[00:00:02]
[Roll Call]
GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT . THIS DAY, WEDNESDAY, MAY 7TH.WE'RE BEGINNING TODAY AT 11:02. WE HAVE NO ONE IN REMOTE ATTENDANCE AND OUR OTHER MEMBER ON THE WAY.
SO RECORDING CLERK, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? DIRECTOR COFFEY. HERE. DIRECTOR DESCHAMBAULT WILL JOIN SHORTLY.
CHAIR WAESPI. HERE. ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL JASON ROSENBERG.
HERE. THE TODAY'S MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO THE BROWN ACT.
STAFF IS PROVIDING LIVE AUDIO AND VIDEO STREAMING.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT MAY DO SO BY PROVIDING A COMMENT IN PERSON.
JOINING LIVE VIA ZOOM WITH THE LINK PROVIDED ON THE AGENDA LOCATED ON THE DISTRICT WEBSITE.
IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MEETING PROCEDURES, WE WILL BEGIN.
[Approval of Minutes]
SUBSEQUENT MEETING AFTER THAT MEETING, A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON FEBRUARY 5TH ALSO, AND THE MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING ON MARCH 5TH.AND I'D LIKE TO HOLD APPROVE THEM IN FULL OR ALTOGETHER, IF WE MAY DO THAT.
HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
AYE. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. NOW, DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO PUBLIC COMMENTS. OKAY. THEN WE'LL MOVE TO THE ACTION ITEMS AND WHICH INCLUDE A RECOMMENDATION OF THE STATE SUPPORT OF STATE LEGISLATION.
[Action Items]
GOOD MORNING. LISA BALDINGER, LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY MANAGEMENT ANALYST .I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT ON THREE BILLS PROPOSED FOR SUPPORT.
OUR FIRST PIECE OF LEGISLATION, SB 601 BY SENATOR ALLEN, IS THE RIGHT TO CLEAN WATER ACT.
THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION IS IN RESPONSE TO THE SACKETT VERSUS EPA DECISION, WHICH NARROWED THE DEFINITION OF WATERS OF THE US FROM A MORE COMPREHENSIVE, INCLUSIVE DEFINITION TO ONES WHERE WETLANDS AND STREAMS NEEDED TO DEMONSTRATE CONTINUOUS SURFACE CONNECTION.
IN RESPONSE, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS INTRODUCING SB 601, WHICH SEEKS TO CODIFY AT A STATE LEVEL THAT A MORE EXPANSIVE DEFINITION OF WATERS DO REQUIRE REVIEW AND PERMITTING. THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION IS GROWING IN IMPORTANCE AS SUPREME COURT DECISIONS CONTINUE, MOST RECENTLY IN MARCH OF 2025, WHEN THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO VERSUS EPA REMOVED THE END RESULT REQUIREMENTS FROM EPA REGULATORY REVIEW OF WATER DISCHARGE, REQUIRING A MORE SPECIFIC REGULATORY GUIDANCE, WHICH IS LIKELY TO SLOW DOWN REVIEW OF SUCH PROPOSALS.
SO AS DECISIONS AND DISCUSSIONS AROUND THE CLEAN WATER ACT AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL CONTINUE.
THIS IS REALLY A VEHICLE FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO RESPOND TO ENSURE CLEAN WATER FOR ITS RESIDENTS, AS WELL AS ALONG OUR SHORELINES HERE IN THE BAY AREA.
OUR NEXT PIECE OF LEGISLATION, AB 902, THE CONNECTED COMMUNITIES ACT.
THIS BILL SEEKS TO PRIORITIZE WILDLIFE CORRIDORS IN URBAN PLANNING, AND IN ADDITION TO THAT COMPONENT, IT IS ALSO ENCOURAGING USE OF WILDLIFE FRIENDLY INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING SPECIALIZED LIGHTING, FENCING, ETC. SO PROJECT DEVELOPERS CAN WORK WITH THE STATE TO DETERMINE WHAT THOSE ARE AS THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD. SO THIS INCLUDES BOTH TRANSPORTATION AS WELL AS URBAN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING.
AND THEN OUR THIRD AND FINAL BILL IS ONE THAT I BELIEVE YOU'RE BOTH RATHER FAMILIAR WITH, AB 1426, WHICH IS THE DIABLO RANGE CONSERVATION PROGRAM.
THIS BILL WOULD RECOGNIZE 3.5 MILLION ACRES RANGING FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, THE SALINAS VALLEY, AND THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AS THE DIABLO RANGE COMPREHENSIVELY.
IT WOULD ESTABLISH A PROGRAM WHICH WOULD BE ADMINISTERED BY THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD.
AND SO WE DO RECOMMEND SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL AS WELL.
SO I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AND WE RECOMMEND A SUPPORT POSITION.
COLIN DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? NO. I GUESS I HAVE ONE.
SO I KNOW WE, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE BIG BILLS. WE SUPPORT THEM.
[00:05:08]
DIABLO RANGE CONSERVATION PROGRAM? I MEAN, WILL WE AS MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN ASKED US FOR A LETTER OF SUPPORT OR ANYTHING ELSE AND IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN DO A LITTLE MORE? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. SO WE HAVE ENGAGED WITH THE BILL SPONSOR, WHICH IS SAVE MOUNT DIABLO. WE ARE FOLLOWING SUPPORT BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS .SO WITH YOUR SUPPORT, IT ALLOWS STAFF TO TAKE THOSE ACTIONS.
GREAT. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC OR ANY STAFF MEMBERS HERE? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. WELL, IN THAT CASE, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECOMMEND SUPPORT FROM THE FULL BOARD ON THESE PIECES OF LEGISLATION. DO I HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED ON THE STATE LEGISLATION AS PRESENTED.
YES. AND I WILL SECOND IT. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
AYE. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR REPORT.
WE'LL MOVE NOW TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION.
THANK YOU. ERICH PFUEHLER, DIVISION LEAD FOR GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS.
THIS BILL SEEKS TO MAKE IT 90% FEDERAL AND 10% LOCAL.
AND I BELIEVE THE INTENT OF OF THAT IS FOR FORESTRY WORK.
SO RECOMMENDING SUPPORT ON THAT BECAUSE WE THINK IT WOULD BENEFIT OUR LOCAL, OUR LOCAL CORPS, POTENTIALLY. SENATOR PADILLA AND REPRESENTATIVE RUIZ HAVE REINTRODUCED THE CESAR CHAVEZ AND FARMWORKER MOVEMENT NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK BILL.
THIS LEGISLATION HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE PARK DISTRICT .
IT DESIGNATES A SITE IN DELANO, A SITE IN SAN JOSE, AND ALSO A SITE IN ARIZONA AS PART OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK. BUT IT ALSO CALLS FOR A STUDY OF THE TRAIL OF THE ROUTE THAT THE FARM WORKERS TOOK FROM DELANO TO SACRAMENTO.
THE 300 MILE MARCH IN 1966 TO THE STATE CAPITOL.
SO WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT FOR POSSIBLE NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL OR NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL DESIGNATION.
THIS IS A LEGISLATION THAT I WANTED TO JUST SHARE A LITTLE CONTEXT ON.
THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS INTRODUCED LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY HAVE A COORDINATED STRATEGY TOWARDS FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN WILDFIRE RESILIENCE AND WILDFIRE MITIGATION.
AS PART OF THAT, AND I'LL MAYBE I'LL WAIT A SECOND FOR OUR OTHER BOARD MEMBER TO JOIN.
GOOD MORNING. WELCOME. APOLOGIES. SO I WAS JUST STARTING, DIRECTOR DESCHAMBAULT ON SOME LEGISLATION THAT WE HAVE A SLIDE IN FRONT OF US, BUT I JUST WANT TO GIVE SOME CONTEXT FOR IT.
THE REPRESENTATIVE THAT INTRODUCED IT IN THE HOUSE IS THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE FOR NATURAL RESOURCES, AND IT HAS ACTUALLY ADVANCED IN THE HOUSE AND MOVED ON TO THE SENATE.
SO THE HOUSE LEGISLATION SUPERSEDES THE SENATE LEGISLATION THAT SENATOR PADILLA ALSO SPONSORED.
SO THE VEHICLE THAT IS MOVING THROUGH IS THIS LEGISLATION FROM THE HOUSE.
AND IT WAS IN, IN ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE IT WAS VOTED IN SUPPORT BY REPRESENTATIVE SWALWELL, BUT IT WAS OPPOSED BY REPRESENTATIVE SIMON AND DESAULNIER IT DOES HAVE SUPPORT FROM SEVERAL MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS AND FROM CAL FIRE.
[00:10:02]
FEDERAL PACKAGE OF BILLS TO SUPPORT, OR IF WE JUST BASICALLY WATCH THIS EFFORT KNOWING THAT THERE POTENTIALLY COULD BE SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PARK DISTRICT . BUT ALSO AT THIS POINT, SUPPORTING THE HOUSE BILL IS A BIT OF A MOOT POINT.AND I WANTED TO ALSO GIVE THE CONTEXT OF HOW OUR DELEGATION VOTED ON IT.
