of Measure J and are not supported by any court decision or other legal precedent. There are no decisions interpreting the reach of the Prop 219 amendments to the Constitution in the present or any other context. 2. ULL approved by voters within County and local jurisdiction. As noted in our March 14,2005 memorandum,the Principles contain arguably conflicting indicators as to whether a jurisdiction may rely on a non MAC-ULL' countywide 'Ballot Pamp.,Primary Elec.(June 2, 1998)analysis of Proposition 219 by the Legislative,Analyst. Z Id. 'Id. 4 Id. 'As previously defined,a MAC-ULL is a mutually agreed upon countywide urban limit line,as contemplated in Principles 2-6. In accordance with Principle 6, if there.is a MAC-ULL and a local jurisdiction"disagrees"with the line, it may either"develop and submit to its voters an `alternative ULL' or rely on an existing voter approved ULL." For purposes of the analysis in this ,memorandum,we assume that the County ULL ordinance to be placed-on the November 5 ULLMEMO:DOC Memorandum March 29, 2006 Page 5 ULL such as the ULL being proposed by the County. Principle 6 states that if a jurisdiction "disagrees"with a MAC-ULL it may either submit to its voters an"'alternate ULL' or rely on an existing voter approved ULL." Since it appears that there will be no MAC-ULL, we conclude that these options are not available to the jurisdiction. Principle 7 states that if there is no MAC-ULL by March 31, 20096 only a local jurisdiction with a"voter approved ULL"will be eligible for compliance with the GMP ULL requirement. Principle 8 states that the GMP will contain a requirement that in order to be in compliance with the GMP ULL requirement a local jurisdiction must either comply with the "'Countywide ULL' or the `local jurisdiction's voter approved ULL'."GMP Component 5 states that in order to be eligible for return to source and TLC funds, a local jurisdiction must"comply with either a new `Countywide mutually agreed upon voter approved ULL' or the `local jurisdiction's voter approved ULL'.„7 Taken together, Principles 7 and 8 and GMP Component 5 suggest an intent that in the absence of a MAC-ULL, a local jurisdiction is required to comply with a"voter approved ULL.”8 As discussed in our previous memorandum, assuming the references in Principles 7 and 8 and in Component 5 mean the same thing, it remains unclear whether the reference is to a locally approved local initiative or also includes a locally approved countywide initiative. In our previous memo we concluded that the latter compliance option should be available to a local jurisdiction.9 We reiterate that conclusion here. 2006 ballot will not be a MAC-ULL. If conditions to placing a MAC-ULL on the November ballot could be met, and the voters approved the initiative,then it is clear from the Principles that any local jurisdiction that did not"disagree"with the MAC-ULL could rely upon and comply with that MAC-ULL without further formal action. If a local jurisdiction disagrees with the MAC-ULL the analysis in this memorandum may not be applicable. However at this point,the likelihood that there will be a MAC-ULL and dissenters thereto seems remote. 6 While the Principles contain certain deadlines to be met by a MAC-ULL, e.g. agreement on the framework for a MAC-ULL by December 31,2004(Principle 3);preparation of an EIR and submittal to the voters for ratification by November 2006(Principle 5),Principle 7 appears to leave open the possibility that if these deadlines are not met, or at least if the voters reject a MAC-ULL in November 2006,that the County and cities, and the voters,would have additional opportunities to adopt a MAC-ULL Assuming that Principle 8 and GMP Component 5 were intended to mean the same thing, it would appear that the reference in Principle 8 to a "Countywide ULL"means a MAC-ULL. 8 Principle 7 references a"local jurisdiction with a voter approved ULL"; Principle 8 refers to a "local jurisdiction's voter approved ULL"the latter reference in quotes, although we find no other identical statement in the Principles. The identical text however may be found in Component 5. The difference between these two references, if any was intended, is unclear. 9 See discussion on page 11 of our March 14, 2005.memorandum for a fuller analysis. 7-6 ULLMEMO.DOC Memorandum March 29, 2006 Page 6 3. Countywide ULL initiative approved by voters but rejected in local jurisdiction. This issue was not specifically addressed in our March'14,2005 memorandum; however,the answer to the previous question suggests an answer here. As previously noted,we concluded.that the various references to a local jurisdiction's voter approved ULL might imply some affirmative actionby the voters within the jurisdiction seeking to rely on a voter approved countywide ULL for Measure J GMP.ULL compliance purposes. That conclusion suggests that the ULL must at least be approved on the local jurisdictional level"and that, accordingly a countywide measure approved by the voters countywide,but rejected by the voters in a local jurisdiction is not a local jurisdiction voter approved ULL. However,assuming the drafters intended to allow maximum flexibility to local jurisdictions,it can also be concluded that so long as there is a voter approved ULL,local voter approval(unless