The Board ACCEPTED the report and conveyed the following positions and concerns:

Urban Limit Line: Proposed addition of a condition that a finding that “the minor adjustment is for a clearly defined public benefit”. There is currently no known specific definition of “clearly defined public benefit”, and this would be an additional finding that must be made in every case (to gain approval) in addition to making a finding from one of seven choices currently. The Board does not support this.

Growth Management Program/Checklist: Proposal to have or adopt policies in place regarding agricultural impacts, hillside development, ridgeline protection, wildlife corridor protection and prohibition of development in non-urban priority conservation conservation areas. The Supervisors expressed some concern about how this may interact with other measures and mandates already in place. Because as staff noted a Priority Conservation Area is a large, amorphous area with boundaries more conceptual than actually defined, “prohibition of development” is too broad a term and likely too restrictive over too large an area, and areas within incorporated cities, the Board is unable to support this proposal.

East County Corridor Project:   Newly proposed language that there be “no new realignments” would directly impact the proposed State Route 239/Tri Link project to facilitate movement of goods and services and future access to the expanded BART transit system. No proposal to prevent the project is acceptable to the Board.

Supervisors Mitchoff and Glover will convey the Board of Supervisors positions and concerns at the May 11 meeting of the Transportation Authority. This matter will return to the Board of Supervisors on July 12, 2016.