DO ANY MEMBERS HAVE A DESIRE TO TALK ABOUT IT MORE? IS THERE A SHORT VERSION OF WHY CONGRESSMAN DESAULNIER WAS OPPOSED TO IT? I OTHER THAN WHAT I WOULD GUESS WOULD BE LEADERSHIP POLITICS.
IT'S A REPUBLICAN SPONSORED BILL. REPUBLICAN CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE.
MY SENSE IS THAT THERE WAS IT WAS CLOSE TO A PARTY LINE VOTE.
BUT AS I SAID, YOU KNOW, SOME DEMOCRATS DID SUPPORT IT.
OKAY. THANK YOU. NO OTHER QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT.
I WILL MAKE A COURAGEOUS I'M NOT COURAGEOUS. DUMB MOVE FOR BIPARTISANSHIP.
I LIKE YOUR LAST SECOND, LAST PARAGRAPH IN PARTICULAR.
SIMPLIFICATION OF GRANT APPLICATIONS AND PROGRAMS ADDRESSING THE WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE WILL HAVE IMPORTANT BENEFITS FOR THE LARGER EAST BAY AND EAST BAY COMMUNITIES. SO I'M I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR SUPPORTING THIS. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO DO IT TOGETHER ALL TOGETHER OR SINGLY IF WHAT'S THE WILL OF THE COMMITTEE? PERSONALLY, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT MARK'S POSITION.
I'D LIKE TO DO IT. SUBSTANTIVELY, I WOULD LIKE TO GET FEEDBACK FROM HIS OFFICE.
SO QUESTION FOR COUNCIL PROCEDURALLY, DO WE JUST WHEN WE VOTE, WE SAY VOTING IN SUPPORT, BUT REMOVING H.R. 471. YEAH. SO. SO IF THE COMMITTEE IS SUPPORTIVE OF ALL LEGISLATION EXCEPT FOR H.R.
471. AND WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT? OKAY. SO MOVED. JUST ONE. WE GOT ONE MORE.
SO IF YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH THEM. I UNDERSTAND I WAS SUGGESTING THIS RIGHT HERE.
GREAT. H.R. 2281 BY REPRESENTATIVE WILSON DOES REAUTHORIZE THE FEDERAL JOB CORPS PROGRAM.
ACTUALLY PROVIDES ADDITIONAL FUNDING OF UP TO $1.8 BILLION A YEAR.
IT ALSO REDUCES OR CHANGES THE AGE REQUIREMENT SO THAT STARTING AT AGE 16, ONE COULD ENTER THE JOB CORPS, AND IT ALSO PROVIDES AN ADDITIONAL $100 MILLION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CORPS FACILITIES.
H.R. 1923 IS A BILL WE SUPPORTED LAST CONGRESS, ESSENTIALLY CODIFYING THE WILDFIRE MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION. IT DOES PROVIDE FUNDING FOR LOCAL GRANTS THAT PRIORITIZE PUBLIC SAFETY, ENVIRONMENTAL RESILIENCE, AND RECOVERY EFFORTS. IT ALSO FOCUSES ON WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND PROVIDES OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR STATE FIRE MARSHAL TO INCREASE THE SUPPORT FOR LOCAL FIRE ACADEMIES. AND IT ALSO ESTABLISHES A FEDERAL DATABASE AND FIRE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT OUR TEAM AND OUR AGENCY WOULD BENEFIT FROM SOME OF THE LEARNINGS FROM THAT UNIFIED FEDERAL EFFORT.
H.R. 1393. AGAIN, ANOTHER WILDFIRE BILL ESSENTIALLY CALLING ON FEMA TO CREATE A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR HOW THEY WOULD ACCOUNT FOR WILDFIRE RESILIENCE WORK AND ALSO HOME HARDENING
[00:15:08]
AND OTHER PROACTIVE EFFORTS. AND THEN THIS WAY, THEY CAN PUT THAT INTO THE CALCULATION OF WHERE TO INVEST MORE MONEY.AND THEN THE LAST BILL IS SIMILAR TO SOME LEGISLATION WE'VE SPONSORED PREVIOUSLY FROM SENATOR PADILLA THAT LOOKS AT GRAZING FOR REDUCING WILDFIRE RISK ON FEDERAL LANDS. SO ESSENTIALLY DIRECTS THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND THE U.S.
AND I BELIEVE THAT. OH, AND THE LAST THING I WANTED TO SAY ON THAT LEGISLATION IS IT DOES POTENTIALLY PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PARK DISTRICT TO SHARE SOME OF OUR BEST PRACTICES, BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING MORE AS AN AGENCY THAN THE FOREST SERVICE OR DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
AND WITH THAT, THAT IS OUR FEDERAL LEGISLATION.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS. I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT LAST ONE BEFORE WE LEAVE THE 1110 THE IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, THE SIMILAR BILL S.602 IS THAT ALSO GOING FORWARD CONCURRENTLY? LIKE HOW DO THEY DIFFER AND LIKE, WOULD IT MAKE MORE SENSE IF WE'VE ALREADY SUPPORTED SENATE BILL 602.
THERE'S A SLIGHT. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND HOW THEY GO THROUGH THE DIFFERENT INITIATIONS, BUT IS THERE A CONFLICT? I WOULDN'T DESCRIBE IT AS A CONFLICT. THERE'S A QUITE A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN FOCUS.
THIS LEGISLATION IS SPECIFIC TO FEDERAL LANDS.
AND THEN THE SENATE BILL IS SPECIFIC TO STUDYING THE IMPACTS OF GRAZING, AND ALSO WHAT THE BEST PRACTICES FOR GRAZING WOULD BE, BUT NOT STRICTLY LIMITED, NOT STRICTLY LIMITED TO FEDERAL LANDS.
I S PADILLA AND LAMALFA SUPPORTIVE OF THE [INAUDIBLE]? DID YOU KNOW IF THERE'S A CONFLICT? I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE'S A CONFLICT.
AND MY GUESS IS WHAT IF BOTH PIECES OF LEGISLATION MOVE FORWARD THEY WOULD PROBABLY CONFERENCE AND COME TO A COMPROMISE, INCLUDING ELEMENTS OF EACH BILL. OKAY, THANKS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. THEN, WITH HELP OF COUNCIL, WE'LL FIGURE OUT HOW TO VOTE ON THESE.
I GUESS WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS IF THERE'S A MOTION TO REMOVE H.R. 471 CONGRESSMAN WESTERMAN'S FIX OUR FORESTS ACT.
I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW.
SEPARATE THAT OUT, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A MOTION TO DO THE REST IF WE DO THAT.
JUST A POINT OF ORDER POINT OF PROCESS. I MEAN, A LOT OF TIMES, NOT A LOT OF TIMES OUR VOTES HERE DON'T NECESSARILY GET ATTACHED. THIS IS STILL GOING TO GO TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
SO AS A SUBCOMMITTEE OR ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHATEVER WE DECIDE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THESE TYPES OF VOTES, THESE MOTIONS BE GOOD TO SO THAT WE SEE THEM AT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETINGS.
SO WE DON'T HAVE A SIMILAR CONVERSATION AGAIN.
HE'S NOT TYPICALLY SOMEONE WHO VOTES JUST ALONG PARTY LINES.
SO THERE MAY BE SOMETHING ELSE. AND I WOULD LIKE MAYBE WHEN IT COMES TO THE BOARD, MAYBE SOME MORE CLARIFICATION ON THE SENATE BILL VERSUS THE HOUSE BILL ON THE WILDFIRE RISK REDUCTION ACT. SO IN THE MOTION WE MAKE, I GUESS IT'S A PROCESS QUESTION.
WE CAN AGREE TO A MOTION EXCLUDING 4 71. BUT AS A POINT OF PROCESS, I WOULD LIKE THAT MOTION OR THAT APPROVAL TO SOMEHOW GET TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHEN WE REVIEW IT THERE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I AM I RAMBLING OR DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M ASKING? I'LL TURN TO COUNCIL ON THIS A LITTLE BIT, BUT IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY WE'D LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION ON WHY REPRESENTATIVE DESAULNIER VOTED AGAINST IT. AND THEN ONCE WE HAVE THAT CLARIFICATION, DEPENDING UPON WHAT IT IS THERE MIGHT BE AN AVENUE FOR THIS FOR THE PARK DISTRICT TO SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION IN FULL IF IT'S A SATISFACTORY RESPONSE FROM REPRESENTATIVE DESAULNIER.
IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THE FULL BOARD WOULD HAVE TO VOTE ON THE LEGISLATION AS IS.
[00:20:06]
I MEAN, I WOULDN'T THINK THAT. I MEAN, WE'RE AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE THAT WE NEED TO DO THAT. I JUST I'M JUST ASKING THAT OUR COMMENTS TODAY GET ADDRESSED WHEN IT DOES COME BOARD OF DIRECTORS CAN TAKE AN AGENDA ITEM WITHOUT US PUTTING IT THERE.YEAH. SO THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE FULL BOARD AS YOU'RE CORRECT.
SO THESE COMMENTS WILL GET INCORPORATED INTO THE STAFF REPORT.
SO THE BOARD WILL SEE HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THIS COMMITTEE'S DISCUSSION.
SO WHAT ORIGINALLY, THE THIS COMMITTEE WAS INTERESTED IN DOING IS SUPPORTING ALL MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO SUPPORT ALL LEGISLATION, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF H.R. 471, WITH THE STAFF REPORT THAT HAS FURTHER INFORMATION AT THE BOARD FULL BOARD MEETING.