the measure is local jurisdiction specific)may be irrelevant. Under such an analysis,provided the voters countywide approve a countywide ULL,a local jurisdiction may rely on the countywide voter approved line,even if the voters within that jurisdiction have rejected it. That conclusion is also consistent with the general intent of Proposition 219, that application of a measure cannot be made dependent upon its passage within a local"jurisdiction. In accordance with the foregoing,passage of an ULL initiative countywide would make it effective in each local Jurisdiction, regardless of the vote within such jurisdiction. Under the circumstances,and while not free from doubt,we conclude that a local jurisdiction should be able to rely on the initiative forGMP ULL compliance purposes. Amending the Principles would clarify this conclusion. 4. Initiative Rejected by County Voters but Approved in Local Jurisdiction This alternative posits the nonpassage of a countywide ULL initiative but an affirmative vote within a local jurisdiction. The analysis in this case would turn on the intent of the drafters with respect to the phrase "voter approved". Upon initial analysis it can be concluded that since there is rid enforceable voter approved ULL, a local jurisdiction, even if its voters vote in favor of the initiative,may not rely on the initiative for GMP ULL compliance purposes. 'A contrary argument can be made that since the GMP ULL compliance requirement is not a land use regulation,but merely a condition to return-to source and local TLC payments,the fact that the measure has not passed and that, accordingly,no binding land use regulation is in place,would be'irrelevant. What would be relevant would be whether the local jurisdiction"complies with the line fixed in the proposed countywide ULL. Since the voters within the jurisdiction have approved the measure, it meets the requirement for a voter approved ULL and may be relied upon for GMP ULL compliance purposes. - ULLMEMO.DOC 7-7 i Memorandum March 29, 2006 Page 7 A Prop 219 analysis would suggest that the first alternative is the correct conclusion. Practically,although the term is not defined in Measure J,it can be concluded that there would be no "voter approved"line if there were no legally enforceable ULL. Under the circumstances,although contrary arguments are available,we conclude that a local jurisdiction may not rely on a ULL that has been rejected by the voters countywide even if affirmatively voted on by the voters within the local jurisdiction. The issue could be resolved by amendment to the Principles to make the result express. S. Implementation requirements for non-MAC-ULL countywide voter approved ULL. While Measure J contains no affirmation requirement,the Board, at its July 20, 2005, adopted the recommendation of the Planning Committee to the effect that for GMP-ULL compliance purposes, a local jurisdiction must affirm its"support"of a voter approved non- MAC-ULL"either by resolution or by conveying a ballot measure before its constituency." According to the Board's action a local jurisdiction has until April 2009 to adopt or take such action. The latter option affirms the option made available to any local jurisdiction to place a local measure adopting a local ULL before its voters for approval. The option to merely affirm a countywide non-MAC-ULL is also made express by the July 2005 Board action.10 These actions may clarify the intent of the drafters and support the conclusion that a"voter approved" ULL as required by Measure J includes both a locally voter approved ballot measure and a voter approved countywide measure. SST 10 In reference to the affirmation requirement,the Board's July 20, 2005 action, according to the minutes of the meeting, contains the following elements: 1, A jurisdiction should be required to affirm its support of a voter approved ULL, either by resolution affirming a(county or other larger) line approved by its voters, or by placing a ballot measure before its constituency; 2. The timing of the affirmation could be at any time prior to April 2009, irrespective of whether that action occurred before or after the election. 7-8 ULLMEMO"DOC Attachment "B": Letter from Councilmember Julie Pierce, City of Clayton, to John Gioia, Chair, Board of Supervisors, dated April 17, 2006, Subj: Revision of Proposed Urban Limit Line in Clayton it -7 Founded 1 57._ mrpornteA 4 Dmi)T.SHUEY,MAMA r Wiumm R.WALcLrr,VICE MAI'OA COMMUNITI' DETER A.LAURENCE DEvELwmF.NT (925)673-7340 6000 HERITAGE TRAIL • CLAYTON,CALIFORNIA 94517-1250 GREGORY J.MANNING ENGINEERING (925)672-9700 TELEPHONE(925) 673-7300 FAx(925) 672-4917 JUUE K.PIERCE April 17, 2006 The Honorable John M. Gioia, Chairman Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez,CA 94553 Subject: Revision of Proposed Urban Limit Line in Clayton Dear Chairman Gioia and Board of Supervisors: Following my discussions with Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier, the Clayton City Council has endorsed a revision of the proposed amendments to the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line (ULL) in the Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan area (see enclosure). This revision has removed approximately 28.9 acres which could accommodate up to 22 dwelling units. Given