Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08131991 - H.5 } N.s BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Adopted this order on August 13 , 1991 by the following vote : AYES : Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Powers NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Report From Director of Community Development On Requested Changes in the Urban Limit Line In The County General Plan. This is the time scheduled for the Board of Supervisors to consider a report from the Director of Community Development on requested changes in the urban limit line in the County General Plan. Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Director, presented the report on the requested changes and commented on the written material presented to the Board. Mr. Bragdon advised of the staff conclusion that an Environmental Impact Report would have to be prepared for the Board to consider the inclusion of the requests as submitted, and he advised of the other staff recommendations including an additional recommendation that the lands around the East County Airport not be acted upon at this time because staff is preparing a land use plan for the Airport Land Use Commission that must be prepared by January 1, 1992 . Supervisor Schroder requested clarification on the need for the review of the urban limit line . Mr. Bragdon responded to Supervisor McPeak' s request, clarifying what type of request would require further environmental study. Mr. Bragdon requested deletion of item 17 before the Board for consideration today. Supervisors McPeak and Torlakson requested staff clarification relative to the operation of the Oakley General Plan. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, responded to their concerns . The following persons presented testimony: Scott Gordon, 1990 North California Boulevard, Walnut Creek, representing Joseph and Ivan Cerri, spoke on request #36, and presented a letter dated August 13 , 1991; Lillian J. Pride, representing the City of Pittsburg, spoke on the urban limit lines and request #13 , expressing continuing interest in the process; Clark Morrison, 101 Ygnacio, Ste 450, Walnut Creek, representing Mission Peak Development, spoke on request #19; Earl Clemmons, 1800 Lone Oak Road, Brentwood, spoke on urban limit lines and agricultural lands; Vince Maiorana, 23 Lost Valley Drive, Orinda, representing Lost Valley Association, presented a letter from Chris Genovali of the Sierra Club, and he commented on the request relative to the Gateway Valley being left out of the urban limit line . Z Ray Davis, 20 Zender Drive, Orinda, representing 1500 Best Friends of Orinda, requested that the Gateway Valley be outside the urban limit line; Clyde Vaughn, 59 Donna Maria Way, Orinda, representing Save Open Space-Gateway Valley, spoke on the Gateway Valley requesting it be open space; Randy Hatch, 1005 Oak Street, Planning Director, City of Clayton, commented on the City of Clayton' s Specific Plan Study, the requested #14 be outside the urban limit line, and urban densities; Marilyn Baldwin, 15000 Highway 4, Byron, representing Baird Investments, spoke on request #43 and concerns including access; Phyllis Roff, 2893 San Carlos, Walnut Creek, commented on maintaining the integrity of Measure C; Gayle Bishop, 18 Crow Canyon Road, San Ramon, commented on development in the Tassajara Valley and the Dougherty Valley; Supervisor Schroder commented that to ignore what is happening in the Tassajara Valley would be irresponsible on the part of the Board. Nolan Sharp, 4510 Camino Tassajara, Danville, President of the Tassajara Valley property Owners ' Association, requested a General Plan review of the Tassajara Valley be authorized; Miriam Chu, 4962 El Camino #208, Los Altos, spoke on request #12 ; Supervisor McPeak requested clarification on the Town of Danville ' s proposal for the urban limit line . Tino Bacchini, no address given, spoke on request #22 ; Charles Pringle, 8300 Jantzen Road, Modesto, spoke on request #44 ; Hal Boex, 15 Lily Court, Walnut Creek, representing Clayton Ranch Investors, spoke on request #14 ; Ronald Nunn, Rt . 1 Box 200, Brentwood, spoke on requests #26, #27, and #28 ; Tony Souza, 35 East 10th Street, Suite A, Tracy, spoke on request #47 and in support of the staff recommendation on the Byron Airport lands; Peter Knordler, 100 Park Place, San Ramon, spoke on request #15; The Chair read comments from the following: Gloria Thomas, 5755 Nortonville Road, Pittsburg, opposing Clayton Ranch approval . John Stremel, 2762 Hutchison Court, Walnut Creek, on request #6 and concurred with the staff recommendation to study via an environmental impact report . Sam Stewart, P.O. Box 19, Clayton, concurring with staff recommendation for an environmental impact report and on request #48 . Nick and June Gerannis, 2491 San Ramon Valley Boulevard, San Ramon, representing Golden Key Partners, on request #32 . Marie Thomas, Rt . 1, Box 77, Bixler Road, Byron, on request #41 . Dorothy Silva, 173 Dogwood, San Ramon, submitted comments on Tassajara Valley. The public testimony was closed. The Board discussed the matter. A representative of Pacific New Wave Corporation, owner of 120 acres in Gateway Valley, requested that the matter be continued. Dennis Barry advised that the item being considered by the Board was a report to the Board on the requested changes . Supervisor Powers suggested deferring the matter. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the receipt of the report of the Director of Community Development on requested changes to the urban limit line of the County General Plan is ACKNOWLEDGED; and September 10, 1991, at 2 P.M. is SET for direction to staff . I hereby certify that this is a fres and correct copy of an action taken and entered an the minutes of the Board of Sup isors on th dots ahOMlO. ATTESTED: PHIL.GATCI 'LOR,Clerk of the Board of 'upr;rvisor nd County inistrator a By - DeDUN TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS E; -- -= Contra FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON Costa DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT o', "` DATE: AUGUST 7, 1991 STa�- K County SUBJECT: REPORT ON REQUESTED CHANGES IN THE URBAN LIMIT LINE IN THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Determine if it is the Board's intent to choose one of the following alternatives, or some other course of action: 1. Direct Staff to prepare an EIR Supplement on the proposed changes, paid for by the applicants, and subsequently schedule appropriate public hearings on the EIR and General Plan Amendment. 2 . Decline to make changes to the Urban Limit Line at this time. 3 . Take no action at this time, and direct Staff to monitor such requests in light of General Plan Amendments authorized for study and report on January 28, 1992 . FISCAL IMPACT Costs of the EIR Supplement would be borne by those seeking such changes; ultimate fiscal impacts would depend upon extent of land uses eventually allowed within the changed urban limit lines. Options 2 and 3 would have no fiscal impact .beyond 'preparation of the report in item 3 . BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS With the adoption of the County General Plan on January 29, 1991, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to conduct a comprehensive review of the limit lines including requested changes to the lines, and to report within 150-200 days after the adoption of the plan. Staff has reviewed the lines and identified fifty (50) proposed changes. These are summarized on the attached listing, indicating acreages proposed to be brought inside and outside the CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: xx YES SIGNAT RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF OARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED cc: County Administrator nx> PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Clerk of the Board AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DMB/ p11:\bo\ULLBS.8-7 BY , DEPUTY Report on Requested Changes in the Urban Limit Line in the County General Plan Continued -- Page Two urban limit lines, per the individual requests received, and two staff proposed changes reflecting dedications of permanent open space. These proposals are further identified in the attached Figure 1 and Attachment A. Figure 1 indicates the countywide locations of the requests and Attachment A indicates the area and direction of the requests, as plotted on the 4, 000 scale Urban Limit Line Map. On Attachment A, the heavy black line is the existing urban limit line and the request area is shaded. The thinner black line is the proposed urban limit line. Copies of the landowners' requests for change are also included for the Board's information. In all, some 15, 638 acres are requested to be brought inside the line. Requests for placing lands outside the line amount to 6, 658 acres. Of these, 4,400 are contained in the Town of Danville request to exclude the lands proposed for general plan amendment study by the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association, and 1, 087 by the City of Clayton request to exclude the Boex property north of Marsh Creek Road. The remainder of requests for placing lands outside the line are compensating adjustments accompanied by requests for increases, as shown in the attached listing. Changes to the Urban Limit Line would constitute amendment(s) to the County General Plan. As such, the change would be a project, subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . After determining that such changes would not be exempt .from CEQA review, Staff has prepared an Initial Study in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. A copy of the Initial Study is also attached, along with an explanation of the checklist. Staff concludes that in order to consider changes to the urban limit line, the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the County General Plan must be supplemented to analyze the potential for significant environmental impacts not previously considered in that EIR. The interplay between the proposed adjustments to the line and the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan (Measure C 190) standard should be fully evaluated in the EIR prior to the Board amending the line. As indicated in the General Plan at page 3-18, approximately 24, 000 of 45, 000 acres designated for agricultural use inside the urban limit line could be converted to urban use under the 65/35 standard. If the 15, 000 acres of requested additions were all approved, there would be significant implications for the densities of urban use which could be approved in the urban limit line. Where approximately 50% of the lands inside the line will currently need to be reserved for open space uses, after such a change, about 62% of land would need to be so preserved. This would have repercussions on the densities of use which could be approved, spreading out the same number of development acres over an area one third larger than at present. In addition, changes in the urban limit line could significantly affect planning for major infrastructure and service delivery; the EIR Supplement should consider these effects to the extent possible. Since changes to the urban limit line require a four-fifths majority vote of the Board for approval, it would seem prudent to consider this in deciding to move ahead with a costly and complex EIR study which is likely