AND THEN THAT WILL GO TO THE BOARD FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION. SO IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE INTERVENING TIMES THAT MAY IMPACT THE THE BOARD'S VOTE OR NOT, I GUESS IS A WAY TO ADDRESS IT. SO TODAY, WITH THE INFORMATION WE HAVE, I HEARD THAT THERE'S AN INTEREST TO NOT RECOMMEND H.R.
471, BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, I DON'T YOU KNOW, IT'S THEN GOES ON TO THE FULL BOARD.
SOMEBODY MAKE THAT MOTION. SO I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. OKAY.
SECOND. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
IS THERE ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM ANYONE? HEARING NONE.
ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? I WOULD BE OPPOSED.
MOTION PASSES 2 TO 1. THANK YOU. THEN WE'LL MOVE TO THE ENTIRE FEDERAL [INAUDIBLE].
DIDN'T WE JUST DO THAT? I THOUGHT WE JUST EXCLUDED ONE.
CAN WE GO BACK TO THAT? SURE. WHAT I MISSED WAS.
FOLLOW UP ON OUR TWO BILLS. WE HAVE A BILL SPONSORED THAT WE'VE SPONSORED BEING CARRIED BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON, AND WE HAVE A BILL BEING CARRIED BY SENATOR GRAYSON.
WE GOT A MEMO FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER MAYBE A WEEK AGO OR SOMETHING, AND I'M WONDERING IF THERE ARE ANY UPDATES ON WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH BOTH OF THEM. I'D BE PLEASED TO PROVIDE.
SO WE HAVE TWO BILLS MOVING THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS RIGHT NOW THAT ARE SPONSORED BY THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT . AS DIRECTOR COFFEY STATES, WE HAVE SB 392, WHICH ESTABLISHES THE OAKLAND HILLS CONSERVATION PROGRAM IS BEING AUTHORED BY SENATOR GRAYSON.
AND THEN WE HAVE AB 769, WHICH IS A PROPOSAL TO VARIOUS PUBLIC RESOURCE CODE ARTICLE THREE AMENDMENTS BEING AUTHORED BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER LORI WILSON. SO THIS PAST WEEK BOTH BILLS WENT TO THEIR INITIAL COMMITTEES.
SO I'LL START WITH SB 392 THE EAST BAY HILLS CONSERVATION PROGRAM.
THIS BILL WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE.
IN ADVANCE OF IT GOING TO COMMITTEE WE WORKED DIRECTLY WITH COMMITTEE STAFF TO TALK THROUGH SOME LANGUAGE AND AMENDMENTS, AND THEY WERE REALLY INTERESTED IN STRENGTHENING THE CASE FOR WHY THIS IS AN AREA OF STATE SIGNIFICANCE.
AND WHERE THEY GRAVITATED TO MOST WAS IDENTIFYING SOME UNIQUE GRASS SPECIES, AS WELL AS THE SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY OF RAINBOW TROUT WITHIN REDWOOD CREEK IN THE EAST BAY HILLS. AND SO WE WERE ABLE TO ADD AMENDMENTS STATING THOSE ACCOMPLISHMENTS WITHIN THE BILL PRIOR TO COMMITTEE.
SO THAT'S PASSED OUT OF SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BECAUSE IT'S A NON-FISCAL BILL.
IT'LL BE MOVING FORWARD TO THE FLOOR THE SECOND.
OH, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT? YES. SO IS IT FAIR TO CHARACTERIZE IT AS NOT RECEIVING ANY OPPOSITION? CORRECT. SO NEITHER OF OUR BILLS RECEIVED ANY OPPOSITION THROUGH THEIR INITIAL COMMITTEES.
OKAY. WELL, THEN GO TO THE LORI WILSON BILL BECAUSE.
AND SO AB 769, AS WE HAVE SHARED WITH THE BOARD AND INCLUDES AMENDMENTS TO INCREASING LAND ACQUISITION LEASES, AMENDMENTS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LIMIT FOR EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS FOR THE PARK DISTRICT AT THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ,
[00:25:05]
AS WELL AS A FEW OTHER CHANGES. THROUGH THE COMMITTEE PROCESS THE COMMITTEE CHAIR WAS INTERESTED IN SEEING SOME PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES.SO FOR THE BOARD'S AWARENESS, THE PROVISION RELATED TO BOARD COMPENSATION, ALL OF THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE WAS REMOVED THROUGH THE COMMITTEE PROCESS, SO THE AUTHOR DECIDED TO ACCEPT THOSE AMENDMENTS.
SECONDLY, THE LANGUAGE RELATED TO LOCAL REGULATIONS AND PERMITTING WAS ALSO REMOVED.
HOWEVER, THE COMMITTEE STAFF DID FEEL THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THE REASON FOR THAT AMENDMENT AND THEY WERE INTERESTED IN WORKING WITH THE PARK DISTRICT ON A FUTURE PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT THEY FELT COULD BETTER FIT PREVIOUS PRECEDENT IN THAT AREA TO ALIGN US WITH OTHER DISTRICTS OF OUR SIZE.
AND THEN THE THIRD, MORE MINOR AMENDMENT IS RELATED TO PUBLIC RESOURCE CODE SECTION 5594, WHERE WE HAD SHIFTED OR WE HAD PROPOSED A SHIFT AWAY FROM NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING TO ONLINE PUBLISHING FOR BID NOTICES, AND THAT WAS REMOVED THROUGH THE COMMITTEE PROCESS.
HOWEVER, ALL OTHER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BY THE PARK DISTRICT , INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE LIMIT ALIGNING US WITH COUNTY GOVERNMENTS, DID GO THROUGH COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY. AND BECAUSE THIS IS A NON-FISCAL BILL, IT'LL GO TO THE FLOOR NEXT.
OKAY. SO LET'S DRILL DOWN ON THIS A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THERE WAS OPPOSITION TO THE BILL AS WRITTEN.
AND LET ME PARSE THAT OUT. SO ONE WAS TO THE BOARD COMPENSATION PROVISION.
WHO OPPOSED THAT AND WHY WAS IT REMOVED? SO THE COMMITTEE CHAIR .
AND SO THEY FELT THAT IT WAS TOO DIFFERENT. THERE'S NOT ANOTHER SPECIAL DISTRICTS IN CALIFORNIA THAT HAS THE AUTOMATIC 5% INCREASE, UNLESS OPPOSED BY THE BOARD, AND THEN THE BASE COMPENSATION OF 1000 PER MONTH.
THE ONLY SIMILAR AGENCY WAS AC TRANSIT. AND SO WE DID TALK ABOUT ALIGNING OURSELVES THERE.
BUT ULTIMATELY THE CHAIR JUST FELT THAT THE CHANGES WERE TOO SIGNIFICANT.
OKAY. I'M SENSING THAT THAT WOULD ACTUALLY COME FROM STAFF.
THAT'S CORRECT ONE. OKAY. NEXT, THE THE PERMITTING PROVISION WAS DESIGNED TO CODIFY SOME STATE LAW CASE LAW, WAS IT NOT? YES. THAT LAFAYETTE CASE.
ALL RIGHT. SO TO ME, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT LOSS.
THAT IS CORRECT. BECAUSE THE CONCERN I VOICED WHEN WE DID THAT WAS THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD HAPPEN AND APPEAR TO DIMINISH THE CASE LAW. AND THAT WAS MY FEAR WITH THIS.
SO I WOULD BE HOPEFUL THAT WE AGGRESSIVELY STILL PURSUED THAT.
ABSOLUTELY. FOR THE REASONS IT WAS ORIGINALLY PURSUED IN THE LEGISLATION.
SO THAT WASN'T A GOOD CHANGE. I FORGET THE LAST ONE YOU DESCRIBED.
THE LAST ONE WAS FOR BID POSTING. MINOR. WE HAD PROPOSED SHIFTING IT TO ONLINE.
OH NEW SPEAKERS. YEAH. SO TO ME, THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS LEGISLATION HAD ALWAYS BEEN THE BRINGING INTO MODERN TIMES THE GENERAL MANAGER 'S AUTHORITY TO SPEND MONEY.
YES. AND THAT WAS WHERE THIS GOT COMPLICATED LAST TIME BECAUSE OF LABOR'S OPPOSITION.
SO THERE'S BEEN AN AGREEMENT ON THE LANGUAGE WE INCLUDED AND THAT HAS GONE THROUGH UNOPPOSED.
THAT IS CORRECT. SO THAT'S THE GOOD NEWS. THAT IS I WOULD ALMOST SAY THE GREAT NEWS.
SO. GOOD. THANK YOU. I WANTED TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT WAS WAS GOING ON IN SACRAMENTO.
SO I APPRECIATE THAT INPUT. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS.
OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. WE UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. YOU FINISHED, WAS YOUR.
WELL I WAS GOING TO ASK. I MEAN WHEN CAN WE GET AN UPDATE ON THIS TO THE BOARD ON THE LANGUAGE, THE CHANGES? AND MY OTHER QUESTION WAS THERE WERE SOME OTHER CONCERNS RAISED BY US, PARTICULARLY THE UNIONS.