the extremely limited land supply in Clayton, this is a significant .loss of developable land. However, since large portions of the subject area are covered by deed restrictions prohibiting development, this revised ULL will shift only 1.2 developable acres to the inside of the ULL. Clearly this change will have a de minimus effect on the ULL. As Clayton has previously noted, the current ULL configuration divides numerous parcels. Owners of these "half in/half out"parcels are unfairly restricted from using their parcels for any development. The revision will have substantial benefits for the majority of these property owners by unifying their half in/half out parcels on the inside of the ULL. This revision is consistent with the intent and spirit of the "Worth Amendments to the Plan C Compromise" presented at the February 26, 2005 ULL Summit to bring the split parcels inside the ULL in order to allow the extension of City services, while preserving the undeveloped land currently protected by County scenic easements. The Clayton City Council requests the Board of Supervisors to modify the proposed ULL for the upcoming ballot and adhere to the proposed ULL shown on the enclosed map. Sincerely, Julie Pierce Councilmember cc: Clayton City Council Enclosure: Proposed Urban Limit Line,prepared 3/30/06 CDD\2)00410_-04.Itr4 n ids'} hiAta r O M) N". 'A 0 Z �; Qoi sr, M %r T W Z ON tQ f f . Oy JM<3nf� rY�' N" i �y .a: Ul I IT i cA ri x �.._ � ' _ \ .3 1 _ � _} .. Attachment "C" Memorandum from Dennis M. Barry, Community Development Director, to Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III, dated April 24, 2006 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 Pine Street, N. Wing - 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 . �q C IIN Telephone: 335-1210 Fax: 335-1222 TO: Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III FROM: Dennis M. Barry, Al P Community Developm t Director DATE: April 24, 2006 SUBJECT: Comment Letter from Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District, dated 2/27/2006, regarding the Proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure The subject letter from Bob Doran,President,Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District,was included among the comment letters received by the Community Development Department on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for the Proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure.A copy of this letter was included in the March 7,2006 report to the Board of Supervisors on the Proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure (see attached). In the March 7"'report,staff noted that the letter generally commented on the need for more comprehensive .planning in the Far East County region, including Discovery Bay. Staff also noted that the letter did not raise substantive concerns relating to the environmental analysis or clearly identify environmental impacts associated with the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the proposed ballot measure. The letter asks the Board to consider a possible amendment to the proposed ballot measure;however,it does not identify what is to be amended under the ballot language nor does it offer alternative ballot measure language to be considered by the Board of Supervisors. Instead, as noted above, it is a commentary about specific conditions in the Discovery Bay community and, more generally, the letter calls for a comprehensive approach to planning in the Far East County region. I would agree that a more comprehensive approach is needed for planning in Far East County.As you are aware,there are several long range planning studies now underway that will affect the future of the Far East County region. These planning studies include: 1. Route 239 Alignment Study—This alignment study to be initiated shortly by the Public Works Department and Caltrans will determine the alignment of the State Route 239, which is a future new route for an expressway between Brentwood and Tracy. Although the main purpose of this effort is to establish the route's alignment for acceptance by Caltrans into the State Highway System,in the course of setting the alignment for new state highway route,it will address the long term transportation and access issues for both Byron and Discovery Bay.Additionally, when the state highway route alignment is established it will also serve to better define the future location and pattern of growth in the Far East County region. Memo to Supervisor Mary N.Piepho,District III re: Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District Comment Letter April 24,2006 Page Two 2. eBART Ridership Development Plan for Byron-Discovery Bay Station - The Community Development Department will soon be starting on the preparation of a Ridership Development Plan for the eBART station serving the,Byron-Discovery Bay area. This effort will be aimed at improving access to the eBART station sited in Byron and in potentially establishing land use . changes around the station.The purpose of this planning effort in Byron to identify and implement local measures to support achievement of ridership goals for the eBART system. These two planning studies are by their nature comprehensive and long term in scope,content,and range. They will to large