to be useless if only supported by a simple majority of the Board. In the event that the Board does not wish to proceed with making changes at this time, there are generally two paths which could be followed. The first would simply terminate discussion of changes to the line by -declining to make any changes. The second would be to monitor the progress of general plan amendments currently --authorized -for study, and to revisit the question of changing the urban limit line when more is known on the outcomes of those studies. In terms of the 65/35 standard, it would be useful to know what portions of these proposals are actually designated for urban use in considering the effects of changes in the urban limit line. A one year reporting period from adoption of the County General Plan might be a useful target in this regard. v Report on Requested Changes in the Urban Limit Line in the County General Plan Continued -- Page Three It should be noted that requests number 45 through 48 are all proposed in the general vicinity of the East Contra Costa County Airport. The Environmental Impact Report should address the consistency of the proposed project with policies found on pages 5-38 and 5-39 of the County General Plan. It should be noted the Measure C-190 contains special provisions for changing the urban limit . line at section 4 (B) (7) (f) : an objective study has determined that a change to the urban limit line is necessary or desirable to further the economic viability of the East Contra Costa County Airport, and either (i) mitigate adverse aviation related environmental or community impacts attributable to Buchanan Field, or (ii) further the County's aviation related needs; . . . . Staff continues to support this avenue of general plan review in this area. plI AWULLBS.8-7 BRUEN & GORDON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION RECEIVED I 1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD SUITE 1020 ' WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596 (415)295-3131 FAX(415)295-3132 AUG 1 `1 1 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. August 13 , 1991 Chairman Thomas M. Powers and Members of the Board Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Re: Request for Adjustment of Urban Limit Line Joseph and Ivan Cerri Dear Chairman Powers and Members of the Board: The undersigned represents Mssrs. Joseph and Ivan Cerri in connection with their pending request before your Board to include the ± 650 acre Cerri parcel within the Urban Limit Line ("the ULL") . Inclusion of the Cerri parcel within the ULL will have a net environmental benefit to the County in that the Cerri's have proposed to include their property within the ULL in exchange for exisiting development rights and/or acreage already included within the ULL. The development rights and/or acreage will be obtained from the adjacent parcel known as the Veale Tract. Veale Tract lands, especially those in the easterly most portion of that parcel, have serious development constraints due to potential wetlands and other topographic considerations, which has prompted the proposal to in effect trade off development rights and/or acreage from this parcel in favor of the Cerri parcel. The Cerri parcel lies wholly above sea level, characterized by flat terrain and poor soils quality. The land has little if any agricultural value, but would provide a suitable development site in connection with the adjacent Veale Tract. We respectfully urge your Board to take the following actions relative to this request: o Direct staff to identify this request and any other adjustment request before the Board which may have an Chairman Thomas Powers and Members of the Board August 13 , 1991 Page 2 environmental benefit or result in no net loss of open space lands under the terms of Measure "C" ; o Direct staff to report back to the Board on the specific requests so identified; o Authorize the preparation of a supplemental EIR with respect to these requests, as a supplement to the General Plan EIR certified by your Board in January of 1991. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. In addition to this request, I have also lodged with your Board under separate cover a request for an adjustment to the ULL on behalf of the Cerris based upon a mistake which occurred in the drawing of the ULL on the easterly edge of the Cerri parcel. The ULL, which is depicted in your staff report map as running along the Cerri/Veale Tract property line, should have been placed significantly west of the property line, to include approximately 180 acres of the Cerri parcel. The Cerris were naturally very disturbed to learn that the ULL was not placed as originally understood, but rather was moved to the easterly border of the property. We look forward to resolving this matter with you as soon as possible. Very t y yours, Scott W. Gordon Counsel for Joseph and Ivan Cerri swg:cg cc: Joseph and Ivan Cerri BRUEN & GORDON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD SUITE 1020 WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596 (415)295-3131 FAX(415)295-3132 August 13, 1991 Chairman Thomas M. Powers and Members of the Board Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Re: Request for Correction of Mistake in Urban Limit Line Joseph and Ivan Cerri Parcel Dear Chairman Powers and Members of the Board: The undersigned represents Mssrs. Joseph and Ivan Cerri in connection with a mistake which has occurred in the placing of the Urban Limit Line ("the ULL") on the General Plan map delineating the ULL. The ULL, which is depicted in your staff report map as running along the Cerri/Veale Tract property line, should have been placed significantly west of the property line, to include approximately 180 acres of the Cerri parcel. It is our understanding that the original drawing of the ULL included this portion of the Cerri parcel, but that when the ULL was placed on the General Plan map, it was erroneously moved to the Cerri/Veale Tract property line. The acreage involved is significant, and we respectfully request that your Board authorize staff to rectify this error in transposition of the line forthwith, and publish a corrected map for the record. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very my yours, Sc tt W. Gordon Counsel for Joseph and Ivan Cerri Antioch , , Bre n o ' twod sty low.okey talks Officials hope to resolve longstanding turf battle By Jim Caroompas very cordial meeting. When we know more about and M.E. Sprengelmeyer what it is we're talking about,I'll feel more comfort- staff writers able talking about it." "It was a congenial meeting,"said Stone,who not- Officials from Brentwood and Antioch have quietly ed that both city managers were there along with started meeting to discuss .their ongoing squabble staff members from each planning department. over turf. "We asked the planning staff to come up with some Two members of both city councils met in private alternatives that seem reasonable from both perspec- Monday morning to negotiate open-space boundaries tives,then we'll sit down at the end of the month and between their growing cities. discuss those." The officials are getting around the open-meeting In July, the Brentwood council took its first steps requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act by not hav- toward enacting a new General Plan that would ex- ing a majority or quorom of each council attend. In pand the city's planning area to the west,where Anti- fact, a third Brentwood councilman, Bill Doheney, och has its own plans for development. showed up Monday and then left when he realized it But the border must be approved by the county j would have been a violation of the Brown Act. , Local Agency Formation Commission, a panel that Although participants would not comment on spedecides the ultimate fate of city borders. cific discussions, they said Monday's meeting was "We discussed the importance of going to LAFCO congenial and that follow-up meetings are scheduled in agreement on where our boundaries should be," for the end of the month. Stone said. Brentwood Vice Mayor Barbara Guise and Council- "Our objective is to draw consensus,"agreed Anti- man John Morrill were joined by Antioch Council- och City Manager David Rowlands. woman Cathryn Freitas and Councilman Frank Stone all of whom were reluctant to disclose specific Brentwood Councilman Morrill said the meetings discussions. are designed to be "fact-finding." "We're talking about where the southeastern "It's for mutual cooperation,"Morrill said. "We're boundary of Antioch will be,"said Freitas. "It was a looking at working on a win-win situation."' ` ❑ EMUNDARIES f approve a change. From page t requests is the 3,660-acre Bollinger pp County staff is requesting that Measure C,which set aside 65 per- Canyon area; which San Ramon 114 acres near the Unocal refinery cent of the county's 732 square supports. in Rodeo and 237 acres south of An` as ---- Wholesale changes in the urban ope jib tioch be placed outside the urban Property owners and five cities limit lines are very unlikely, coon- line are asking that the urban bound- ty officials said. Tanner Dennis ary lines be redrawn to include :. "I'm not inclined to make any Also,said county p 15,639 acres, much of it farmland changes, frankly, because it was , Barry the county should consider in East Coa prove by the v ers,"„Syggrvi- adjusting the urban boundary ^' of the requests seek to reG sor om Paw rs of Ric and said. around Oakley because it current=:, move 6 659 acres from within tm%, .-, Unless there was some kind of ly excludes some of the area desi.f* urban line so it bed `' `'mistake,I don't think there should nated for development in previa 5 -- — plans for the unincorporat aped. {' be any changes,” said Powers, county Danville's request t prevent ur -,,who campaigned for Measure C as ed community. banization in the 4,400-acre Tassa-" an alternative to a competing, Supervisor Sunne McPeak of lora Valley east of San Ramon is���.°more restrictive measure backed Concd said idshe would the line around the largest of the requested {_by environmentalists. _:. .` support changes. The valley is`inappropri- � The board adopted the voter-ap- Oakley and may consider a San ate for development because of the '�.proved urban limit lines in Janu- Ramon-supported request to move the steep terrain and lack of water lary as part of the General Plan, the fourth corner of the Crow Can yon Danville claims. :the county's blueprint for develop- yon and Bollinger Canyon roads in- Clayton is asking that the 1,087- "ment through the year 2005.In Jan- tersection inside the urban acre Boex property north of Marsh ivary, supervisors ordered staff to boundary. Creek Road and southeast of Clay- consider fine-tuning the urban "The rest of them I have no in ton be left as open space.The site, boundaries where appropriate. terest in changing," said McPeak, the only urban island on the coon- c- Final approval of urban line a longtime supporter of urban lim- ty's map,is slated for development changes re re fa - a- its. However, McPeak said she as the 115-house Clayton Ranch jority of the five-member Board of was not familiar with every one of subdivision. Supervisors. Community Develop- the 50 requests. Richmond,,Pittsburg, Brent- ment Director Harvey Bragdon Those requesting changes should wood,Concord and San Ramon are recommends supervisors make not expect much from the supervi- requesting or supporting additions sure they have the four votes be- sors McPeak added. t the areas designated for urban fore initiating the costly environ- "What urban limit line is set for development. The largest of those mental.studies needed in order to 20 yearS4, she said. 0 too W U2 01 •°� ; .. 