I THINK A FEW OF US WANTED TO KNOW THE UNION'S POSITION.
SO THROUGH COMMITTEE AND THROUGH LANGUAGE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH CONSULTING AND SUPPORT FROM LABOR.
[00:30:08]
SO THAT'S TWO. SO WHEN WE SEE THIS AGAIN AT THE, AT THE BOARD WITH MORE DETAIL THAN WHAT WE'RE HEARING AND WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE UNION BUY IN ON THIS? SO JASON, QUESTION RECEIVED.CAN WE REPORT BACK TO THE FULL BOARD. JASON, MAKE SURE THAT WHEN STATE LEGISLATION GETS TO THE FULL BOARD, IT'S AGENDED SUCH THAT WE CAN DISCUSS THIS. DIRECTION RECEIVED.
THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU. PARDON ME LISA, WHILE YOU'RE THERE, I DON'T THINK I'LL GET YOU IN A BROWN ACT DEAL HERE, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR EXPERTISE ON ALL THESE ISSUES.
CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT IN A MINUTE OR TWO WHAT'S GOING ON WITH GRAYSON'S BILL ABOUT THE QUIMBY ACT, WHICH AFFECTS A LOT OF OUR FELLOW AGENCIES? YEAH.
SO AS FAR AS WHAT'S GOING ON, I BELIEVE IT'S MOVING THROUGH COMMITTEE.
I CAN LOOK UP AN UPDATE AND FOLLOW UP WITH THE BOARD.
BECAUSE OUR BOARD HASN'T TAKEN A POSITION ON THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
WE AREN'T ACTIVELY TRACKING IT, BUT I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO SOME RESEARCH FOR YOU.
OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. OF COURSE. HAVE WE HAD PUBLIC COMMENT? IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO, WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT I'M OH PARDON ME, I'M ASKING ON EVERY SECTION WE GO THROUGH.
NO PUBLIC COMMENT. THERE'S NO PUBLIC, IS THERE? SO THERE IS NO PUBLIC RIGHT? WELL, WE COULD YEAH.
THERE'S NO PUBLIC IN THE ZOOM ROOM EITHER AT THIS POINT. OKAY. BUT YEAH.
[Informational Items]
AND OUR FIRST ITEM IS AN INFORMATIONAL UPDATE ON LOCAL ACTIONS TAKEN BY OTHER JURISDICTIONS.WELCOME, BRIAN. ONE OF MY FAVORITE GENTLEMEN.
GOOD MORNING. IS IT STILL MORNING? YES, IT'S STILL MORNING.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, BRIAN HOLT DIVISION LEAD FOR PLANNING TRAILS, CULTURAL RESOURCES AND GIS.
HERE TO GIVE YOU SORT OF A STANDING ITEM ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTIONS.
AND LET'S SEE, LET ME SHARE MY SCREEN HERE SO I CAN GET A PRESENTATION UP FOR YOU.
TA DA DA [INAUDIBLE]. AND TODAY WE DON'T HAVE ANY SUPER, SUPER PRESSING LOCAL ACTIONS TO REPORT ON. SO WE'RE GOING TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF A DEEPER DIVE, A FOCUS TOPIC, IF YOU WILL ON THE URBAN LIMIT LINE IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WHICH WILL BE AN UPCOMING ITEM OF INTEREST TO THE BOARD AND GOING TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
SO SO FOR JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND THE URBAN LIMIT LINE , THE SPECIFIC TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, WE CAN DISCUSS THERE'S SORT OF A SIMILAR STYLE OF URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY IN ALAMEDA COUNTY.
BUT THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A GROUNDBREAKING SORT OF MEASURE.
SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL IT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF THE WILD WEST IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FOR, FOR QUITE A WHILE UP THROUGH THE 70S AND 80S WITH VARIOUS LAND USE PROPOSALS, PARTICULARLY IN EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, BUT ALSO IN WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AS WELL.
AS A RESULT OF THAT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY IN THEIR WISDOM, ADOPTED WHAT WAS REFERRED TO AS THE 65, 35% PLAN. AND THE IDEA THERE WAS THAT ESSENTIALLY A LINE WOULD BE DRAWN THAT WOULD PROTECT 65% OF THE COUNTY IN A NATURAL OR SORT OF WORKING LANDS TYPE OF CONDITION WITH 35% OF THE LAND OF THE COUNTY DESIGNATED FOR MORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT.
SO THAT WAS APPROVED THROUGH MEASURE C IN 1990 BY VOTERS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY WAS EXTENDED WITH MEASURE L IN 2006 WITH 64% OF THE VOTES, AND THAT EXTENDED THE URBAN LIMIT LINE UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2026. SO. SO THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY.
WE'RE COMING UP ON THE RENEWAL OF THE URBAN LIMIT LINE OR AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE TO BE ADOPTED BY DECEMBER 31ST, 2026. SO THERE'S CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE STARTING ABOUT JUST SORT OF WHERE THAT LINE WILL BE DRAWN.
AND OF COURSE, THAT HAS SOME EFFECT ON US BECAUSE WE OWN A LOT OF LAND IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY.
THE URBAN LIMIT LINE IS PART OF THE RECENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY.
SO WE BROUGHT SOME INFORMATION BACK TO THIS, TO THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT THAT A COUPLE MONTHS AGO.
[00:35:05]
AND JUST TO SAY, SINCE THE URBAN LIMIT LINE HAS BEEN ADOPTED ADJUSTMENTS AND CHANGES, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE URBAN LINE.THERE'S BEEN VARIOUS PROPOSALS TO AMEND OR TO MOVE THE URBAN LIMIT LINE .
SO IT'S ONLY BEEN MOVED SIX TIMES SINCE IT WAS SINCE ITS INCEPTION IN 1990.
SO IT HAS BEEN RELATIVELY EFFECTIVE AND PUT IN PLACE.
I'LL JUST MENTION, YOU KNOW, THE THE SORT OF THE CRUX OF THE URBAN LIMIT LINE WAS REALLY THAT YOU KNOW, THE INITIAL IDEA WAS THAT THERE WOULD BE A SORT OF A COUNTY WIDE VOTER APPROVED URBAN LIMIT LINE .
EVERYBODY WOULD AGREE ON WHERE THIS LINE WAS.
THE COUNTY WASN'T NECESSARILY ABLE TO GET TO A COUNTY WIDE VOTE ON THAT.
SO IT WENT TO EVERY CITY, HAD TO HAVE AN ADOPTED URBAN LIMIT LINE OR URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY.
SO SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF CITIES IN THE COUNTY ANTIOCH, PITTSBURG, SAN RAMON THAT HAVE SORT OF SEPARATE CITY ADOPTED URBAN LIMIT LINE S AND THOSE THOSE ARE ESSENTIALLY THE COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE S.
BUT BASICALLY THE SORT OF, YOU KNOW, THE CARROT AND THE STICK APPROACH IS THAT EVERY CITY IN THE COUNTY HAS TO HAVE THIS ADOPTED URBAN LIMIT LINE TO RECEIVE THEIR SHARE OF RETURN TO SOURCE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS, THE MEASURE J FUNDS THROUGH CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY.
AND FOR SOME REASON, MY SLIDE. THERE WE GO. SO MAYBE I GOT A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF MYSELF, BUT YEAH, PURPOSE OF THE URBAN LIMIT LINE ENSURES THAT BASICALLY URBAN DEVELOPMENT OCCURS WITHIN THE LINES.
IT WAS REALLY A MEASURE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE SPRAWL THAT WAS SEEN IN THE PAST.
SO, SO ENSURES THAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT OCCURS WITHIN THE LINES, WHICH FOR US ESSENTIALLY MEANS THAT PROPERTIES OUTSIDE OF THE LINES ARE REALLY IDENTIFIED AS OPEN SPACE OR AGRICULTURAL LAND DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT'LL BE PUBLICLY OWNED, BUT ESTABLISHES SORT OF A LAYER OF PROTECTION, OR AT LEAST AN ANTICIPATION OF WHAT THAT LAND USE WILL BE OUT THERE.
SO CREATING SOME EFFICIENCIES TO ADDRESS SOME TRAFFIC AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REALLY FOCUSES DEVELOPMENT WHERE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES ALREADY EXIST. AND YEAH, IT LIMITS URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO, NO MORE THAN 35% OF THE COUNTY.
AND I CAN CERTAINLY SPEAK TO SOME OF THE WHAT WE HAVE SEEN, THE EFFECTS OF THE URBAN LAND LINE HAS BEEN IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, LAND ACQUISITION. AND YOU KNOW, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LANDS THAT WE'VE ACQUIRED ARE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN LIMIT LINE . OCCASIONALLY WE'LL ACQUIRE LANDS WITHIN THE URBAN LIMIT LINE , BUT THOSE ARE GENERALLY RELATIVELY SMALLER PROPERTIES OR SHORELINE PROPERTIES.
THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW INSTANCES OF US BUYING SORT OF LARGER OPEN SPACE LANDS WITHIN THE URBAN LIMIT LINE , AND THAT'S THAT'S SORT OF LEADS TO A BIT OF A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION.
BUT BUT ANYWAYS THE CONTRA COSTA STAFF HAS PULLED TOGETHER THEIR SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE . SO THIS IS WHAT YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR SCREEN HERE.