extent address many of the concerns identified in the letter from Mr.Doran,particularly, in regard to transportation and access for the Far East County region.What these planning studies will not be addressing is the question of whether the Urban Limit Line in Discovery Bay,or Byron for that matter, should be expanded to support the desire among some in Discovery Bay to form an incorporated city. There are.at present 3653 acres of land in the Discovery Bay area inside the Urban Limit Line(4245 acres when the water area of Discovery Bay is included),and more than 1100 acres inside the Urban Limit Line are designated under the General Plan as non-urban,including area designated Delta Recreation Resource (DR) or Agricultural Lands (AL), which are eligible for potential conversion to urban use, such as commercial,industrial,or residential.I would suggest the focus should be on planning potential urban uses within the boundary of the existing Urban Limit Line. Absent clear policy direction from the Board of Supervisors, or a well-defined proposal from the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District, discussion or analysis on the expansion of the Urban Limit Line to support an incorporation effort by Discovery Bay is not possible. Such a direction would require preparation of an Enviromnental Impact Report,which would preclude placement of,the Urban Limit Line measure on the November 2006 General Election ballot. I would be glad to discuss with you further Mr. Doran's letter at your earliest convenience. Enclosure(l item) 3/7/2006 Board Report with Addendum cc: Members,Board of Supervisors J.Cullen.CAO I G Vd,.— Ibllol M—n0Wmbmamtll4.2JdNi.Ja Hats 09 06 09: 19p Piepho Home 925-516-9630 Motion re Follow-tJp Report on Proposed 2006 Voter-Approved ragc L UL? Mary From: Mary[Mary Pieph oCo)sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 9:07 PM To: 'dbarr@cd.cccounty.us'; 'LCast@bos.cccounty.us' Subject: ULL Ag Policy Drafts(2) Dennis, here is the verbiage regarding the Agricultural Gore Clustering and Rural Residential(Ranchette)policy models. I do appreciate all of your efforts and assistance on these issues, M. From: Mary N. Piepho To: Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, Contra Costa County Silvana Marchesi, County Counsel, Contra Costa Costa Request for staff and County Counsel to comment on the potential inclusion of the following verbiage in the ULL proposal for the November ballot... re Proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure (Draft) Proposal#1: Reconfiguration of Parcels of Prime Productive Agricultural Land Outside the ULL that are smaller than 40 acres to facilitate clustering and use of preservation agreements and conservation easements, and to avoid Ranchette Sprawl "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." B Proposal #2. Affirmation that Clustering of Residential Units May Be Consistent with Rural 5/9/2006 May 09 06 09: 19p Piepho Home 925-516-8630 p. 3 Motion re Follow-tJp Report on Proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Page L o1:2 Residential Units outside the Urban Limit Line "The 9990 65/35 Contra Costa Land Preservation Plan Ordinance allows for the development of rural residential uses on lands 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 andlor 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." 5/9/2006 510 52-5 860'7 May 09 QG 08: 39a Sarah & David cotSICZ. WP PROTECTING OPEN SPACE AND PROMOTING I.IVABLE COMMUNIIIFS May 9, 2006 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 65l Pine Street Martinez', California 94553-1229 . . "Chair and members of the Board; Greenbelt Alliance is writing to convey its concern regarding the Contra Costa Urban Limit Line initiative. Over the last five years,growth in Contra Costa County has far outpaced infrastructure. More than 17000 houses are now in the pipeline in East County alone. The Urban Limit Line, although an effective tool for managing growth, has not vet reached its potential. The line must be strengthened,and in some areas,tightened, if the County is ever to successfully manage growth. That is why Greenbelt Alliance supports several key changes to the Urban Limit Line Initiative as presented in March. These proposed changes include the following: 1) Increase minimum lot size outside the line to 40 acres from 5 acres; 2) Remove potential for urbanization from flood-prone areas of the Delta; 3) Allow adjustments to the line only in I 0=year increments;and only after objective review of land use needs and an affirmation by Contra Costa voters; and 4) Maintain the current position of the line-there is no legal reason to conform to lines established by cities until annexation has taken place. These policies,-if implemented, would help assure that funding for traffic relief has maximum effect; that natural areas and wildlife are protected;and that agriculture remains a part of Contra Costa County. In short, these changes can help keep Contra Costa County a beautiful and wonderful place to live. .Although proposals to change the line,particularly around Brentwood and Discovery Bay, may be well-intended, they run counter to the best interests of the county and its residents. In addition, these significant changes would gravely endanger the initiative as a whole- the