0 0 O Woe .Ei,5 r- EO a CSS O � Qi N C �!��y ��!ppp��� J c. d w //gy�pp C3 �.c u'_;,ti y G co m$ .� N_ _v �, a c f` �i h�V pccf Q� v ay c.Q>�, D'o- C w_ 4 _ro F (�Jwl i_0 ca o..(D > � VJ� O V1•�,� C1 M O .� ,,. CCJ -a N � oc � N � r. t)D ^" 0 s�.-a � cam. A �O via - >-.0 � NC11-a�� a' q.0. a�a ? C aro a E ?a iU � �o � �'� aio � G,�0 1, � UN O a o v ENu O >},, cc m u O m vii vtw.a +-'"' at"- 0 W a>i.w a) y 'CC o -a o c C 'Cr��ryQo�[a"�', rb���rytttUry � Ei ayu�+ c�u� 3 N '>.ra = 3 � a U c Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street , Room 107 Martinez , CA 94553 Board of Supervisors , J The Mt . Diablo Regional Group of the Sierra Club urges you to transfer the 130 acre parcel in Gateway Valley from inside the General Plan ' s urban limit lines and into designated open space as proposed by Save Open Space Gateway Valley. The Sierra Club fully concurs with S .O.S . Gateway Valley that the 130 acre parcel meets three of the criteria required for designated open space . 1 ) the acreage in question is a major landslide area with expand/contract soil , causing very unstable geologic conditions . 2 ) 950 of the acreage has a slope factor of 30% , to 50% . 3 ) the acreage has served as open space all along. Gateway Valley is an important open space area , as it con- tains valuable watershed land and provides habitat for a variety of wildlife . No EIR is required or needed to transfer land into open space . The County Planning Commission has established this acreage as having priority for review. There is no compel.- ling reason to delay action on this issue . Once again , the Sierra Club urges you to approve the transfer of acreage as set forth in S .O.S . Gateway Valley' s proposal as soon as possible , - so as to save this valuable open space from development . Sincerely, sem. Chris Genovali Conservation Chair , Sierra Club-Mt . Diablo Regional Group Sp 13,91 r DUDLEY FROST ASSOCIATES 506 Altivo Avenue • La Selva Beach, California 95076 (408) 684-1361 3 RECEIVED AUG' - 51991 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA Co. August 2, 1991 Supervisor Tom Powers Chairman, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Re: Kaufman and Broad Boeger Ranch Subdivision 7597 West Pittsburg I represent Shriners Hospitals who own a 50 acre property south and adjacent to the proposed Boeger Ranch development in West Pittsburg. Shriners supports the project, but has certain concerns regarding consistency with the newly adopted January 1991 General Plan. These concerns are outlined in a detailed letter I addressed to Karl Wandry on August 2, 1991 . A copy is attached for your understanding ,and consideration prior to the scheduled review at board level on August 13, 1991 . My clients ' concerns relate to acquisition by K&B of 1 /Driftwood Drive extension through Shriners property and 2/development rights acquisition by K&B. Both of the matters are predevelopment conditions to ultimate subdivision as required by the General Plan. The accepted Evora Road EIR, the Evora GPA and your new General Plan envisioned that all property south to Evora from Boeger would be open space. Shriners supports the concept as mitigation to significant increased density and buffering to Evora. Recent Planning Commission approval only required road extension. Development right acquisition was not required although brought to the Commission's attention by staff. Kaufman and Broad Boeger Ranch 7/2/91 Page 2 Please be assured that Shriners Hospitals will continue "good faith negotiations" for the 50 acre sale to K&B. My client understands the support you offer the developer by way of condemnation and will work toward a fair settlement as early as possible. Approval of the K&B project as recommended by the Regional Commission would clearly be "inconsistent" with the General Plan and we urge you to correct the Commission' s oversight. Dudley Frost DF:gw cc: Karl L. Wandry, Director CCD Shriners Hospitals Supervisors Vanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson Vince Fletcher, K&B coo Py t DUDLEY FROST ASSOCIATES 506 Altivo AvellUe • La Selva Beach, California 95076 (408) 684-1361 August 2, 1991 Karl L. Wandry Director Community Development Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Re: KAUFMAN and BROAD County File #2943-RZ Development Plan - Subdivision 7597 150 acres, 299 lots in West Pittsburg BOEGER RANCH DEVELOPMENT On June 24, 1991 , the East County Regional Planning Commission approved with modifications staff recommended conditions covering Boeger Ranch. I represent Shriners Hospitals who own the 50 acre parcel south of the project adjacent to Evora Road. I have several concerns in connection with the approval and pending recommendation for approval by the board of supervisors. GENERAL PLAN My principle concern is that commission approval is clearly "inconsistent" with the General Plan. I followed the Evora Road GPA closely and, as you know, most portions of the Evora GPA were reaffirmed in the January 1991 county wide plan. Specifically, I refer to that portion of the General Plan (Sec 3-94) that requires the developer of Boeger Ranch to 1 / construct Driftwood Drive Extension and 2/ acquire development rights from Shriners ' 50 acre parcel and dedicate the rights to the county. EVORA ROAD GPA EIR The report was certified by the county and accepted as the basis to process the GPA. As it relates to my concern two mitigation measures were suggested. These were 1 /extend Driftwood Drive through to Evora in order to improve local area connector street traffic circulation and 2/ to acquire the 50 acre Shriners ' property to add additional open space buffer areas. 1 w, v Kuafman and Broad County File #2943-RZ 7/2/91 Page 2 COMMISSION REVIEW During the hearing your staff advised the commission of the requirements of the General Plan. The written staff report did not list the road extension specifically or the development rights purchase as part of the "significant" impacts and mitigations to be taken care of by conditions of approval, but it was implicit in the text of the report. Testimony was received from K&B that they had no control over Shriners ' property and a requirement to purchase the 50 acres was not appropriate. As has been pointed out, the county adopted certain - specific impact items to be mitigated if the development is to proceed. Only one of the two principle items listed in the new General Plan (Sec 3-94) are attended to with commissions present recommendations to the board. The second item, dealing with development rights acquisition from Shriners, was removed from consideration by commissions action. DISCUSSION/NEGOTIATION From the initial application by Kaufman and Broad in early 1989, Shriners Hospitals has been supportive of the developers efforts. Over time negotiations have proceeded in good faith by both parties for K&B acquisition of the entire 50 acre parcel. At this point, agreement has not been reached. Shriners fully understands usual county support of the developer for possession and acquisition by condemnation proceedings, if necessary. The road extension right of way acquisition is covered within subdivision approval conditions. This support works well to lead both parties to an equitable fair market value settlement. Since development rights acquisition over. the entire 50 acres of Shriners ' property is a principle "contingent" item for development within the 1991 General Plan, I would have expected the commission to retain the requirement and treat its acquisition in the same fashion as Driftwood Drive extension. Both Driftwood and additional open space were key items of consideration at the several EIR and GPA hearings before West Pittsburg MAC, the commission and the supervisors. Project review from the start clearly envisioned the entire bowl leading down to intensive housing development to be open space. 1 Kaufman and Broad County File #2943-RZ 7/2/91 Page 3 Prior to Shriners cooperation in the EIR and GPA process, it was the owners intention to initiate development of the subject 50 acres using several of the avenues available under existing A2 zoning. The best use for the community, however, is as set out in the EIR, the GPA and finally as adopted in the 1991 General Plan by the board. . . .open space. It is my intention to bring this matter to the board' s attention at the scheduled August 13 hearing. I will also suggest that in absence of board support for my concerns that "third party" grading plan review and inspection be added to the .conditions list. Future use of the remaining 50 acres could be severely impacted with inappropriate grading and development standards. My clients engineer should also be allowed a limited time to respond to the third party engineer as part of any approval condition. This would include the users of two gas transmission lines , Chevron and Shell Oil Companies. SUMMARY The fact that subject project has a favorable 65/35 open space ratio to development was presented as a reason not to acquire Shriners ' property. This project open space ratio was a given fact from the initial plan, but review by the community added additional open space acquisition as a "condition" of development. This is a specific pre-development condition to deal with otherwise the proposal is clearly "inconsistent" with the existing General Plan and cannot be built without reconsideration of the plan. On behalf of Shriners .Hospitals, ,I will continue working in good faith to provide significant additional open space to the Boeger Ranch development without implementing the costly condemnation protest. I look forward to further clarification of these matters in your transmission of the project to the board for review. Dudley Frost DF:gw DATE: REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. j NAME: 0o i4r4 V PHONE: ADDRESS: 3 D CITY: •7 h y a I am speaking formysel_f OR organization: Check one: (NAME OF ORGANIZATION) I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject.of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. ���� V a ' SPEAKERS 1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speakers' microphone before your item is to be considered. 2. You will be called to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone. 3. Begin by stating your name and address; whether you are speaking for yourself or as a representative of an organization. 4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation, if available. 5. Please 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.) DATE: REQUEST 'TO SPEAK FORM THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) ,Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME: _ PHONE: ������?