AND I'LL SAY IT'S A PRETTY SORT OF THEY'VE TAKEN A BIT OF A SCALPEL TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE AND REALLY MADE PRETTY DISCREET CHANGES. SO THE CHANGES ARE WHAT YOU CAN SEE THERE UP IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER.
IT ACTUALLY CONTRACTS THE URBAN LIMIT LINE BY OVER 10,000 ACRES WITH JUST AN EXPANSION OF 1600 ACRES. SO SO, IN OTHER WORDS, URBAN LIMIT LINE IS GET TIGHTER.
IT'S NOT GETTING BIGGER. AND THOSE AREAS THAT ARE EXPANSION ARE REALLY FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, SORT OF CLEANUP EXERCISES TO ALIGN THE URBAN LIMIT LINE WITH WHERE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IS ALREADY HAS ALREADY OCCURRED OR TO ALIGN THE URBAN LIMIT LINE WITH EXISTING CITY BOUNDARIES.
THERE'S SOME CLEANUP ALONG THE SHORELINE TO REMOVE JUST REMOVE, SOME WATER BASED LAND
[00:40:03]
UNDEVELOPABLE LAND. SO THOSE THOSE ARE MOST, MOST OF THE LANDS THAT, ARE CONTRACTED ARE RELATED TO TO RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS. AND THEN MOST OF THE EXPANSIONS ARE REALLY TO IDENTIFY WHERE EXISTING GROWTH HAS ALREADY OCCURRED.SO SO FOR US IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT WE DON'T CARE OR WE AREN'T INTERESTED.
THE URBAN LIMIT LINE IS PROPOSED. WE THINK WE THINK THIS IS FINE.
AND WE'VE MET MULTIPLE TIMES WITH COUNTY STAFF AND SORT OF GONE OVER THIS.
SO THAT SAID THE URBAN LIMIT LINE , THE NEXT STEPS ARE AND I KIND OF WENT OVER THIS.
SO THIS IS SORT OF SOME OF THE CONTRACTIONS AND EXPANSIONS THERE.
BUT THE NEXT STEPS ARE, GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS OF SEEKING FEEDBACK FROM THE CITIES, THE MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCILS, PLANNING COMMISSION AND OTHERS. AND THEN COME THIS SUMMER WILL BE WHEN A DRAFT BALLOT MEASURE IS DRAFTED AND GOES TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
SO AS YOU ALL KNOW, A LOT CAN HAPPEN IN THAT SORT OF SPHERE WITH VARIOUS WHETHER IT'S PRIVATE LANDOWNERS OR OTHERS COMING FORWARD AND PERHAPS REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE WE'LL BE CONTINUING TO MONITOR THOSE.
BUT AS OF SUCH RIGHT NOW THE URBAN LIMIT LINE IS PROPOSED.
WE'RE LIKE I SAY, WE'RE GENERALLY WE DON'T SEE A BIG CONCERN.
SOME OF OUR LANDS HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE URBAN LAND LINE BECAUSE THEY'RE PROTECTED.
BUT AGAIN, THAT DOESN'T REALLY IMPACT US MUCH AS THE PARK DISTRICT ONCE IT'S IN OUR OWNERSHIP.
JUST ONE THING TO MENTION THAT THE STAFF OF COURSE, DID LOOK AT OR COUNTY STAFF LOOKED AT THE AMOUNT OF GROWTH THAT COULD HAPPEN WITHIN THE EXISTING URBAN LIMIT LINE .
SO AN ARGUMENT FOR EXPANSION OF THE URBAN LIMIT LINE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, TO ADDRESS THE NEED FOR HOUSING AND SOME OF THE OTHER PRESSING NEEDS THAT WE POTENTIALLY HAVE IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OR ELSEWHERE.
BUT UNDER THE, THE EXISTING THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN THROUGH I THINK IT'S 2035 COUNTY STAFF IDENTIFIED THE POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF OVER 23,000 NEW HOUSING UNITS ON EXISTING VACANT OR UNDERUTILIZED LANDS WITHIN THE URBAN LIMIT LINE , SO NO NEED TO EXPAND THE URBAN LIMIT LINE .
THEY COULD ACCOMMODATE GROWTH OF 23,000 NEW HOUSING UNITS, AS WELL AS 1.2 MILLION OF COMMERCIAL AND OVER 5,000,000FT² OF INDUSTRIAL. THAT'S WITHIN THE EXISTING URBAN LIMIT LINE .
SO NO NEED TO SORT OF MOVE THAT LAND TO ADDRESS SOME OF OUR HOUSING NEEDS AND OTHERS.
THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES TO MEET THOSE NEEDS WITHIN THE EXISTING URBAN FOOTPRINT OF THE COUNTY.
SO WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
AGAIN, WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE MONITORING THESE.
OR IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT THAT SORT OF RISES UP THAT YOU FEEL WE NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR.
WE'RE ALWAYS WE ALWAYS APPRECIATE YOUR HEADS UP.
SO WITH THAT HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. COLIN.
SO CAN WE DRILL DOWN ON WARD SEVEN? ABSOLUTELY.
I SEE FOUR CHANGES IN THAT MAP. SO LET'S GO THROUGH EACH OF THEM.
SO I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY WHAT WE MEAN BY CONTRACTION OR EXPANSION.
SO BETHEL ISLAND WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE. BETHEL ISLAND HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A CONSTRAINED IN TERMS OF I IMAGINE BECAUSE OF WETLANDS OR OTHER RESOURCES.
SO I THINK THE LINE THAT YOU CAN SEE AND I CAN'T ZOOM IN SUPER WELL, BUT I GUESS I CAN ZOOM IN HERE.
SO THAT'S THE LINES UP IN HERE. BETHEL ISLAND, IT'S IDENTIFIED AS SORT OF LIGHT GREEN.
[00:45:06]
OOPS. SO SO YOU CAN SEE THAT'S CONTRACTING THE LAND WITH DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS.SO THE MAJORITY OF THE ISLAND HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED BECAUSE PROBABLY BECAUSE IT'S UNDER SEA LEVEL.
SEE THE, YOU KNOW, BELOW SEA LEVEL AND THE NEED TO FOR LEVEES IN THAT AREA.
SO I THINK THE LINE HAS BEEN DRAWN AROUND SOME OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS OCCURRED OUT OF BETHEL ISLAND, DELTA COVES AND OTHER PROJECTS. BUT I DON'T THINK OTHER OTHER PROJECTS ARE THERE.
AND JUST TO SORT OF HIGHLIGHT ANOTHER CURRENT TOPIC THERE, THE ISLAND JUST TO THE WEST OF BETHEL ISLAND, JERSEY ISLAND, NOTABLE THAT THAT IS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE URBAN LIMIT LINE .
SO DIRECTOR COFFEY, AS YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR JERSEY ISLAND.
IT'S NOT HAPPENING. CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN WHILE WE'RE ON THAT? WHY IS IT JUST OPEN ON THE OTHER END? I'M CONFUSED IF THE URBAN LIMIT LINE IS BEING EXPANDED TO PROTECT IT OR SEE HOW IT'S OPEN.
HAS NO CAP ON IT. WHAT I THINK YOU'RE SEEING IS NOT THAT IT'S OPENED.
IT'S JUST THAT THESE LINES ARE SORT OF DOUBLING BACK.
SO IT'S KIND OF YOU'RE SEEING A SKINNY LINE. MY ASSUMPTION IS, AND I CAN FOLLOW UP WITH COUNTY STAFF TO CONFIRM THIS IS THAT THESE AREAS ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THOSE LINES BECAUSE THOSE ARE LEVEES NEEDED TO PROTECT THE ISLAND.
SO SO MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT'S WHY THE LINE SORT OF SQUIGGLES UP LIKE THAT.
BUT I WILL CONFIRM THAT. BECAUSE THEN YOU'VE COLORED THE WHOLE THING LIME GREEN LIKE IT'S PROTECTED.
RIGHT. LIKE I SAY, I THINK IT IS. I THINK IT IS A CLOSED CIRCLE.
IT'S JUST YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY SEE IT BECAUSE IT SORT OF LOOKS LIKE A STRAIGHT LINE HERE. BUT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IT HERE WHERE IT SORT OF COMES UP AND GOES BACK DOWN. BUT BUT THAT'S A, I'VE GOT STAFF HERE.
WE'LL MAKE A NOTE TO FOLLOW UP WITH COUNTY STAFF JUST TO CONFIRM THAT.
COLIN'S QUESTIONS I JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION.
GO AHEAD COLIN. IT'S INTERESTING TIDBITS ON ALL THIS.
YEAH. SO WHAT I'M SEEING IS THAT THE BETHEL ISLAND USED TO BE WITHIN THE LINE.
CORRECT. WHICH MEANS IT'S DEVELOPABLE. CORRECT? TO SOME EXTENT. AND WHAT THE COUNTY IS DOING HERE IS RECOGNIZING THAT IT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE PARTS OF THE ISLAND, SHOULD HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN LIMIT LINE .
AND THEREFORE, LIKE JERSEY ISLAND, NOT SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON WITH BETHEL. WELL, AND OF COURSE, IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THERE'S NO I MEAN, DEVELOPMENT IS ONGOING OUT OF BETHEL ISLAND. DELTA COVES IS STILL AN ACTIVE PROJECT.