changes would require a new environmental impact report a�,d prevent the initiative from appearing on the November ballot. In addition,this expansion would force Greenbelt Alliance to vigorously oppose the initiative on the basis that it would worsen traffic congestion and pave over open space. Greenbelt Alliance supports the possibility of changing the line to meet objectively identified needs in 10 years" Discovery Bay could rely on this provision. Brentwood can pass a city-specific line to meet that city's needs if Brentwood's voters support the change. Greenbelt Alliance urges you to continue your leadership in protecting the environment and the quality of Ii Fe in Contra Costa: send the voters a stronger Urban Limit Line, not a weaker one. I look forward to working with you, and with county staff on this matter" Please contact me at your convenience at 925-932-7776. Signed, David Reid East Bay Field Representative MAIN OFFICE • 631 Howard Street, Suite 510, San Francisco,CA 94105 • (435)543-6:771 • Far (415) 543-6781 EAST BAY OFFICE M01 North Main Street, Suite 105, Walnut Crcek, CA 94596 (925)932-7776 Fax (925)932-1970 infoCalpreenbelt.org www-greenbelr"org ADDENDUM May 9, 2006: Agenda Item D.2 Patrick Roche of the Community Development Department noted that this item was being returned at the Board's request based on the Board's March 7, 2006 consideration of a proposed ballot measure for the June 2006 election. Mr. Roche presented the Board, now on a timeline for the November 2006 election,with staff s responses to the 4 issues that were raised on March 7 as outlined on pages 2-5 of the Board Order for this item. Mr. Roche also presented staff s recommended next steps, outlined on page 5 of the Board Order,to: (1)Revise the Urban Limit Line (ULL)ballot measure to remove the automatic review provision for the Concord Naval Weapons Station and to reflect the latest ULL boundary modification request from the City of Clayton; (2)Re-Circulate the Initial Study/Checklist and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration(Neg. Dec.); and(3) Set a date for Board Action to adopt a Resolution to call for an election on the Voter-Approved ULL ballot measure for the November 7, 2006 General Election. Chair Gioia asked that the last possible date would be for the Board to take action and still meet the deadline for the November 7 election. Mr. Roche responded that August 8, statutorily, would be the last possible date for Board action. Chair Gioia asked if,realistically, staff would be looking for the Board's action before that date. Mr. Roche responded that staff would prefer the Board's decision by the end of July, in order to allow the 30-day period for review and comment. Chair Gioia asked what happens at the end of the 30-day period. Mr. Roche responded that staff would review the comments to see if there is a basis for declaring the Negative Declaration. He noted that based on the comments received,the process of reviewing the comments could take one week or could take much longer. He noted that under CEQA,the County will need to have a stable project description. Supervisor Uilkema asked what impact it would have on the County's ULL and Return-to- Source (RTS) fund eligibility(as required by Measure J) if, subsequent to Countywide voter approval, a city's voters decide to change the line for that city. Dennis Barry, Community Development Director, said that in such a case the city's line would not impact the County line because a provision of the General Plan cannot be changed by a city vote. D.2 May 9, 2006 Page 2 of S Supervisor Uilkema asked for clarification: In such a case,the voter-approved line of a city would apply for the city's qualification for CCTA Return-to-Source (RTS) funds, but would not affect the County's RTs qualifying line unless the land in question was annexed by LAFCo? Mr. Barry said that Supervisor Uilkema was correct. Silvano Marchesi, County Counsel,noted that the bottom line of compliance with Measure J is under the jurisdiction of CCTA. Supervisor Piepho said that a number of issues remain unresolved in East County, and she said she would like the Board to give them consideration for potential inclusion in the Neg. Dec. process, or at least for referral to County Counsel to see if they fall under the Neg. Dec. process, with the understanding that the Board clearly does not want to extend this process beyond the timeframe needed to meet the deadline for the November 2006 ballot. The issues she raised were: (1) An application of agricultural protection policies for prime productive Agricultural land that are outside the ULL: (2) An interpretation of the rural residential language in the current Measure C and strengthening the County's ranchette policy (3) Potential incorporation of the City of Brentwood's special planning areas that they have referred to as"GH&R'; and (4) The possibility of some definition of a future planning area around Discovery Bay, noting that an ad-hoc committee could be formed to address this issue. Supervisor DeSaulnier noted that since the Board's previous discussion, it has become clear that the Department of Defense is not likely to release the Naval Weapons Station land in Concord. He said that in Clayton, a solution for areas to be included inside