� ADDRESS: CITY: Ovp"5,J e I am speaking formyself _ OR organization: Check one: (NAME OF ORGANIZATION). I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of t� I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. DATE: L REQUEST TO SPEAK '' ORM THREE (3) MINUTE. LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME: �C �U� �,e /v PHONE: �37 �3 ADDRESS: G� �6� l� GU'w 7.7��j CITY: � 1 I am speaking for myself 1✓ OR or anization: Check one. h Pl-,--� CTWx�� (NAME OF O GANI7.ATION). I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of ✓ I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. ,� ,� C771� ' DATE: REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME: SM U � PHONEV�iQZ- /J ADDRESS: CITY: I am speaking formyself OR organization: Check one: NAME OF ORGANI7.ATION) I wish to speak on Agenda Item # �. My comments will be: general fo against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. / C o N G UIL W i7 h S.7'a r=/= e c a s,ems- R-1 o �`o �'�'Jo� /r V,cG DATE: REgUEST TO SPEAK . FORM THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME: A-1 S' . zw PHONE: ADDRESS: �f CITY: C lY" CA-(, I am speaking formyself OR organization: �r�a ! A, Check one: (NAME OF.ORGANIZATION) I wish to speak on Agenda Item # J My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. ca a) c v 9Z. k1ji.T� ��',�I�� G o i'9,�-� ?�✓c%an1 J�� S �� VIA- ,a 4:,(1Z 1-404 i/:-ICA -Pb -1-�c L)n,6 A-1✓ L)ri�T �.NeJ. MIX- L�T-� �ro�G S G,✓� GCo s'?'�o6t,G �S , $°f'�'�Dy ,�a� DATE: 3 REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME: PHONE: ADDRESS: �5 7sS 46t T.t tf CITY: �- I am speaking formyself OR organization: Check one: (NAME OF ORGANIZATION) I wish to speak on Agenda Item # I�.S My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of t/ I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. O Gti ...... ....... .. .............. . ............ .......... z U U f•7 � s�• o ,A.,f,.; , ;� v : vr z m ��Y W 1• < t. Jh 1 r: F h 3 1 1 . •1. • l e� r 1, 1 ,y ;. N O u', ",)•• `!7 io v N N / '•fi l'.S ! ;4::4:::•:4:::4iiiii:•i;<•}i:C•i.....•..... •t 0 1: CC Po Y O v' O W LL 1 w U a a (� U v� - z 0 _ z z H a V U o- a r v '. w' t, L7 h — V m '. z zo- 0-4 x -- A w w J a J i - . z o a •N W � - U K W - aJ W= O f d I Y O a LL I W e ! z a N a r W O O N g lY s 4 U O is V1 W � J jS > w u cr J a o w f o �Z Zo v .1 91. O D U a {y a O ZJ-i-::Z' O k1 P{ �•.�--••�����Nm O , at to a m N Z J o a Q Q ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED CHANGES i Mi4E �0i pppp l0 00 FEET rru " ?,000 9.000 t. 1 rIL4yE T(R ^�� • r..w..r ti 1 V Mr.•a.a• era•.�' :t r•• e north ~•.` := 1"=40001 saN! r.aaal. ''f `• .. . L J 1 S ,ta 1 aae.as+aw naw ' . J". ' ,. \ 'J ::lair• �t ta+• '`�.� --- � _...__.tttmt!>r:__._._._._.cnr._._._._._._�a�wic-�. '•n� v .T_•fit• t p <�e. �+:t •r +1,' ! ' + —q„ ,. ("^'�. ' F� yIM�M,•:''•,xy, *.. •�; rr y (... e� SYr"" ly -1r±y R' . M {});f;0,:;,,�[+.. +;. :h�r,.Z•,'`^j•. _ 1• M" "4i !lp I IA- -y �+' _ '► +' ,", �. j � _ ; y�,! �.i tet: y'. r J :1_ljye,, . �,},,' �.., i - - - '• - ,mak- - OIL •r•-rr - - � t 1 `t: /'•••'!tea• '�'-1 �:� north ,�,' *.;. .,,f•.`,� ��7 / ':. l' `;'�. I"=4000 , j'` •1'}- \ .. e + �. '•'' i t. . j ry t`fir'`' F lot A Oil IN �fy� tii / .•". r ,. K KIS ,tr►---' �.. .+. '3,kj,� •e',.��,�!�•• ,�',►` }` r .N•K4"' r, �tri +i7',�y .,e.r , .\ J �.. Z � w ' `M1 •f 4�M f t .. ' t \ l 11, ToJ t(j!'• �' - ,\ ~K .:ii. j •.x. l • Y '` Aj• �.,r»rt ', �` S `!A•�v,� .:\`_) �' •`1 \ .....K Syr _ -, J # NAME & COMPANY IN TOUT COMMENTS 1 Jim Farah 1, 244 Also included 2 & 4 . City of Richmond Tabulation includes only land area. 3 Staff Proposal 114 Unocal Open Space dedication. 5 Peter S. Wilson & Vince 120 Zuckerman Property Maiorana 6 John C. Stremel 78 Encompasses EBMUD Parcel. Stremel Enterprises 7 David Golick 526 (Also included 8-10) City of Concord Separate requests. 11 Ronald 0. Gatti 3, 660 Bollinger Canyon 12 Miriam Chu 63 She wants Crow Canyon/Bollinger Canyon Road included in the ULL. 13 S. Anthony Donato 1, 611 City of Pittsburg 14 Randell Hatch 1, 087 Delete Boex Property City of Clayton 15 Robert D. Johnson 292 Diablo Ventures 16 Kevin J. Galley 4, 400 Remove TVPA lands from the Town of Danville ULL. 17 Staff Proposal 237 Project Open Space-Antioch City. 18 Bradford Liebman 436 Adjoining Boex Property with Bradford Financial their property. 19 Mission Peak Dev. Co. 422.5 422.5 Roddy Ranch Balanced addition/subtraction. 20 Howard Hobbs - OMAC Request all of Oakley Planning Area included in the ULL. (SEE #22/#23) 22 Tino Bacchini 80 Includes 40 acre Mangini Property 23 PETITION PEOPLE SEE #22 24 Ron Rowland 613 (Included #25) City of Brentwood West of Sellers Ave. 26 Ronald Nunn 270 35 (Included 27-28) Requests 30 ac of 270 not AG Core. 29 1 Leonard Gerry 52 AG Core # NAME & COMPANY IN I OUT COMMENTS 30 Nathaniel H. Taylor 153 153 Balancing S.H. Cowell Foundation addition/subtraction. 31 Victor & Joseph Castello 97 AG Core 32 Glynn Moore, APP 700 Total Island acreage = Golden Key Partners 3472 . 92 ac 33 Thomas E. & Kathy 30 Baldocchi 34 Michael J. Affinito 205 Zinigan Land Co. , Inc. 35 John B. Mass 182 Include Veale Tract Farms Veale Tract Farms Total acreage = 2 , 363 36 Scott W. Gordon 645 Bruen & Gordon 37 Jack Bloomfield 603 38 Thomas W. Moir 50 Orwood Resort 39 Thomas S. Prebil 171 Schooss, Phillippi Assoc 40 Wayne Farnholtz 25 41 Vern and Vera Thomas 65 2 Thomas' listed in #41 Eugene, J. & Marle Thomas 42 Frank Maggiore 14 AG Core 43 William & Marilyn 82 See letter from Koplowitz Baldwin et.al. 44 Charles Pringle Ranchettes Unlimited 45 Richard. J. Taylor 202 Byron Airport Area. 46 Craig Lehmkuhl 120 Byron Hot Springs Ray Lehmkuhl Byron Airport Area 47 James A. Gwerder 1, 110 210 Byron Airport Area. Souza Realty 48 Samuel J. Stewart 320 Byron Airport Area. 49 Elizabeth & Richard 1, 176 Orwood Tract. Rogers Pacific Earth Resources 50 Richard D. Baker, Pres. 221 In City of Walnut Creek. Pulte Home Corp. TOTALS 15, 638.5 6, 658.5 1db1/cm/ULL.Tb1 1 _ r.� � rr, 1•w Tax ,e tG so•.•rr�. !r. .. J J� t,t{�` .c:Y'c••.- Y�,,..� IN - _' - 1 �r.1•.'_- '_-_--- taWL• d ios o 1..L I-oio••oo ��. }_*o _. :,�,I• - _�.f I.r1 IN / I • �.t .w' 1. - •�` •••-t wa• rwr jy�"\ �.�� •. GiAM1 � .••... � jd _ - . .. .1 ! rrr a '• _ �.rwa air. , ; `O 'I L 1 �,��a• r r ��' ` - - [ L `` --'---e ,ter.... .wl f 19 23 north - .' I"=4000 ' •','C `6 4 ''� \ . •a i �:: .. .�/.-�p--a,. �.. tr r�a.M ��♦ D \ - .ar % � � - :♦fes � /( _ _ .l. �+ c D �o_•ovr■ � � .•fie` _ ` to 1..1. .. .! Jam' ►••c ^T: ,:✓ '` r►.t �O N L' i moi`, �•�.� .•• �r :i , 34 35 v 36 32 Is 3w w I /A ld pr �• /'r«r ar ' .wr�l» } / y 414 y 'ice- i . WN w..,� ....� - .ukj .,•�//1I . —r?' . Y 20. not r.L� .;� , ♦ .M tet[ •M .�"�'---- f••�_R••.••,f' .� �[ •j � w" -�'« i 21 — �, --- —_-.�•-,. - t ,—fir---�- 23 OIL &VLO !/ AN \ /r AT A U b. north i \ : 1.1=4000 ' >; 27 I '- < 1 1 \ C am lux j f 1011 .A v / i • a' � Iw TTT •.M ttaMA �.\� ` F .,,Np„Me�IIK 1. 1 ! . I / 11 =�� 33 r•er.r 1 ,' ,e•eew:tau - w•e R if «t•. K • 1*.K - � � � T � >t N K M eriU �� N r "1. •an \i111... ar Mt* i "`-',. < �` F } r r }}�i »eel at � / • » �\`�'-yJ "'� II � '2S .Me•r. _ •Nr •• �•}'v;+;:;+}:;': ire M •�!.• 'r �: � :};r{•}'' :\}ti:••'r} :�}}•{r'h'•rrr ��?Y`'::;}:;::•::•}:j;.•• ::}}}•'v,f:.. „K� % ••k\�:'::•' •:�:{•::,�`:,,�•'.:}: ;:;}�".:;: .gyp};i,'cx �„yi•�IIT,i�,.':?I�'}Y.+.} :;J:::$,riv _ I .\ •;�'" :,r'•••T••,: }{ :r.�...} }.?f,;i:;�;:•'}vr'fi17L,f:;lf,:'•,'{,' ;;r,.}. •r, tr rr i'� i� •'S'4:•. >X•} Y}h''•vl: :}:;{:?:S%•' r{'[i:'r';, }:{::}}: }:•}:'3�4 :% :35 v. .«.•.r r Y� rri�m�t;}•?:L??.;., ': �. .y;W;:};.^,;ii:;:?�Fi.=:•rr{'Mv,;•,;r}'r: Q wewrr $iiiri;},%:•iii:• �•,,_ 1 •':•tic�iF:�t-•rr ,,�\ :.w.p.}Y, V• y _ :•:�..r:i: Y•,Y,{•:•:•:•�'K!�:X'f: r::.• ::y,,,;r.....r.,:.� :•:•K• .�ii'':^' .'•:•>�•�:•• ..�\•5..:...}}JKI:v}�:ii:{viii$:•}Y%}:r::} \ �}� �l :{:}:•:•;'{., iii?'.+;.. r r K _ _ _ M \ .. �t f 1y .i.. — ! �v'.'•.'•'•i' NX, f:l^'t~:itr:�: .;:.;;....{...;1�•i :t;K�.K �tac t' �. -. north �'.� ���:%•:.. 17 i I I tlJ 'k :Z{• ;t' s >k, ~�♦ i Warr w\ CP to t c 10 19 �•, rr — 7 tt V j .e er+•• .. . r • 1 - ..► � .mow , .04 IN 26a•1•Y ..7 .•r/ •.�y1 / Mn1 n r • •mow. XXI Iwo Ifs tw r' w � t• : . 1 z ::. t.'''', _ i :, r Mrrr•• :1 �. . '' north �. _..__.. ww��_�7 t t- 16 � •1 _ �s • 1 I .__ - .Y.• \ %:•:•Y••::'.m }:•:�•:::•::•:.''':•. »ICY :::....... «R�•- :>*........ -4- ... r w t '1 T i lit 7'r t w � i : 1 � •- .n 1 ~ #} :A � �� I _•`l..r � -� .r. -�- .. .�`�" �F ;.msµ:' Cl/ k . 24 21 2sl j 7. 32 r 1 r 1. �/ ��` ,x I � � � r � ....... • �• t•'••`,�l•• �/i' {� .....1... 4� r••• ,.. I :Rb:lR•: •�: } Y r +. l Y {.:jar{:;:{>�:: •:F:}`:�. •fit.:. I I 7NI 17c- v.k S f . �K I i I .. •<r r - • n K 1 yJ:: .• •r• 7 �H i I _t f Y .:::fit. .�.,'•. I S - •>ii 1 ' �"�- - •ia;....:..............:i}vrr •'::::v:}} •::tif•XtM :{�5;: w \ I 7.0 l t l� 'w.'. I �•/ !I � •.ti w .�•:.. ::fix.,:;4•,F•*:��' •.. rr � � "'ll ' ? sd � }f•:north --! <�< ' � ��:''�<�``:•:; ': ' I"=4000 '-' •�`' _ KQ 5 l;A M n / /` ,<l;t;y c,.;S'a F •'. ( ;,%.. � �. //♦ _J : ted.>: �. rl 1 J }•fu:}:f. .: •Y ... \, 1 �l � }ii•:;•.`•}:•}}}:•:..'�'r:%Y}:;�`�::::jti lr�:�:�i'ri• �: r!D r j�.� � � I p ---moi", 1 ':::}:•}r:•:;:• .. .. .;.;....,•riC;:;}• r•.,j. �,/�,{•�f?!.1 P rr•••. a I „.. / . .'.......:tib;. •.P'. +� I : iR j ,A M 0 r.r w•rr / .•r J �. s yyyyyy������!!S!!Ss at r 4 / � � u•I••it w 30 .Y.i'••�• r•nr.n'� * Ir•� � ' 1-/ � Yrw✓.I•r l•yr.r". t y{ • y 00 O. ^✓ y �.1 .y 6 .•r M•• Nrr•t Yp.•M• rR"^•�/ '�!' .••r•tt 'I ! ��--� ;� / } N � w..M•r.r � rvw�'t ti•' 7 R E E .. ..•�♦ of I y north _ w I"=4000' :{{•:.:til.;.}:•�.•�• 4Ii••• w N o y •.N M K QP ............ .. _... .. _ .. ':•., ••?.i{:'?moi{:i r$•:yr•:};Y:•.:.. ;.Vis:•:::; : r rw•. ••.�'•�:;��:';rte,•• �:�• ''''�'�'i'•Si';'i..;;:1:, _ wit... ti;,},�.��' � ...;,,: �{iftil }::•5Y''•`•}'-�'r moi•.� � � � w K j -:::•.?� :,7p:\i:v;.;:�.;� f 14 Y•N••N .� •#'moi' •�-r r•{♦:.• 5:':': �• '\.^•e...� w "•�� K „__.. _._.._.+. i711r11:�:{::;� f''': •��{}"fir: � / �_�� ..�-. � .�tt . _ 30 -----' ---ts-- . � 1 ♦ i j�. s y ..•..r ^w 1 S yt s•.►`. 7 • t br EA__ii L•__.�., wr i t ••�" Y_. f a w �y�1 .• _ _ :: n ..s.f «•� --- ; { Y • rir liwrr.. n•�w AL 1•r w 1 , 22�::. K 34 r• [ , .•» w.,.�� .F.-..--_._ c..w»r,�rw s 1 r.r.r r r.. f i . - _ - 20 I• :: _• .s •.•w `.. ri w.ry.` yly23 Y �� r. 17 t �'7 $••• •:•:' _ - iL 71 24 t 1 1%x'4 I� •• ` L"w•� h �Y•.»r .__— ... 11111.i L_ a•�.. .. • L'r �• IL 21 northIr 111_400 ' wr �� _ . as !d•-,zl�_ �;< - W • �•w� ', :V:{{:''• •�• « 4..r.•h-. «I -_ . -I.r.w>r «..r %• O�. It .. r•t.a r � � It w s / - ri r �1. 2U •. f �.rr •..L,r .: i 29 `• •r ° 30 r y• r`r .. 4 .. ILLSI . 30 •ti•». s •dry— .. .« `� Y 0 It A 0 Las ,it north -4 32 CE p 9 A 9 JZ) 124 .......... ah� rr 31D 25 as }!!�'' ( � E � - •- '-....•1,.-� '"�..T--•. "ate(Y��.'_.::?-. Iii f._ ,� •;.:� .i 1 �__. ITO Maw `� �• t I I I ( • _.,( _ T, �ry '•� �~ •�/~ �.4•__+ �+ • waw r -'Z�•rt--- north I { -�. { yi.. ., 1"=4000 ' { i -� _ _ ' _ __ I -i I r i T '�ti'i'i'ii :iii.'';;: �:�:+::#':•:� ,• _— ..! — l-- 1 .i. s �` 35 C :i•{x;::�:i:`%i: .> 33t :, I 1 f I ' I , ; I (. >•� `'. '-(- -S•,. ` t 1:'— 35 i::t'•''::'f{<. ''' 1 L L T W C t f , - ,,{.::•:•? ,;a.:ff;::?n. _ _ r;�� I �j�.' tri, ' "�• $.';ti ,:;:;'}r'•ii;i•';i' h:l}:�}+fig: I l - � �• ..+.� °�' tea`• :;i'i'f. •.<•}�' � l._ � P L•Y TI T;i ♦ C 71 r + ' y., :ti�w'r'.•,'.:-�:ti;isj;��'�;Y�};:;�;:}i::''{'i:::{? w«__�_ •r' r.�w. ;fr,:::f!:•'r':: %fihti I:i{{�:.•.'� '''`"ri+:iii �( f- .r !. ._ -- -- - /'!t _ `1 r.•.}:::, .: �� .moi: �ifs}}:'�`?:��:�i}`::.;:',`�.��y�`��,?�•�'.�'' jt _ r — — — t� arr .:::. . h:�f'•{i�rivy 'ir,T 1 � ._ + _. _ _ _J itI a•-.. .l r t ! � '��'•: ,,:i;:: 'Vii:`',�;:``:;':• .i. I I _ _ �.. _v. t', %: .r, Mrltiv{'f�71 :?Y.''t.+li1.{•}:�:iehfr{}y:�f'^"i'•{••y?•• t � I .. _. _ZZ—__a .3` r I .;f•f 38 ; :3fSt 14 '.'. }�iicii;:i:i:';i:::::< ::ilii,K•►�:::>::::�{:;>$r_>;:i":•:;:i r j-s 1 $ii , •I• a•;• 39 p.�tt�{ - ••. ::'•; �r.r Y<►moo.