I THINK PART OF IT IS A RECOGNITION THAT THERE IS EXISTING HOUSING GOING FORWARD.
THE WHOLE ISLAND ISN'T NECESSARILY NEEDED FOR THAT.
RIGHT? SO THEY'RE KIND OF THEY'RE ABLE TO DRAW THE LINE HERE.
AND AGAIN, THIS WILL I MEAN THIS WILL COME UP.
THIS IS COMING UP FOR RENEWAL. I THINK THE TERM IS THROUGH, I FORGET WHAT IT RUNS THROUGH, BUT I THINK THROUGH THE MID 2036 OR SO. SO, YOU KNOW, IT CONTINUES TO GET REVIEWED MULTIPLE.
THAT IS ONE OF OUR PARKS. AND SO I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT SURPRISED ME.
THAT WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN IN THE URBAN LIMIT LINE. SIMPLIFY THE LINE ALONG THE SHORELINE.
SO. YEAH. SO THEY'RE CONTRACTING THE LINE. BROWN'S ISLAND WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S ONE OF OUR PARKLANDS. IT'S I DON'T THERE'S NOT MUCH UPLAND OUT THERE AT ALL ANYWAYS, SO THAT'S A CLEAN UP EXERCISE. THEY'RE BRINGING THE LINE TO THE PITTSBURGH SHORELINE SO THAT THAT BROWN'S ISLAND BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE URBAN LIMIT LINE .
AND IT JUST REMINDS ME IT'S ONE OF THE FEW PARKLANDS THAT I HAVEN'T VISITED IN OUR SYSTEM, BECAUSE YOU BASICALLY HAVE TO SWIM THERE. I DON'T THINK BROWN'S ISLAND IS INCLUDED IN OUR TRAILS CHALLENGE YET.
YEAH, IT'S THE WESTMINSTER NOW THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME CHANGES ALONG THE NORTH OF HIGHWAY FOUR AREA OF THE NAVAL WEAPONS STATION.
WHAT? YEAH. WHAT IS GOING ON THERE? THOSE ARE ALL IDENTIFIED AS EITHER YOU CAN SEE THE DARK.
OOPS, SORRY. THE DARK GREEN IS A RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT, SO THAT'S AN AREA I DON'T EXACTLY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON IN THAT. THIS IS THE AREA THAT'S BASICALLY THE HILLS BETWEEN CONCORD AND PITTSBURG.
[00:50:04]
SO I'M ASSUMING THAT THERE MUST BE SOME SORT OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS OR SOME OTHER PROTECTION OVER THE DARK GREEN LINES.AND THEN THE LIGHT GREEN LINES ADJACENT TO IT THAT'S BECAUSE OF DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS.
SO STEEP SLOPES IN THAT AREA. SO IT'S BASICALLY SAYING THIS IS UNDEVELOPABLE LAND.
IT SHOULDN'T BE IN THE URBAN LIMIT LINE . AGAIN, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN A FAIR AMOUNT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT, THE SORT OF INDUSTRIAL PARK UP THERE NORTH OF HIGHWAY FOUR NEAR WILLOW PASS ROAD.
SO THIS WOULD JUST BE BEYOND THAT. OKAY. THE RODEO MARINA, WHAT ARE THEY? WHAT ARE THEY DOING THERE? RODEO MARINA IS WITHIN THE URBAN LIMIT LINE , AND I THINK IT REMAINS WITHIN THE URBAN LIMIT LINE .
AND PENDING WHATEVER THE ULTIMATE DISPOSITION OF THE MARINA IS OR WHAT HAPPENS OUT THERE.
SO I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONSTRAINTS AROUND THE RODEO SHORELINE.
BUT THAT IS ONE AREA THAT ACTUALLY JUST THIS MORNING TRIED TO DIAL IN A LITTLE BIT MORE.
SO THAT'S AN AREA I NEED TO FOLLOW UP ON A LITTLE BIT MORE.
YEAH, PLEASE. SO I'M WONDERING WHETHER THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO RESTRICT WHAT COULD HAPPEN WITH THE MARINA, WHERE, AS YOU KNOW, NOW, MARK GRISHAM HAS A WINERY OPERATION, AND HE HOUSES VISITING RVS.
THERE'S A LITTLE RV PARK THERE AND THERE, AND THE MARINA ITSELF IS ALL SILTED IN.
ARE THEY RESTRICTING OR THIS IS SOMETHING YOU CAN LOOK INTO.
ARE THEY RESTRICTING WHAT MARK CAN DO WITH THAT PROPERTY? YEAH, I WILL FOLLOW UP ON THAT. IT LOOKS LIKE IT.
FROM THE GREEN IT CERTAINLY REFLECTS OUR PARKLAND NEXT DOOR, I THINK AND ACROSS THE RAILROAD TRACKS. ANYWAY, IT'S SEEMINGLY FOCUSED ON LAND THAT WE EITHER OCCUPY OR IS ADJACENT TO LAND ARE PARKLAND. AND SO I'M VERY CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.
IN FACT, I REMEMBER GETTING THAT CALL FROM MAUREEN TOMS. ANYWAY. THANK YOU. YEAH, WE'LL DRILL IN A LITTLE DEEPER ON THAT ONE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? KIND OF MAYBE I'M A LITTLE BIT OF A DUNCE HERE ON UNDERSTANDING OUR ROLE.
I MEAN, CLEARLY WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH OUR PARKS AND WHEN THE LINES BEING MOVED TO INCLUDE IT, EXCLUDE IT. THAT WOULD BE A BIG DEAL. BUT ONE THING THAT'S UNIQUE TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY IS THE URBAN LIMIT LINE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. THEY ONLY HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE UNINCORPORATED AREA.
CORRECT. SO UNLIKE ALAMEDA COUNTY, WHERE THE COUNTY TAKES A REALLY OVERHEAD OVERSIGHT ROLE WITH THE CITY SORT OF UNDER THEM AND ALL WORKING TOGETHER, THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN OUT IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY.
WHEN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IS VOTING FOR SOMETHING, IT'S FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS.
AND THAT'S WHY EACH CITY, THERE'S 19 OTHER VOTES FOR URBAN LIMIT LINE .
SO I GUESS I HAVE KIND OF A BIG PICTURE QUESTION OF WHY WE'RE QUITE SO PROACTIVE AND WHAT IS OUR ROLE, OTHER THAN I WOULD REALLY LOVE TO SEE A COUPLE MAPS OUT OF THIS ONE MAP THAT'S REALLY WONDERFUL.
MAYBE WHEN, IF OR WHEN THIS COMES TO THE BOARD WHERE ARE OUR PARKS OVERLAID ON THIS? AND THE QUESTIONS THAT COLIN'S ASKING WOULD BE SIMILAR ONES LIKE WHERE WHAT SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED ABOUT, NOT JUST FOR THIS URBAN LIMIT LINE PROCESS AT THE COUNTY, BUT ALSO WHAT'S GOING ON IN OAKLEY WITH THEIR URBAN LIMIT LINE VOTE AND WHAT'S GOING ON IN RODEO AND ALL OF OUR OTHER CITIES. YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN KIND OF.
SO YOU'RE CORRECT. THE URBAN LIMIT LINE DOESN'T REALLY IMPACT OUR PARKS TOO MUCH OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT BE A NUANCE IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, HOW IT WHERE WE CAN DEVELOP INFRASTRUCTURE, BRING IN A WATER LINE, DO THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.
REGARDING YOUR FIRST QUESTION, IT'S NOT A DUNCE QUESTION AT ALL.
IT'S REALLY GETS TO KIND OF THE CHANGING ROLE OF THE PARK DISTRICT WITH REGARDS TO LAND USE.
YOU KNOW, 15, 20 YEARS AGO WHEN I FIRST STARTED HERE AT THE PARK DISTRICT , WE CARED A LOT.
[00:55:01]
YOU KNOW, SAN RAMON TRYING TO EXPAND INTO TASSAJARA VALLEY.BIG QUESTIONS AROUND ANTIOCH AND SOUTHERN ANTIOCH AREA AROUND THE RODDY RANCH, WHICH IS NOW A GOLF COURSE THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE URBAN LIMIT LINE THAT WAS PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT. WE WOULD SEE PROPOSALS ALL OVER THE PLACE FOR THE URBAN LIMIT LINE TO BE EXPANDED IN AREAS THAT WE HAD IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIAL AREAS OF ACQUISITION FOR FUTURE PARKLANDS.
SINCE THAT TIME YOU KNOW, A BUNCH OF THINGS HAVE HAPPENED.
THE BIG ONE HAS BEEN THE EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVANCY AND THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ACQUIRING A LOT OF LAND IN EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OF COURSE, US AND MEASURE WW AND SOME OF OUR ACQUISITIONS.
WE'VE KIND OF FORMED SOME OF THE BOUNDARIES AROUND THE CITIES AND THEN THE URBAN LIMIT LINE .
AND SO WE'VE PLAYED WE'VE PLAYED A ROLE IN THAT.