the ULL has been reached [as outlined in Clayton Councilmember Julie Pierce's April 17, 2006 letter to the Board included in the agenda materials]. Supervisor DeSaulnier asked for more information about the CEQA review process, as concerns revisions to the proposed line. Supervisor Uilkema asked for clarification regarding Concord's requests. Supervisor DeSaulnier responded that if the Department of Defense ever indicates it would release the Naval Weapons Station land, it would have to go through the normal review process. Mr. Barry responded that he believes,based on case law,that when we change the project description we need to redo the initial study. He said there is a very low standard for the D.2 May 9, 2006 Page 3 of S need for an EIR. He noted that it can take from one year to 18 months to get an EIR reviewed and certified. Supervisor Glover commented that the Board has committed to the cities that the County will bring a proposed voter-approved Urban Limit Line to the November 2006 ballot for the cities that depend on it for their eligibility for Measure J Return-to-Source funds. Supervisor Piepho suggested the inclusion of her proposed revisions in the Negative Declaration process. Supervisor DeSaulnier asked if Supervisor Piepho would then suggest that a different proposal come back to the Board by June. Supervisor Piepho responded that she would hope the matter could be returned even before June. The Chair called for public comment. The following people spoke: Honorable Brian Swisher, Mayor of Brentwood, spoke in support of including the GH&R planning areas in the project description. He said that now that the City of Antioch's Urban Limit Line has been approved by that city's voters,the issue of the continuity of the line needs to be addressed. He said that with Brentwood's proposed inclusions, Brentwood could improve traffic conditions caused by the increased traffic on Deer Valley and Balfour Roads; Honorable Julie Pierce, Councilmember for the City of Clayton, reiterated Supervisor DeSaulnier's comments that a compromise to Clayton's requests has finally been reached. She further mentioned that, regarding the March 29, 2006 memo drafted by CCTA counsel Nossaman, Guthner, Knox&Elliot,the members of CCTA are working to simplify the contents of the memo into a bulleted list that can be more easily understood; Cecily Talbert, attorney with Bingham-McCutcheon on behalf of John Johnson and Pulty Homes, said she concurs with the Board's proposed recommendation to look hard and quickly at whether Supervisor Piepho's proposed amendments could be included in the line and still be able to complete the process necessary to meet the deadline for the November 2006 ballot. She said there are two issues to be addressed: (1)A policy issue: if the initial process could include Brentwood's and Supervisor Piepho's requests, it should be clear that those amendments could be put into the description; and(2)A legal question: whether or not an EIR would need to be prepared and circulated. She noted that the City is only suggesting setting a planning area where development could occur in the future with either the County or the City, and therein, any impacts would be speculative. She suggested County Counsel provide an opinion; D.2 May 9, 2006 Page 4 of S Supervisor DeSaulnier asked if the opinion returned showing that an EIR would be necessary,would Ms. Talbert support that an EIR be done. Ms. Talbert said that she would not support an EIR and was supportive of the timeline to meet the November 2006 ballot. Chair Gioia noted the need to be mindful when using the term"project,"as for CEQA purposes,the act of changing the line constitutes a project. Sanford Skaggs,representing the Nunn family, seconded the statements of Ms. Talbert. He suggested that if it is determined that if an EIR is necessary, the County could go back to the Neg. Dec. it has now and proceed in November. He proposed that it is a"no-lose" situation, excepting the time and effort of staff. Chair Gioia clarified that staff is looking for direction on the Initial Study. He speculated that if, as a policy matter, the proposed changes are included in the Project Description, then the Board would have to make a decision based on the comments received back, and if the conclusion is that a Neg. Dec. would be sufficient,the Board could decide at that time whether or not to include the proposed changes. In other words, he asked, could the project be divided up to be reduced back to what is before the Board today. Mr. Barry responded that a new Initial Study would have to be done because it wouldn't be clear what part of the Project Description had necessitated the EIR. Chair Gioia sought Board input on staff's recommendations, as put forth on page 5 of the Board Order. ■ Regarding the Naval Weapons Station language and the revision'to remove the automatic review process,he asked if the Board agreed with staff's recommendation. All concurred. ■ Regarding revision of the ballot measure to incorporate the Clayton compromise as proposed in the letter from Councilmember Pierce, he asked if the Board was in support. The Board members concurred. ■ Regarding the incorporation of the voter-approved lines of Antioch and Pittsburg, the Board concurred approval. The Chair suggested