�ai 4r{_ da jr • __y ._. _a..4-_ 21;1 = r (•_, � i (l-� 1't�i J_�,... .._. � ..+•-'"."ter'". �_' . fti UO !kyr• {{ p '- I ` ... } � �, I'� } , � ,rte}* - '•-__ - 1 � . t — +r a a-.. �I ;1 � � iiir Y.._. �+• �... .. t � � .•..a: I'j f FFF"' I l (. 1 f Y R •wr1 , j 4012 a Y 1 r r. 1.1M qq``' Mimi •`•��, �� I I � 42 I I •� �" � ssa lr ,•.n I i r•.� � � —r•r IIIj � _ s..fir.was++► _ north - t00 " w•ar r - i ••� • l.. .wawa � f rr I i .�,,,,,,,• '�,, ! x""11 _ _I{7 �.r.N •. f � I j I 't5.. n. .. •j _ 24 .4 Wall 17 •::� r M N • • ]11 • r 2} v. t ••N r• ` •4 � ,•d,,� 1"a f• /••r '=,'��wMp,Y 'f/f'4 � •�`1[" iwe. � .. •N r /�•„tiis� .`s CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM i. Background 1. Name of Proponent: 50 individual requests 2. Date Checklist Submitted: July 25, 1991 3. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Urban Limit Line Change Requests (GPA #11-91-CO) II. Environmental Impacts Quad Sheet Parcel # various (see attachments) Site Zoning (Explanations of all significant, (S), answers are required on attached sheets.) *S *1 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? x b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? x C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? x d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? x e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? x f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? x g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? x * Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for Insignificant *S *I' 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? x 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration of or the.destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? x b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? x C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? x d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? x 21 . Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? x b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) x C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact Environmental Checklist - Page 6 of 7 *S *I on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) x d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation See "Attachment to Environmental Checklist form for Urban Limit Line Review" IV. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and a SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL x IMPACT REPORT is required. July 25, 1991 Dennis M. Barr Date Signature viewed 4y. DMB:gms p11:eir•chk.ULL Environmental Checklist - Page 7 of 7 Attachment to Environmental Checklist form for Urban Limit Line Review Project Description: ' This is a comprehensive review of the Urban Limit Line established in the Contra Costa County General Plan, as specified in Measure C, which was adopted by the voters in November, 1990. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, in its adoption of the County General Plan on January 29, 1991, directed staff to review the Urban Limit Line within 150-200 days following adoption of the plan, and to report its findings and recommendations to the Board. Changes to the Urban Limit Line are amendments to the County General Plan. Including proposed changes which were not included in the original adoption of the plan, 48 proposed changes have been included in the staff review of the urban limit line. The analysis of changes in this initial study is based upon a program level of detail , since inclusion of land within the line does not guarantee that subsequent land use element changes will be made leading to ultimate development of the land within the urban limit line. All categories of inquiry marked S (for significant) in the initial study indicate that the change in the urban limit line could eventually result in a potential for a significant effect upon the environment in that category. For the purpose of environmental review, all 48 changes are analyzed together, although this should not be construed to mean that the changes taken individually would not have a significant effect, at the same program level of analysis. Explanation of Checklist responses: 1. Earth Since changes in the Urban Limit Line could lead to changes to the Land Use Element, there is a potential for significant landform modification. The remaining categories are marked I (for insignificant) because policies in the general plan would govern project review and mitigation of potential impact in these categories. 2. Air To the extent that additional development results at distances from existing urban uses, air impacts will be worse than unded the existing general plan. However, changes in odors or climate are not anticipated to result from such potential added urbanization. 3. Water Added urbanization would result in increased impervious surfaces, which in turn could increase surface flows, and pollutant loadings in surface water bodies. The remaining categories would be mitigated by application of existing geneal plan policies to the review of specific development projects. 4. Plant life De 0 opment stemming from changes to the Urban Limit line would displace plant species, and replace them with introduced species. To the extent that urbanization replaces grazing or other agricultural uses, a corresponding reduction in the acreage of agricultural crops would ultimately result from adoption of changes to the Urban Limit Line. 5. Animal Life Changes to the Urban Limit Line could result in project proposals which have the potential to effect the four categories of potential impact listed. It is speculative as to whether and how such proposals would specifically create these effects at this time since specific project proposals would necessarily be made as proposed General Plan Amendments once the urban limit line has been amended, thereby allowing the Board of Supervisors to authorize such amendement proposals for study. 6. Noise Levels Introduction of urban uses into areas now in rural/agricultural use would signify substantial changes in ambient noise; existing noise element policies would protect existing and future resident from severe noise level . 7. Light and glare Review of proposals for general plan amendments stemming from changes in the urban limit line would address light and glare; added urbanization in currently undeveloped area would add light from streetlights at night and automobile headlights, but this is not considered a significant effect. 8. Land Use The changes proposed could lead to general plan amendments which could substantially alter the distribution of population and employment in the county, especially in the eastern part of the county where the preponderence of changes are proposed. In addition, since the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan ultimately constrains development to the year 2010, the distribution of density could be substantially changed in area currently within the urban limit line. 9.Natural Resources To the extent that changes in the Urban Limit Line lead. to changes in the land use element, a substantial committment of natural resources would be implied for preparation, development and operation of the uses in the future, in addition to substantial energy use for transportation functions, due to the outlying nature of the preponderance of sites requested for change. It is not possible to predict at this stage what the magnitude of resources so committed would ultimately result. 10. Risk of Upset Adherence to the Safety Element policies with respect to hazardous land uses would avoid significant impact in this category. 11. Population If approved, the proposed changes could lead to a profound change in the distribution and density of population in the County, and the rate of growth through the year 2005, the horizon for the existing general plan. 12. Housing The proposed changes could result in significantly increased demand for housing, due to the potential for a significant increase in the amount of land allocated for this use. 13. Transportation/Circulation Significant impacts could result from each impact category except waterborne, rail or air traffic and traffic Hazards. These categories are not seen as significant because adherence to existing general plan policies would avoid the potential for these effects. The proposed changes would have a significant impact on the demand for travel in the east county area in particular, as it is unlikely that employment generating land uses could keep pace with the potential for housing development, thus increasing anticipated impacts on the existing circulation system. It is not possible to predict with accuracy what the level of such impacts would be in the absence of proposed land use changes within the changed urban limit lines. 14. Publi.c Services / The proposed changes could lead to significant increases in demand for all of the services and facilities listed in the initial study checklist, and in other state mandated County services and facilities. Adherence to the growth management standards in the current general plan would ameliorate some, but not all of these increased demands. 15. Energy See item #9. 16. Utilities The project could result in the need for new systems, or substantial alterations in existing systems to provide water, sewer, natural gas, electric, telephone and cable television systems. 17. Human Health Adherence to existing general plan policies should avoid impacts on human health. 18. Aesthetics The proposed project could lead to substantial changes in land use. Such changes could potentially impair views of scenic value, especially in the viewsheds of scenic routes. It is not possible to predict with certainty a t where such changes would occur in the absence of changes to the land use element. 19. Recreation None of the proposed changes would directly impact existing recreational uses in the County. 20. Cultural Resources In the absence of proposed land use changes, it is not possible to assess potential impacts upon cultural resources, although many of the areas proposed for changes in the urban limit line are characterized as being moderately to extremely archeologically sensitive. i� LEONARD GERRY 5450 BALFOUR RD. BRENTWOOD= CA: 94513 i- z Date: May 30, 1991 _ fr From: Leonard Gerry To: Director, Community Development Dept::-.1-." Subject: Urban Limit Line Alignment Dear Sir, I wish to bring to your attention the status of my parcel #007- 130-005-7. During the process of mapping the location of the Urban Limit Line my parcel was shown to be outside the Ag Core designation as the ULL was contiguous with Marsh Creek Road. A meeting with Dennis Barry on June 21st 1990, however and a look at the larger scale map revealed that this parcel was on the other side of the proposed ULL and thus within the designated Ag Core. I pointed out to Mr. Barry at this time my dismay at this apparent change, and questioned the impact this designation would make on my property's value in regard to a possible aquisition by the County for a proposed Flood Control detention basin. The appearance of a linkage of a specific use and the future purchase of the affected property for public use certainly implies a less than objective, rationale for this decision. In reviewing the latest map of the ULL, I noted a change to the Western boundary in the area between Concord Rd. and Orchard Lane that utilizes no natural boundaries or property lines, but cuts blindly through the middle of the Nunn-Lopez orchard. This lack of natural boundaries in this area hardly seems to be consistant with a viable planning objective. I would like to make these basic points: 1- My property was originally part of the Cowell Foundation holdings until my purchase ten years ago, and the determinate factor now in this proposed alignment is ownership of the affected parcels. 