SO SO YOU'RE CORRECT. NOW WE DON'T NEED TO BE AS PROACTIVE IN SORT OF CHASING DOWN SOME OF THESE LAND USE BATTLES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THERE'S SORT OF THIS BELT AND SUSPENDERS APPROACH THAT YOU KNOW, THE SORT OF FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, THE THREATS THAT WE SEE TO SOME OF THE OPEN SPACE OUT THERE ARE OF A DIFFERENT NATURE.
WE'RE NOT SEEING THE BIG SUBDIVISION HOUSING PROPOSALS IN THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY ANYMORE.
THAT USED TO BE PRETTY COMMON. BUT WE DON'T SEE THAT ANYMORE.
WE DO STILL OCCASIONALLY SEE THE BIG SOLAR PROPOSALS.
WE SAW THAT WHAT, TWO YEARS AGO IN EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY? AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE STILL SORT OF GUIDE THAT, BUT IT IS, YOU KNOW, OUR NEED TO BE MUCH MORE PROACTIVE AND THE SORT OF SENSE THAT, YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S A RUSH FOR US, FOR THE PARK DISTRICT TO BUY LAND BEFORE IT GETS DEVELOPED IS, YOU KNOW, IS DIMINISHED BECAUSE OF THE URBAN LIMIT LINE AND BECAUSE OF THESE, BASIC BELT AND SUSPENDERS.
YOU KNOW, THE GOOD LAND USE PLANNING THAT'S HAPPENED IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY.
SO SO IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT WE CARE THAT MUCH.
THIS MAP IS GOING TO GO TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
THERE WILL BE LANDOWNERS WHO HAVE POTENTIALLY DEVELOPABLE LAND THAT WE WILL SEEK TO WE STILL SEE SPECULATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS COME UP. WE SAW IT AT JERSEY ISLAND JUST LAST YEAR OR SO.
THANK YOU. THAT REALLY PUTS SOME THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE FOR ME.
WHAT ABOUT YOU KNOW, OUR ROLE IN OTHER LANDOWNERS LIKE EAST BAY MUD AND THE SAVE MOUNT DIABLO RANGE? AND, I MEAN, I IMAGINE I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S OUR IMPETUS FOR SO MUCH STAFF TIME AND HOW ARE WE HOW DO OTHER THIS IS A BIG DEAL URBAN LIMIT LINES. I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING, OH, WHY ARE YOU INVOLVED? IT'S CLEAR TO ME WHY WE'RE INVOLVED. I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO NARROW DOWN OUR ROLE AND WHAT OUR OTHER LAND USE PARTNERS ARE DOING, BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST TRACKING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, BUT TRACKING ALL 19 CITIES URBAN LIMIT LINE S, TOO, BECAUSE OF THE ODD WAY. YEAH. IT'S A POLITICAL THING.
YEAH. LOCAL CONTROL JUST I MEAN. WELL, I'LL JUST SAY, YOU KNOW WELL, I ALMOST MADE IT THROUGH THIS WHOLE PRESENTATION WITHOUT MENTIONING THE DISTRICT PLAN. SO THIS GIVES ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO JUST TALK ABOUT THIS SORT OF THE OVERALL LAND USE IN ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. I MEAN, THIS ALL RELATES TO THE OTHER CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'RE HAVING AROUND THE DISTRICT PLAN, WILDLIFE CORRIDORS PARTNERSHIPS WITH OTHER OPEN SPACE AGENCIES.
YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LOOKING AT THE TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND, YOU KNOW, TRAIL CONNECTIVITY AND THOSE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE MASTER PLANS, THIS IS ALL THE SORT OF PLANNING ECOSYSTEM SPHERE THAT WE'RE SORT OF LOOKING AT.
AND WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR FOR A PRETTY GOOD TIME.
SO, SO WE'RE KIND OF ABLE TO DIVE INTO SOME OF THIS STUFF WITHOUT WITHOUT IT REALLY SUCKING UP TOO MUCH ENERGY FROM US BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TRACKING THIS STUFF FOR, YOU KNOW, YEARS, IF NOT DECADES.
SO WE'RE ABLE TO KIND OF POP UP A MAP PRETTY QUICK AND SAY, OKAY, WHERE'S THE LINE'S BEEN CHANGED? OR WE HAVE REALLY GOOD RELATIONSHIPS WITH COUNTY STAFF, CITY STAFF, AND WE'RE KIND OF INVOLVED IN THIS RUNNING DIALOG CONSTANTLY.
[01:00:08]
SO WE'RE ABLE TO KIND OF JUST KIND OF KEEP TRACK OF IT, JUST SORT OF BECAUSE WE'RE JUST SORT OF IN THE MIX.SO IT'S NOT LIKE A SPECIAL PROJECT THAT, THAT WE'RE, NECESSARILY ENGAGED IN OUR STAFF IS LIKE I SAY, THEY ARE KIND OF ABLE TO RUN THROUGH THINGS ON A WEEKLY BASIS.
AND SO WE KIND OF HAVE OUR EAR TO THE GROUND, AND WE'RE SORT OF SEEING HOW THIS ALL GOES. SO. AND OUR PARTNERS? WHAT'S THAT? THE OTHER PARTNERS, LAND USE PARTNERS.
YEAH. I MEAN WE'RE TALKING WITH OUR I MEAN WE'RE TALKING WITH OUR PARTNERS OFTEN.
AND LIKE I SAID, WE'RE REVIEWING THEIR AGENDAS AND AND OF COURSE, ALL OF IT RELATES TO ANY OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS THAT YOU ALL HAVE.
YOU KNOW, WE GET A LOT OF INFORMATION AND, AND WE'RE GOOD AT DIGESTING IT.
I THINK ULTIMATELY IT COMES BACK DOWN TO THE BACK, DOWN TO THE VOTERS.
AND IF WE AT SOME POINT TAKE ANY POSITION, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE OF HIGH INTEREST TO ME AND ANY IMPACT ON OUR LANDS IS MY ONLY I GUESS THAT'S MORE OF A COMMENT THAN A QUESTION, BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE THE UPDATE.
YOU KNOW, IT'S A BIG DEAL IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY.
I THINK WE HAVE THE LARGEST AMOUNT POTENTIAL LANDS TO BE LOST.
YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING ELSE IS BUILT OUT IN, IN A LOT OF OTHER AREAS.
SO THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT ONE FOR US AS LAND HOLDERS AND LAND PROTECTORS.
YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I APPRECIATE THE UPDATE. THANK YOU.
WELL, TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT LYNDA, I THINK IT'S VERY IT'S STILL VERY PERTINENT, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, BRIAN HELP ME ON THIS ONE. IF IS, WHEN YOU REFER TO ADJUSTMENTS THAT WERE PROPOSED AND ONLY ONE DUE TO A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, WEREN'T WE INVOLVED WITH A PRIVATE DEVELOPER? I THINK IN THE SAN RAMON AREA ADJACENT TO ONE OF OUR PARKS DOWN THERE WHERE THIS GENTLEMAN SAID, I'LL TAKE MY 300 ACRES? I DON'T KNOW, THOSE NUMBERS ARE EVEN CLOSE, BUT I THINK HE WAS GOING TO DONATE OVER 235 ACRES OF SOME PRETTY NICE LAND THAT WAS CONTIGUOUS WITH SOMETHING THAT WE HAD. IF HE COULD GET 25 ACRES AND BUILD 50 MANSIONS, AND THAT WENT TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, I THINK. AND I'M I GUESS MY QUESTION, I THINK IT'S STILL RELEVANT.
AND MY QUESTION WOULD BE, IS THIS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT DEVELOPER TO TRY TO GET IN AGAIN? ARE YOU PROPOSING TO. SO I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE TASSAJARA PARKS PROJECT.
AND THAT WAS THAT WAS A PROJECT THAT WAS GOING THROUGH THE COUNTY.
WE CAN HAVE A SEPARATE CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT PROJECT.
I WILL SAY, STILL WILL LIKELY BE AN ACTIVE PROJECT.
SO THERE IS AN EXCEPTION THAT WAS WRITTEN INTO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE THAT ALLOWED FOR DEVELOPMENT ON 30 ACRES OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN LIMIT LINE , PROVIDED IT HAD A 4/5 VOTE OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
SO THAT IS HOW THAT IS BEING PROCESSED. PART OF THE REASON WHY SO MUCH LAND WAS OFFERED TO THE PARK DISTRICT WAS TO SORT OF SHOW THIS OPEN SPACE BENEFIT, TO TRY TO GET SUPPORT FOR THAT 4/5 VOTE.
SO THAT PROJECT WAS CHALLENGED. I BELIEVE THINGS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED, ALTHOUGH I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW IF EVERYTHING'S BEEN RESOLVED. NOT OUR PROJECT. SO I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO GET INTO THE DETAILS OF ALL THAT.
OKAY, GOOD. COLIN DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER ITEM DONE? OKAY. THANK YOU BRIAN. EXCELLENT. THIS IS VERY INTERESTING.
YES. INFORMATION. NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M VIOLATING THE BROWN ACT AGAIN.
MAYBE WE SHOULD RE AGENDIZE THIS, BUT I WAS TOLD THAT THE ALAMEDA COUNTY PARKS AND REC AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION INVITED US TO COME AND TELL US ABOUT THE PROJECT AT THE CHOUINARD AND THEIR CONCERN OVER SOME HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
IS IT OKAY TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT, OR CAN WE'RE AGENDIZE IT FOR THE NEXT MEETING OR? W HAT IS IT YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL.