that the Discovery Bay planning issues need to be better understood. Supervisor Piepho said it would be a proposal to allow development within the Agricultural Core but in an area that is appreciative of the boundaries that already exist. Supervisor Glover said that,with due respect to Supervisor Piepho,he really has a problem with her proposal and that while he could accept the review of incorporating D.2 May 9, 2006 Page S of 5 Brentwood's request, he could not support going forward with the proposal to incorporate a future planning area to exist outside the currently proposed uLL in Discovery Bay. Supervisor Uilkema said that she had no problem with asking to have the issues reviewed by staff and County Counsel, as the areas of Brentwood and Discovery Bay are areas where the County will have to look in the future. Chair Gioia noted that the Brentwood proposal is very defined (the"GH&R"planning area). Supervisor Piepho moved approval, requesting that staff confirm that the proposed amendments would fall under CEQA. Mr. Barry noted that staff needs to know what is in the Project.Description in order to do the Initial Study in time to get the proposal on the November ballot. Chair Gioia said that even before the document is circulated,the Board needs staff's proposal so it can decide what should be in the Project Description. Supervisor Piepho said she would like to remove her proposed Discovery Bay planning recommendation from the discussion at this point,but would ask that the Board be mindful that it will need to address those issues in the future. She said she would like staff's report on the agricultural core policy issues to return at next week's Board meeting —to have staffs recommendation with the inclusion of Brentwood's request at the time of the Initial Study—and the Board can decide at that time to go forward with that a recommendation based on that review or with the recommendation put forth by staff today. Supervisor Glover said he would second the motion out of respect for Supervisor Piepho. By a 4-1 vote, with Supervisor DeSaulnier dissenting, the Board of Supervisors took the following action: DIRECTED staff to work with County Counsel and return to the Board on May 16, 2006 with a report and recommendations based on the potential inclusion of agricultural protection policies for prime productive Agricultural land that are outside the uLL, an interpretation of the rural residential language in the current Measure C and the strengthening the County's ranchette policy, and the potential incorporation of the City of Brentwood's special planning areas that they refer to as "GH&R". REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Iv'J� �v Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: &WN [ �g ,nd1 Phone: 925—SSI -320 Address: ib I 4rV--1-V GJa,�' �Q3 City: anY�11 (Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting),r I am speaking for myself or organization: ).An 0 CHECK ONE: ❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # �F� Date: OF Zea6 My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For T Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: ❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider: Please see reverse for instructions and important information INFORMATION FOR SPEAKERS: 1. Deposit this form in the box next to the speaker's.rostrrirn hefore your agenda item is to be considered. 2. You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3. Begin by stating your name and address, and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative of an organization. 4. If available, give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation before speaking. 5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard.) 6. Please note that this form will become a matter of public record and will be kept on file at the office of the Clerk of the Board along with the other meeting materials. Kt_UUtJ I !u at'CAm Pumm (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: �e�'' ` Phone: _� 7S- 53 3� Address: ( Y3 3 /y0 (� City: (Address and phone number are optional; please note that this card will become a public record kept on file with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting) I am speaking for myself or organization: _ CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # 2 Date: S �� My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ Against ❑ I wish to speak on-the subject of: ❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider: Please see reverse for instructions and important information INFORMATION FOR SPEAKERS: 1. Deposit this form in the box next to the speaker's rostrum before your agenda item is to be considered. 2. You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3. Begin by stating your name and address, and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative of an organization. 4. If available, give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation before speaking. 5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons,may be heard.) 