2- Stable, sustainable boundaries or divisions should have physical barriers to separate disparate uses. Marsh Creek Channel and Marsh Creek Road are obvious physical boundaries; the dry ravine separating my property, from the Cowell holdings is little more of a discernable line than the one recently drawn between Concord Ave. and Marsh Creek Road. i` 3- Down-zoning properties in the path of proposed public projects suggests the intent of seeking to acquire these properties at less cost to the agencies involved. I cite; a) the previously noted Flood Control project (current status unknown), b) substantial rights of way routed through this parcel as required by Contra Costa Water District for pipelines serving the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, and c) the latest alignment of the route of the proposed Delta Expressway. 4- The proposed major interchange from the Delta Expressway onto Marsh Creek road will result in Marsh Creek Road becoming the major link for Eastbound traffic to Highway #4. This .flow, combined with impact of the projected route of garbage trucks to the Marsh Creek Landfill site will effectively isolate lands to the South of Marsh Creek Road and render continuation of my U-pick business at this orchard subject to the extreme risk of a very high volume of traffic. For the foregoing reasons, the longtime viability of this property for agricultural puposes will be doomed by adjoining zoning and useage. It is reasonable to state that it can be farmed for several more years, but as the term of the ULL and the new General Plan covers up to twenty years, a realistic planning judgement would recognize that if. (a) the Cowell Foundation proposal is accepted and (b) The, Delta Expressway exits on Marsh Creek Road and (c) Marsh Creek Road serves as the major route for transfer trucks to the Marsh Creek Landfill, I will no longer be able to farm this property in an economically competitive manner. As the prospects of all the above occurring are high, 1 request that the alignment of the Urban Limit Line be redrawn to a line contiguous with Marsh Creek Road to more accurately reflect and designate the future compatible land uses in this area. Sincerely, Copy: Supervisor Torlakson 4 ` _ Ma•' pew—�~ `ReEx t is i� > s i' Z � lt• c c S M R els �X2 r _ O � , 70 i in C a, MOE, • W Z C IF m �r H O is A N O � by tA . •� y m p m•� m k F 2 � ty z o nti a o � a ti - a • — j--------- ---�— — } ,i I- } 1 00� 4 - ---- - -- ( b- --- Y I [ a. r : S i .S • ,1 N • ' _ i I• '/�.I I .1 I I :i i i / i.Y I '17�� Q � ; .er,ao�r� Vo , 1 T i -----or -- -- -- -�---- — o — - -- ____ 1 ____00 _ i i L . i t ` :tti s.i;l� " It:�t.�='tI ,�,.�• i l ' .pn �"' a is ' " — V ,� • � ' :� r � -• AVL MIEW TI •��� R �"i l,. .it R"w"ES olrl !PTT ------ -- I � �" ::I Ul x�.l;'j_ - ;I •.If ie t":y m:. I !'{'r"'; .. � � � - � I - �/ /• - �%• 'v--- - - til ,� 1' Z : - — , o • ' I i ;••• is. I frl ! � �/ t$� it :t -- - ;ITt,,�l, •r-j'1 W m --`- =-- --� - - ------ - -- ----- ------------ -------- s _ 1C N ,IFA - --------------- pao Tj OF, lllllll I WE :i I o :_ ••- F- �94c�bltcu'x %ti/� � Gl Lz/y/r �/j' Harvey Bragden, Director-'-"' Community Development DeparA ment Fourth Floor, County Admi.ni-st'reiion- 13uilding Martinez, California, 44553 A'J P e t i ti on RE: General Plan for Region Bounded on the Wesqc — Z? )/ by Marsh Creek, and on the East by Sellers ` Avenue in the Oakley area (see attached map for description) . The property owners in the above referenced area, whose signatures are appended to the attached petition, request that their area be retained in the Oakley Planning Area for purposes of General Plan formulation, zoning and development. The residents of this area have historically considered themselves to be included within the unincorporated area of Oakley. When the Oakley Municipal Advisory Council was formed at the end of 1983, they supported drawing the Eastern line at Sellers Avenue, rather than at some point to the West of that line. Durning the three years following the establishment of OMAC, darning which OMAC held a number of hearings concerning the revision to the Oakley portion of the East County General Plan, residents of the area bounded on the East by Sellers Avenue and on the West by Marsh Creek were in frequent attendance at public hearings , providing their input, and making their desires known with respect to planning within their area. When the issue arose as to whether or not their area should be included within the region being considered for general plan revision under the Oakley General Plan Refinement, the residents of this area steadfastly supported the inclusion of their area in the Oakley General Plan Area , as the result of which the E. I .R. and the subsequent planning documents repeatedly made reference to their region. We the undersigned urge you, therefore, to retain the area West of Sellers Avenue within the Oakley Planning Area, and to plan the area in a manner consistent with the discussions and previous designations agreed to between the residents of that area and County Staff. Signed, C � • Gr '!' 'i/��%C ifs-�'C,_ �._ ti /(A/ .. c � f Harvey Bragden, Director Community Development Department Fourth Floor, County Administration Building Martinez, California, 94553 Petition RE: General. Plan for Region Bounded on the West by Marsh Creek,, and on the East by Sellers Avenue in the Oakley area (see attached map for description) . The property owners in the above referenced area, whose signatures are appended to the attached petition, request that their area be retained in the Oakley Planning Area for purposes of General Plan formulation, zoning and development. The residents of this area have historically considered themselves to be included within the unincorporated area of Oakley. When the Oakley Municipal Advisory Council was formed at the end of 1983, they supported drawing the Eastern line at Sellers Avenue, rather than at some point to the West of that line. Durning the three years following the establishment of GMAC, durning which OMA,C held a number of hearings concerning the revision to the Oakley portion of the East County General Plan, residents of the area bounded on the East by Sellers Avenue and on the West by Marsh Creek t were in frequent attendance at public hearings , providing their input, and making their desires known with respect to planning within their area. When the issue arose as to whether or not their area should be included within the region being considered for general plan revision under the Oakley General Plan Refinement, the residents of this area steadfastly supported the inclusion of their area in the Oakley General Plan Area, as tha result of which the E..I .R. and the subsequent planning documents repeatedly made reference to their region. We the undersigned urge you, therefore, to retain the area West of Sellers Avenue within the Oakley Planning Area, and to plan the area in a manner consistent with the discussions and previous designations agreed to between the residents of that area and County Staff. Signed, (x'.226�11noL �oy, r 1 (4 r C M61 C).41� /` 170 CEc.6.6VX AUS Harvey Bragden, Director Community Development Department Fourth Floor, County Administration Building Martinez, California, 94553 Petition RE: General Plan for Region Bounded on the West by Marsh Creek , and on the East by Sellers Avenue in the Oakley area (see attached map for description) . The property owners in the above referenced area, whose signatures are appended to the attached petition, request that their area be retained in the Oakley Planning Area for purposes of General Plan formulation , zoning and development. The residents of this area have historically considered themselves to be included within the unincorporated area of Oakley. When the Oakley Municipal Advisory Council was formed at the end of 1983, they supported drawing the Eastern line at Sellers Avenue, rather than at some point to the West of that line. Durning the three years following the establishment of GMAC, durning which GMAC held a number of hearings concerning the revision to the Oakley portion of the East County General Plan, residents of the area bounded on the East by Sellers Avenue and on the West by Marsh Creek were in frequent attendance at public hearings, providing their input, and making their desires known with respect to planning within their area . When the issue arose as to whether or not their area should be included within the region being considered for general plan revision under the Oakley General Plan Refinement, the residents of this area steadfastly supported the inclusion of their area in the Oakley General Plan Area, as the result of which the E.. I .R. and the subsequent planning documents repeatedly made reference to their region. We the undersigned urge you, therefore, to retain the area West of Sellers Avenue within the Oakley Planning Area, and to plan the area in a manner consistent with the discussions and previous designations agreed to between the residents of that area and County Staff. Signed, c -17 JUN 19 '91 16:05 ccr.9 S ASSOC. 415 634 1481 V T0: P0 2 Harvey Bra.gden, Director Community Development Department Fourth Floor , County Administration Building Martinez, California , 94553 Petition RE: General Plan for Region Bounded on the West by Marsh Creek , and on the East by sellers Avenue in the Oakley area (see attached map for description) . The property owners in the above referenced area , whose signatures are appended to the attached petition, request that their area be retained in the Oakley Planning Area for purposes of General Plan formulation, zoning and development. The residents of this area have historically considered themselves to be included within the unincorporated area of Oakley. When the Oakley Municipal Advisory Council was formed at the end of 1983, they supported drawing the Eastern line at Sellers Avenue, rather than at some point to the West of that line. Durning the three years following the establishment of GMAC, durning which GMAC held a number of hearings concerning the revision to the Oakley portion of the East County General Plan, residents of the area bounded on the East by Sellers Avenue and on the West by Marsh Creek were in frequent attendance at. public hearings , providing their input, and making their desires known with respect to planning within their area. When the issue arose as to whether or not their area should be included within the region being considered for general plan revision under the Oakley General Plan Refinement, the residents of this area steadfastly supported the inclusion of their area in the Oakley General Plan Area, as the result of which the E. I .R. and the subsequent planning documents repeatedly made reference to their region. We the undersigned urge you, therefore, to retain the area West of Sellers Avenue within the Oakley Planning Area , and to plan the area in a manner consistent with the discussions and previous designations agreed to between the residents of that area and County Staff. Signed, y G 1 9sZo9a