NO, I WAS I DIDN'T MAKE IT TO THE MEETING. I WAS INTERESTED WHAT HAPPENED AT THE MEETING.
WE CAN LET ME FOLLOW UP WITH YOU AND GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON THAT MEETING.
STAFF DID BRING IT TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY PARKS AND HISTORIC COMMISSION.
WE PRESENTED OUR PROJECT. WE RECEIVED FEEDBACK.
WE'RE STILL IN THAT CEQA PROCESS, SO WE'RE STILL ACCEPTING PUBLIC COMMENT AND FEEDBACK ON THAT.
[01:05:04]
SO STAFF'S TAKING ALL THAT IN, AND I BELIEVE TANYA, I DON'T KNOW IF, YOU KNOW, OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD, WE'RE COMING BACK. IS IT AUGUST? ANYWAYS, WE'RE COMING BACK TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WITH WITH SOME OF THOSE DESIGN PROPOSALS SOON.SO WE'RE TAKING IN THE PUBLIC INPUT THAT WAS PART OF THE PROCESS.
SO WE'RE VERY MUCH STILL IN IT. THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH FOR YOUR REPORT.
THANK YOU. ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE HAVE ABIGAIL SMET FROM OUR CONSULTANTS IN SACRAMENTO, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY CONSULTING.
BUT JUST VERY BRIEFLY, ON APRIL 4TH, THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR TOOK EARLY BUDGET ACTION TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE WILDFIRE FUNDING NEEDS THROUGH SOME OF THE STATE CONSERVANCIES.
BUT WITH THAT, ABIGAIL, I THINK IF YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL TO OFFER THE BOARD AND LET THEM KNOW HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS, PARTICULARLY WITH THE EARLY ACTION. APPRECIATE IT.
ABSOLUTELY. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
TO EXPAND ON WHAT ERIC JUST SHARED. YES. ON APRIL 4TH, THE LEGISLATURE PASSED A BUDGET BILL, JUNIOR, THAT AMENDED. IT'S ACTUALLY THE LAST TWO BUDGET YEARS.
SO FISCAL YEAR 23-24 AND 2425 THAT WAS THEN SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE GOVERNOR ON APRIL 14TH.
AND THERE ARE A COUPLE PIECES OF THIS BUDGET ACTION THAT ARE RELEVANT TO YOU ALL.
SO FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS THE THE THE FUNDING, WILDFIRE FUNDING THAT THE LEGISLATURE COMMITTED TO GETTING OUT THE DOOR AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE EARLY THIS YEAR AFTER THE WILDFIRES.
SO THIS IS THE FIRST ROUND OF PROP 4 BOND MONEY THAT WE ARE SEEING ALLOCATED OFFICIALLY THIS YEAR.
AND THEN, OF COURSE, WE DO EXPECT TO SEE ADDITIONAL PROP FOUR MONEY ROLLED OUT THROUGH THIS UPCOMING YEAR'S BUDGET BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 25-26 THAT WILL NEED TO BE PASSED BY JUNE 15TH. SO LOOKING AT THIS EARLY ACTION BUDGET BILL THERE, I'LL JUST GO OVER A HIGH LEVEL OF WHAT THAT INCLUDED.
SO THAT'S TO THE SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY, OBVIOUSLY, WITH THE LA WILDFIRE RECOVERY IN MIND, AS WELL AS SOME OF THE TAHOE AREA, THE SIERRA NEVADA'S.
YOU SHOULD KNOW THERE IS AN EFFORT TO GET AN ADDITIONAL 31 MILLION ALLOCATED TO THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY THROUGH THE UPCOMING BUDGET BILL THAT WE EXPECT TO SEE BY JUNE 15TH. SO THAT WOULD BE IF IT'S SUCCESSFUL, THAT WOULD ADD AN ADDITIONAL $31 MILLION TO THEIR AVAILABLE BOND FUNDING THIS YEAR.
AND THEN IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THAT IN THE REGIONAL CONSERVANCY FUNDING THERE WAS ALSO $10 MILLION INCLUDED IN THIS EARLY ACTION BUDGET BILL FOR CAL FIRE TO DO MORE OF THIS INFRASTRUCTURE AND FIRE RESILIENCE TRAINING STATEWIDE.
SO THAT COVERS THE FUNDING PIECE OF THIS EARLY ACTION BUDGET.
AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S ANOTHER PIECE THAT KIND OF CAME FROM THE GOVERNOR EARLIER THIS YEAR, BACK IN MARCH, WHERE IN RESPONSE TO THE WILDFIRES, HE DECLARED A STATE OF EMERGENCY STATEWIDE AS WELL AS PASSING AN EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT ALLOWED SOME ABRIDGING OF CEQA AND OTHER REGULATIONS, LIKE THE COASTAL ACT, FOR REBUILDING AND RECOVERING FROM WILDFIRES.
SO ALTHOUGH THOSE WERE IN RESPONSE TO THE LA SITUATION, THEY DO APPLY STATEWIDE.
AND SO THOSE CONTINUE TO REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR AS LONG AS THIS EMERGENCY DECLARATION REMAINS, AND THE FUNDS THAT WERE PASSED IN THIS EARLY BUDGET EARLY ACTION BUDGET BILL WILL OBVIOUSLY BE ABLE TO MOVE A LOT FASTER.
[01:10:03]
IF YOU WONDER ABOUT ANY OF THE SPECIFICS. ANYONE WITH SPECIFIC QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. HEARING NONE. THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH.YOU KNOW, I WELL, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY I'M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS.
THAT SOUNDS LIKE A THAT'S A SOFTBALL FOR US. WE CAN HIT THAT ONE OUT OF THE PARK.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, ARE US MENTIONING RESTORATION IS ONE OF THE ONLY FIRE AGENCIES OR ANY AGENCIES THAT REALLY TALKS ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN JUST CUTTING A FUEL BREAK, ELIMINATING THE FIRE HAZARD. BUT WE TALK ABOUT RESTORATION, AND I THINK WE'D BE REALLY IN FIRST PLACE ON THAT SECTION RIGHT THERE AND COULD BE REALLY DO REALLY WELL. ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HAVE ANY COMMENTS? NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ONLINE. OKAY. AND CHAIR WAESPI, THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS THAT THE PARK DISTRICT IS FORMALLY A PART OF THE EFFORT TO ADD THE ADDITIONAL 31 MILLION TO THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY BUDGET THIS YEAR.
AND WE HAVE COMMUNICATED THAT TO OUR FULL DELEGATION.
EXCELLENT. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND NOW WE MOVE TO ANNOUNCEMENTS.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? OKAY. IN THAT CASE, THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.
[Announcements]
WE ARE ADJOURNED.OKAY. WE HAVE OUR NEW ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER IF YOU WANT TO STEP UP.
SURE. WELL, GOOD. WELCOME. AN ANNOUNCEMENT. IS THAT ALLYSON? WELCOME, WELCOME, WELCOME. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOT IT.
THERE YOU GO. GOOD AFTERNOON. VERY EXCITED TO BE HERE.
AND IT'S GREAT TO BE HERE IN THE CONVERSATION.
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SO MANY MORE. SO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
OKAY. YEAH. I COME FROM THE. I'VE BEEN LEADING THE BAY AREA REGIONAL COLLABORATIVE FOR THE LAST ALMOST 12 YEARS, WHICH HELPS WAS CREATED THROUGH STATE STATUTE, ACTUALLY BY CONGRESSMAN MARK DESAULNIER IN 2003 TO HELP THE REGIONAL AGENCIES AND STATE AGENCIES COORDINATE ON ISSUES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.
SO THE NINE COUNTY BAY AREA, WE'VE BEEN FOCUSED A LOT ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND RESILIENCE, WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY AND THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS, THE WATER BOARD, THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, AND CALTRANS DISTRICT FOUR. SO I COME WITH THAT EXPERIENCE OF WORKING REALLY CLOSELY WITH THOSE AGENCIES WITH I HAD A GOVERNING BOARD THAT I MANAGED AS WELL. THE BART GOVERNING BOARD, WHICH THOSE AGENCIES APPOINTED ELECTED OFFICIALS TO SO.
BUT PRIOR TO THAT, I'M A LONGTIME OAKLAND RESIDENT, WORKED IN THE EAST BAY, WORKED AT THE EAST BAY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION FOR SIX YEARS, RUNNING SOMETHING CALLED THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE.
I WORKED A LOT WITH PARKS. I WORKED ON A SMALL NONPROFIT CALLED THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS COUNCIL IN SAN FRANCISCO FOR A YEAR, WORKING WITH PARKS ADVOCATES. AND SO REALLY JUST EXCITED ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY AND THE FUTURE, YOU KNOW, THE DISTRICT PLAN AND REALLY THINKING ABOUT THE FUTURE OF EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT .
AND I JUST FEEL LIKE IT'S A GIFT TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS.
SO I'M JUST REALLY EXCITED TO WORK WITH YOU. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WELCOME. AND THANK YOU FOR COMING TO OUR MEETING AND JOINING US. YEAH.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, WE ARE ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU ALL.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.