6. Please note that this form will become a matter of public record and will be kept on file at the office of the .Clerk of the Board along with the other meeting materials. KtUUtb I I U bVr-Arn r'UMIVI (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) v11 L%Z Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name:1: I')}Z I o n Phone: qa S-S/(,,- Address: UUMA OA L� fA� City: -(s.n-Etaoo� (Address and phone nu ber are optional ase note that this card will become a public record kept on file with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting) I am speaking for myself or organization: �i�/ &CA4WOOA _ CHECK ONE: f� I wish to speak on Agenda Item # ,) -) — Date: 0 My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: ❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider: Please see reverse for instructions and important information INFORMATION FOR SPEAKERS: 1. Deposit this form in the box next to the speaker's rostrum before your agenda item is to be considered. 2. You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3. Begin by stating your name and address, and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative of an organization. 4. If available, give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation before speaking. 5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard.) 6. Please note that this form will become a matter of public record and will be kept on file at the office of the Clerk of the Board along with the other meeting materials. -�' RCL.lUCJ 1 1 y JrCP'kF% rv1Am (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) �r�J L. Complete this form a ce it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before address the Board. Name: S447:--v Phone: _ �.S?, kDo-D Address: ?0 Ba)C V City: (Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting) I am speaking for myself or organization: CHE ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Z Date: My comments will be: lid/General ❑ For ❑ Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: ❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider: Please see reverse for instructions and important information INFORMATION FOR SPEAKERS: 1. Deposit this form in the box next to the speaker's rostrum before your agenda item is to be considered. 2. You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3. Begin by stating your name and address, and whether you are speaking for yourself oras the representative of an organization. 4. If available, give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation before speaking. 5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may,limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard.) 6. Please note that this form will become a matter of public record and will be kept on file at the office of the Clerk of the Board along with the other meeting materials. REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Completethis form and place. itinthe box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: . J o 4J L� • t1 c� �0� a:�� Phone: `Z Z5 Address: (92--t a t .e. ~� City: �WO�� (Address and phone number are tional; ple se note that this card will become a public r cord kept on file with the Clerk of the Board in association with this.meeting) I am speaking for myself or organization: CHECK ONE: El I wish to speak on Agenda Item 12 Date: My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: ❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consi,'l r- Please see reverse for instructions and important information . 4 I' INFORMATION FOR SPEAKERS: u I 1. Deposit this form in the box next to the speaker's rostrum before your agenda item is to be considered. AI 2. You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3. Begin by stating your name'and address, and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative of an organisation. 4. If available, give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation before. speaking. 5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may;jlimit length of presentations so all persons may be heard.) u 6. Please note that this form'will become a matter of public record and will be kept on file at the office of the Clerk of the Board along with the other meeting materials. KtUUtb I I U bVr_Ar% 1-UKIVI / (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: a�� i"i -';��l Phone: _�Z -6 7,2 3,23Y Address: %524, City: (Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become la public record kept on file with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting) I am speaking for myself or organization: ;J CHECK ONE: /T] I wish to speak on Agenda Item # - Z Date: ���--0� My comments will be: F71 General For El Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: ❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider: Please see reverse for instructions and important information S ;'s INFORMATION FOR SPEAKERS: N 1. Deposit this form in the box next to the speaker's rostrum before your agenda item is to be considered. 2. You will be called on to make!your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3. Begin by stating your name and address, and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative of an organization. N 4. If available, give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation before speaking. 5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard.) 6. Please note that this form will become a matter of public record and will be kept on file at the office of the Clerk of the Board along with the other meeting materials.