Harvey Bragden, Director Community Development Department Fourth Floor, County Administration Building Martinez, California, 94553 Petition RE: General Plan for Region Bounded on the West by Marsh Creek,. and on the East by Sellers Avenue in the Oakley area (see attached map for description) . The property owners in the above referenced area, whose signatures are appended to the attached petition, request that their area be retained in the Oakley Planning Area for purposes of General Plan formulation, zoning and development. The residents of this area have historically considered themselves to be included within the unincorporated area' of Oakley. When the Oakley Municipal Advisory Council was formed at the end of 1983, they supported drawing the Eastern line at Sellers Avenue, rather than at some point to the West of that line. Durning the three years following the establishment of OMAC, durning which OMAC held a number of hearings concerning the revision to the Oakley portion of the East County General Plan, residents of the area bounded on the East by Sellers Avenue and on the West by Marsh Creek , were in frequent attendance at public hearings, providing their input, and making their desires known with respect to planning within their area. When the issue arose as to whether or not their area should be included within the region being considered for general plan revision under the Oakley General Plan Refinement, the residents of this area steadfastly supported the inclusion of their area in the Oakley General Plan Area, as the result of which the E. I .R. and the subsequent planning documents repeatedly made reference to their region. We the undersigned urge you, therefore, to retain the area West of Sellers Avenue within the Oakley Planning Area, and to plan the area in a manner consistent with the discussions and previous designations agreed to between the residents of that area and County Staff . Signed, (A) n 1't1 I4ill 9Ys'1� Harvey Bragden, Director Community Development Department Fourth Floor, County Administration Building Martinez, California, 94553 Petition RE: General Plan for Region Bounded on the West . by Marsh Creek , and on the East by Sellers Avenue in the Oakley area (see attached map for description) . The property owners in the above referenced area, whose signatures are appended to the attached petition, request that their area be retained in the Oakley Planning Area for purposes of General Plan formulation , zoning and development. The residents of this area have historically considered themselves to be included within the unincorporated area of Oakley. When the Oakley Municipal Advisory Council was formed at the end of 1983, they supported drawing the Eastern line at Sellers Avenue, rather than at some point to the West of that line. Durning the three years following the establishment of GMAC, durning which OMAC held a number of hearings concerning the revision to the Oakley portion of the East County General Plan, residents of the area bounded on the East by Sellers Avenue and on the West by Marsh Creek were in frequent attendance at public hearings , providing their input, and making their desires known with respect to planning within their area. When the issue arose as to whether or not their area should be included within the region being considered for general plan revision under the Oakley General Plan Refinement, the residents of this area steadfastly supported the inclusion of their area in the Oakley General Plan Area , as the result of which the E. I .R. and the subsequent planning documents repeatedly made reference to their region. We the undersigned urge you, therefore, to retain the area West of Sellers Avenue within the Oakley Planning Area, and to plan the area in a manner consistent with the discussions and previous designations agreed to between the residents of that area and County Staff . Signed, Yt, \¢..cr av�.oJw ti1r y .o �t�'J U�1 cfl � o °pyp - iA O O A i O A r A O t.nn Hwrt A P �i a RE u c _ o V f F n n < r ° a D •a tJt n W O � N n o s Coo rd u F W DO LC NLD. ,A i1y. � E -� a `1 L A Z Z tn� � v OCD mm j k j. • • tk a �4��Yt„p9 c �p�g �' ��`5♦ro r Mill v*LF v — f t,. ,-rnibF�-, mes✓j d >�a�>y�.5ti°°' ,..t'''_�It� }"w c\';�ryft yv ,A,r'X ki`S \v >,d+v w' r, r .X�< .' ° e-�" l��t�+ ,� ����,y�e# .'x p�✓,'✓t?'��" �. �i+i<S d 3sSi.`�,�' t <�,."Y^t 4 � "t ;'�ri �F'�� E,�/;✓3 _y :�'�`''�+^'�� ¢i. 5 .s t r yr SJ.e,�! r/rytii...�..+/r 4��,a�^i'r'� �,�X / '� � ffLf_���':w ✓ ;�in� �h°o i9i r✓rG,F#.5� t 7's y�i� l '�'C' u '`'"�`."'i!� tt�" Gff 3^C . - - ,/,�IwY•t, >�ycv'3Y�,wb, �{�� x.��,\`.\`t '` �l\�h\`'§ \:e>'^�\"�• t> \'y�� '�'�,o. �_���{ �,� �,�e. � t, b � 4 \ ��\1� Y � \ �H �'tC, J5\ Y♦7A y.>�S\ \}i'C „�+ ro 5. x�i �a \ .jt" ♦y�'n a.7A4 c ♦e•,,a2L�e2- \>t r,q T \ .. `-• `��' .s a�^';a.r�� � \"�\�o v Cc�ibAi��. ,.�S�w���`�S ,y} y A .s>5��.�,*�t'b �.a: $tit ds•,)�f\`� „kef�l` a _ �..gf>t s d�\`��> "�'k�� ��� .52 t>�ygti�`,` Yu- \_ "M M. MQ\} '•+et\"a 0vr.y'y a+'.Jn�Y"`v'nsY .S, ( s < S ♦ '\\ s > aa--� \� c£ k` \ <� `t P't.'�� `ice• .. v \' `, �'\.�tyA\}\� :*j' n \,\\\i^x\\.���. 4`;C$�s +, 4l \•�\>�•�\� � �,h$$� .\ \\i.-c,.4 �'. \ Y \ 'S c SYIv} tt. 7\,R`Y<' y ♦S<'\` g�.� •p b` �.� Z aac- i�J i \ k. \ > \\.i -�\ 1 i _1 ^v ,` .\`.. \\4 v.\�. , \1. ��y`..k., '�11.{+,C,I�J-••Y+- .5tJD1'`J k'♦ \ta,L: }. a:'N'l`':\a'RC''C7>: ''t'.�{ Z... .i�Wii.1111Y'''.w? �' I� f T • �ii f r r•. :i r• �a 4 . ` s i •ii ..irr , . MM a !arra! aaasr asriii �r rlr;aaai:a •a/r/uu; . : } f also rUlrBoom airar rrrr■!i ;■/■■ 1 rr /ar i move ■ ■ oil 111 �� 1 ful�aurr !■ r�=�1 r ; Irr �■ � 1�. �a iii �i*oiuiii igu man" iriri,i ullor�r ru rssasar.a.'r'/uruuu i/.�i-r■a■ +n /9 a a�•� :���UU iUMMOir rl!a fur rrMara ■ ■r■rs■aus.Rar as Sig I �■ri ..Y Y ••••• wwwwww sas It: h } . ., .ifai1 arlaar ar rirrr! /! /+i///■r ■rr .t Iruurru/a//ruurrururnuu/u/■ rru/o//■// >/uaalaaaioru/aarur/unruuouw/f uuuauu �`�.,��YK r•Irrarrarao■f�rr■r!o/uuuu=ur■ural t :aasara,lorr rua/uuu■+iu ■■u■/■rf ■■■..■r .. � ..,r $ s 1 � Y � � 5< Yi,�\K.{(.�4<.}•k,nom. •A'Q i ,�, M t qy(� t „a ;v 'i'e° p�dCaQYYc.��`��<.•.<r - f s w.u>}%M\� iUC S?°""- t'2ol$+2<"+� V3ri})S! �'•\'xoJi S \ +.+J hw. y\ NX M yY'3' a b J ', .J )3 f��Y%�`.�°r'<i si°S•(,2,!>i.•,,y�� jv Qa. t .r l li `..t■mem - , wrwwwoaur , taRwusorwu ": tawwwwiwaao#saw#a &Raeaariam#fsowaa:■ri �... ltasisswrswafameam■srfae { . .� tea#�Sarsas■aMa#asswwewl !!arawassasoff#sa#wfais#i `I4'��w{wirriririeaYwwirsisss w twra+�awrwrrwwwfarsirwwww■1 ..asaresawwCai:marwsawle#isasw#esef jAMlarwrRsi♦'-.#i#aiiiaririirii##ss{ ou riarrfur{ms vww#oouwurrwwaio ::•saw resissrassefsi4laawemarw#s■wesirf .. some Risww#elf#rsafrii�i#wiarwwssa■alas ..f sSFa :. tm/s Irowfeerw■o esaerii!.ewifwsMaswwis , 1rw.0 las/ss/s■sosesssoes"assawMwlase �sassesses* a�lrl��•##�wrraw�a#�M��aw�sawawriasasr#w ; iiuwirsoegareusosr IR urouuuawwwauoes i • • u laauuuuraasweemau# li is#rimaeme •a•r .■ !:::swam• !issuer■ IserlowiisRsouiesams■rs ei Ifaeal##ssmas•iMe in� sserea•mesas#►Na:ur�aw#uailr•somammu i fw/oris/iisassYawawai lwsssaamaisw•asrii#sN ';.. - '.S :Na+�w�rosor■M■erw■frw 1■wr#ew■twat eAMerrif►, :, . • m#lswwwwswll afwN• aitiwitmw■en . �Rsulewme lrrwo��� �i' rwrwwwallawi■wm■�.. rorwrauru E4iir.iYwi ieuuur uruawu#wrre►iaa rmafuesarert rr,IiRwa:tsar#aawwasser#asr#rl#aia{.Au rrumer Mal,. fRlleasseaiaRmRisws■■srouwnwawni.rr■ ■remssoo me wauwuoearrma.aaasam.�am�aaraa siu"asssu . 1r,lmasewaiseeiie7a exilsomewieaa isasoisoaa 4. ta�luusuumsamawuereuwwll/r{uuu amssisaasssr f■ilor■mu#mazer#auu#rowurwuruau sauamsruse. AkIsrrem/is&imaw#igeiasesw:isYsiaisf lmiimsiifi.a laws/w#saamraesr{rarrrmaw,Irirarrsawasl sw/sresrs.sr: :Ostiam{w.asaruruuswerrrl/#erarrisirs/s#astlriesamm . � � t i $merwl • gym. WON • r nAt, rE February 1, 1991 Mr. Dennis Barry Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Urban Limit Line Gateway Valley, southwest Orinda Dear Mr. Barry: We understand through public comment made at the Planning Commission's January 28th meeting that the County consulted with the City of Orinda before the Urban Limit Line was drawn (Measure C) to include 120 acres of Zuckerman property inside the line even though the acreage is outside Orinda city limits and is, therefore, unincorporated county land. We would appreciate receiving at your earliest convenience the following information relating to the property in question: 0 The name(s) of County staff and Orinda staff between whom communication occurred, the dates and methods of communication. 0 Copies of any written communication, from or to the County, concerning the Urban Limit Line in this area. 0 Were communications formal or informal? if informal and/or verbal, could we please have the gist of those communications? We further request that such response be in a reasonable amount of time prior to any further discussion before the Board of Supervisors or the County Planning Commission. Thank you very much for your help and prompt attention. If there is any expense involved in providing this information, we will be glad to pay any charges. Sincerely yo 12 Signed: Sincerely P6ter S. Wilson ince Maiorana 35 Lost Valley Drive 23 Lost Valley Dri e Orinda, CA 945 Orinda, CA 94563 ince 7ana i c M�ior 723 Lost Valley Dri Orinda, CA 9 4563 (415) 376-692 (415) 376-3931 S cc: Su a den psw/pa Frank Maggiore 1200 Balfour Road Brentwood, California 94513 T May 16, 1991 Q1 Mr. Harvey Bragdon Community Development Department 651 Pine Street North Wing Martinez, California 94553 Re: Request for Assessor's Parcel 003-100-012 (consisting of 13+/- acres) to be included within Contra Costa County's Urban Limit Line Dear Mr. Bragdon: At this time we are requesting the above referenced property be included within Contra Costa County's Urban Limit Line and become eligible for future urbanization. According to Contra Costa County's 65/35 Land Preservation Map, this. property is contiguous to the present Urban Limit .Line. This property is located on the west side of County Road J4 at the intersection of Byer Road immediately across from the Byron School. (Incidently, the school also appears to be contiguous to .the .Urban Limit Line.) In addition, this property lies immediately north of and contiguous to an existing mobile home park of similar acreage in size. With these thoughts in mind, your consideration is appreciated for including this property within Contra Costa County's Urban Limit Line for future urbanization. Sincerely, Frank Maggiore cc: ' Tom Powers Nancy C. Fanden Robert I. Schroder Sunne Wright McPeak Tom Torlakson I - I r s I w i l� t'r I WIV ! st• tr ;-10 �� W � s a y f }fi x co QD k 2 w oa i 1 i 1 i ' I ti• J � ... _..� -•- ••BYROH•r=.. . ... ._......_.... .--- }7tSiFWAY ._—.:-_-tet—s . p- #� A A ` w N{m d p v a c } r U, wQ o DLABLO VENTURES WEST 100 Park Place '.- Suite 250 San Ramon,CA 94583 415/820-0845 May 7, 1991 Dennis Barry AICP Assistant Director Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: Urban Limit Line and its relation to the Foley Property Dear Dennis: This letter is a formal request that you consider revision of the Urban Limit Line as it effects the 1100 acre Foley Property located immediately to the east of the existing Blackhawk development. Diablo Ventures West is acting as the agent of the family in this matter at the family's request. It is our understanding that the Board of Supervisors will be completing an initial review of the line within 150-200 days following the effective date of the General Plan and that evidence may be presented for your scrutiny as to why the revision is appropriate. In our meeting with you last week we presented you with topographic evidence as well as photographs which delineate that the line as drawn bisects the property ignoring the specific topography of the site and logical development parameters. The line as it moves easterly along the northern edge of Blackhawk's eastern segment correctly reflects the logical line of demarcation between developable property and property with elevations rising above 10001. Similarly, the Urban Limit Line as it runs southerly from the Foley property follows the ridgeline east of Camino Tassajara. To be consistent, we feel that the line should continue into the Foley property following those same ridgelines which surround a level valley immediately east of Finley Road which constitutes the bulk of the most easily developed land. There are similar valleys to the West of Finley which provide similar logical development opportunities consistent with the extensive development that already exists along the property's entire western boundary. We are including a large scale topographic map upon which we have delineated our suggested modification to the ULL. It essentially follows the 1000' contour of the north-south ridgeline paralleling Camino Tassajara. All lands to the east and north of this revised line rise to generally higher elevations where water service would be precluded anyway. This property is immediately adjacent to the intensely developed Blackhawk development and in conjunction with those other adjacent properties already within the ULL represent the next logical step for development consideration in the Tassajara Valley. While there are obvious infrastructure issues which will need to be worked out as other major developments in the Tassajara and Dougherty Valleys are planned for, the size of this property allows us the opportunity to create a significant development which can stand on its own. In consideration of these factors and with specific reference to item (d) on page 3-16 of the General Plan, we request that the Urban Limit Line be amended as per the attachment. Very truly, yours, Robert D. Johnson General Partner 1 RDJ/pc Enclosure cc: Mr. Patrick Foley Mr. L. Randolph Harris, Esq. I Mr. and Mrs. Eugene J. Thomas Rt 1 Box 77 Bixler .Road Byron, CA 94514 Phone 634-3010 6 May 1991 Harvey Bragdon, Director Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4th Floor-North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Subject: Consideration of Inclusion into Urban Limit Line of Parcels Nos. 011-210-011-0; 011-210-012-8 ; 011-210-016-9 Dear Mr. Bragdon, 1. Our property consisting of approximately 67 acres, is located in East Contra Costa County on the southeast corner of Highway 4 and Bixler Road intersection, just across from Discovery Bay. Our family has owned this land for nearly 100 years and during this time its use has been limited to permanent pasture and winter hay; it has never been able to sustain a food crop. The soil is classified 5 and 6 (alkaline) which are the lowest ratings given to any soil. . Consequently, to specify the land as agricultural according to the County General Plan, is a mis-designation. Even with irrigation it would have a very low and questionable productivity and the water, being such a precious resource, could be put to better use growing food products. 2 . The location of our property is ideal for commercial/retail business development especially in view of the proposed developments on the northwest and northeast corners of the intersection. It certainly should not be zoned agricultural; it should be considered developable. Its soil is poor, it has good drainage, there is ample .water for domestic use, it is close to sewer facilities, it is adjacent to development. We question why the Urban Limit Line excluded our property and, for the above reasons would like to have it rezoned and included within the Urban Limit Line. 3 . We would appreciate your calling us as soon as possible so that we can schedule an appointment to discuss this matter with you. 4 . Enclosed is an assessor' s map with our property highlighted for your convenience. Thank you. Sincerely, Eugene J. Thomas E. Marie Thomas Copy to: Dennis Barry Tom Torlakson Diane Maybee Herb Hern Val Alexeeff Earl Wetzel N v O fL. w ay � o U OA ti 1Ou � �+ - m�rn 0 .03f o. ..t y cr. < e • • rt• - .. ..... .. D.M . VY '.6. �rlv 104 • r�i W' .NOVIW W S ♦.•tss/ � Z xi wi a� Q� •a ;m <: �, ovou ••'•< X13-1X18 4 j tr 1 »P I }>OP t »P 1 }}}P 1 }>}P t }>00 j ►..J•-. Y 1 t^J00 I lr J00 1 I—Ja0 1 i—Cu(%j 1 M-Ja- OD 1 i'- 0� T 1 1 1 \ 1 010%0 t Vv\ 1 00\ 1 .t•NN\ 1 f`aoP\ 1 OD 00\ VJ WWW vI l PPOD 1 10 X00 1 MMV 1 .•-,0 ut,O 1 Nf�.t aD 1 NNN T » W I f-f�.0 1 PPV I NNO I ODMVN I OM•Out 1 MMOD Q CC Q C < I MI+taO I P.r-i' 1 ,.-fV 1 VInPr 1 Pa0010 1 MMM N »> ►- 1 lnL^V1 1 NNP 1 ututM 1 V.-NP 1 f`'tMV 1 W%L^Lt = 1 4A#A%^ 1 NMN 1 MMut 1/1I40I4IM 1 VI#A 64 1 IA d/H J > J 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 N 1 N I Q Jh cr. < 1 1 1 I 1 b—Z oar U Q i i i i i i ►-W tr ►- 1 OM <n 1 O In 1 P 1 M 1 P 1 00 Z 1--W1 OPt+1• ,Oa0 1 OP ,Oao 1.oao 1100% 1 aDf` 1 00fl- _5�< t chrjr �Ar 1 PN/r lir O p Z O 1 1 I O O 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Og 1 MV O•-•,000 1 M%.r %000 1,000 1 O10 I MO 1 MO 2••-•a I OV 1 irOr 1 OVfrOr 1 Or 1 rut 1 Out 1 Oln 1-- 1 fl-OIL P 1 1\a P 1 P 1 OVA 1 11- 1 f� WWLi 1 VtP A I ut f� 1 f� I a*(x 1 OOQ 1 a0 J C.O 1 1 r 1 1 LU I 3ZW 1 Q `�'h•-p aa i yr w H i x i x I cc J W I 1 1 1 xLO I x 1 I v<i►- a i i i i Z i z i 2W17 1 1 1 1 O 1 O I �} IL O<M 1 I 1 I Y 1 ►- I coW-. pEW I 1 1 1 W 1 W 1 �'J ui > 1 t 1 1 WI W 1 O W > 1 0 N 1 0 VI 1 44 N1 N �Or-•••- 1 O to 1 O N O 1 V WI .t W 1 < W 1 W I V W 1 V W M W u 1 1 M 1 1 tr 1 i l 1 lx 1 1 fr I I W I O 1 O u 1 Co u v I 2 1 0 u 1 O v I vI 1-Z I .-• < ( r < I V < vIWO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m 1 1 1 1 T <01 I G O I D O 1 W O I O ut I p O I p O J V)F-- 1 Y O 1 7• V I Na P I Y M ,E J I Y •0 I Y •O d y I W ^ I W 10 1O I J a0 Op-J I W 10 - I W10 \ I z I Z 1 1 •r OWO I Z I Z _• Y dC I •-. M t •-+ �O 1 to .O 1 •O ix m U. 1 �. Hut 1 •-. C3 1-In0 1 } N I T N 1 \ V 1 A 1 > rV 1 > N v W fY Z I O I D 1 I W Ctr 1 G vP I p f6 O<~ 1 6 I Q 1 W 1 J —'r I �d rP I Q Z y J 1 = 1 = 1 109 1-r 12 1r 12 CL\< I uM 1 44M 1 YM I ZM U. 144M 1 VM \ u I a I I at l I it 1 1 ••0 1 O 1 ix 1 h- 1 lz 1 LULU— 1 OG 1 O< 1 p< t VI< N 1 O< U. 1 O< N N H 1 1 1 1 I .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O I I I O.r vl 1 W� 1 l7 I C9, 1 O l9 1 1 b VI 1 1 O ND H•. 1 ,2 1 Z t 2' 1 2 2� 1 2 1 2 2► < 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 >U. 1 2 ou. 1 z Ina 1 Ino 1 000 1 r0 "U. I Ino -i v- 1 V+O JJN I `CN 1•0^4 1 lOJV 1 rN JW 1%0^4 mW I SON T t 1 1 1 I f 1 I 1 1 I 1 O ui I 1 1 1 I 1 M 5 C_ 1 1 1 1 1 t � O s 1 1 1 1 1 1 •�y�J ]a.i 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q z a 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 I t 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 r x< ;� x100 aD o 1w 100 ; co o O 10 x I a XIO x x10 f0 x10 x X I.-CC 1 0 LLJ 1 0 YJ I O a IJ.1 1 0 1 0 LLJ 1 0 C. W Q 10 10 10 \ toz "a 10 \ 1.O < 1 •O m f 0 3 441 .0 O "a < 110 = m 1 �+ 2 J 1 •W. 2-1 1 7E V12..J 1 Y Z-J I 2 J 1 N Z J I oq� p Ou 1 p Ou 1 tr044 1 ¢ 044 1 it OV 1 0044 .00 4% z i Ldp >°' i ilixa� 7m-a i �a �'fm,.� i rz- YfL i )tL I < Y>a' W O 1 mM 1 mM I W mM 1 < mM 1 mM 1 Lr mtn •-+ 1 WJW N 1 WJW N 1 >p a0 N I >L N 1 W M 1 < V M ►- I J O 1 J 1 !r —� ( p 1 p 1 MPp H C. 1 dl-X c'm 1 d/-X trtD 1 d o% CL ai MQ. 1 d txCL 1 vtvrrto N 2'-• 1 fi•-+V C. 1 IL''-•V C. 1 WVP tL 1 V tL I V C. 1 tru,0 iJJOOX 1 -1 IN mr(r 1 -)uico ' 1 '7]fir 1 lr ( O r� 7 r(r I moV I trW �y J tL'•-•.Li 1 m MWIn 1 m In W1A t Q=Mw% I In WV^ 1 "WM 1 P1�WM Q IJ,J p1-.VI 1 LLJOA.f'-i Nr 1 W AVJV 1 ZJVMJV 1 -JaD�tJV 1 WAVJ�O 1 dW 00-1%0 y v p<ud 1 2CCJ`PX 1 ZtrAPX 1 OcrP•Ox 1 LLJAPx 1 2APX 1 J<%ox <44 p i 0141 ►+C, I a0 W .-. 1•O W 1 O0,., I V 2 "'� I P W •r I A J(c�L,44 1 ••. O 1 1 0 2 x<m g 1 1 l7 z x<m j t l ><N m g 1 1 O x<m 1 1 lO X<m 1 1 =W 0^m CL lD-JJ 1 r�a044 SSS 1 ND0044 1 MW•-•L+r L 1 V•r044 1 •O�O'-A I A Z < 1 rWVIm 1 rLLA VIm I r>tr %r I rJm 1 rutin 1 rC.F-VV vI •-•>•l9 1 0 w Z J 1 0 lx 2 -i 1 0 Z t! J 1 0 Z J 1 0 2 J 1 0 W at J �l tZ'V1.•JF-W 1 1 tAWrO ti 1 1 NWrO aJ 1 1 Nr0 ki 1 r0 4-1 1 1 V1r0 y 1 1 -.•O= y rr O 2 [r J 1 O q F- tr C. 1 O�F- Ir C. 1 O �O i W tL. O = GL 1 O_ tr CL 1 O_ S NW W 1 r <1->. I r <►•.Y I r ut 7.Z r 1-Y t 1-Y 1 Nr«• r ofZIC. I N C,ix I N tL C'm I N VtmO I N acmin I N tL'Q1A 1 NWraO It�l W3 O 1 Ix 1 12 1 IS Z 1 Ix V I I = A 1 la a q/ to O (C f.-1 .�M- 1 r�- 1 r►- 6. 1 •-►- 1� 1 .�-t-. 1 .-G 2 lil C- 1 • 1 r a 1 1 .'- M 1 M 1 O < w 1 0 Jc t 0 « 1 0 • 1 0 t 1 0 K 1 0 A y April l26 '"1994 ei Harvey Bragdon, Director Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4th Floor-North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: Assessor's Parcel No. 011-110-013 and 011-210-018 Dear Mr. Bragdon, we are writing to you with regard to our property which is located in East Contra Costa County across from Discovery Bay. We are enclosing an assessor's parcel map with our two properties, consisting of approximately 65 acres, high- lighted in yellow. We are hereby requesting that our property be included in the "Urban Limit Line" for the following reasons: 1. The majority of this land is Class 5 and 6 soil which is highly alkaline land according to the Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation and Service maps. Class 6 is the lowest rating given any soil. 2. The land has been in the Thomas family for almost 100 years. The main use of this land has been permanent pasture and winter hay. it has never grown a food crop. The land is not worth wasting irrigation water on due to its, very low productivity. With the shortage of water, any water should be used elsewhere to produce food crops. 3. Due to'It's location, in our opinion, it should be zoned commercial along the highway 4 frontage and some type of residential homes along % the southern portion of this land. we feel that this would be a logical use for this property and will be an asset to the surrounding area. This land meets all the criteria for development: marginal soils - good drainage - ample water for domestic use -close to sewer facilities, either in Byron or Discovery Bay - contiguous to development. For all the aforementioned reasons and according to county requirements, we feel that this property should be inside the Urban Limit Line. We do not understand why the south boundary of the Urban Limit Line was drawn along Highway 4, south of Discovery Bay? We feel that the 'Urban Limit Line' should be extended up to Kellogg Creek Road. we would like to request an appointment with you to discuss this matter in more detail as soon as possible. Sincerdly, YVern'Thomas Vera Thomas CC:Dennis Berry✓ Tom Torlakson Diane Maybee Herb Hern t O � 81XLER ROAO W-111MN�� .r/'Y•I +p M.�,l�'} N .-.._ ___ �N'Il!/ �w a/N7.'M • 1 a m 2 ' to i�°J k�:: At I k m m _ mi N : .. Y crr\\ H �Y a m eA -�0 ;; M GI i 16 C V n Q O Go 4'^� � N 1 C > ° 0 ,fr o n N MA HARVEY RF AG.DOM _ _ SYRON CA DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVEL�IPMENT, - _ APRIL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY G51 PINE ST, MARTINEZ CA DEAR CIA, THIS IC A LETTER OR REQUEST T14AT OUR .60.0 AC PARCE-1 NORTH OF ORWQoD ROAD RE INCLUDED WITHIN THE URBAN LIMIT LINE. THE FOLLOWING ARE VALID REASONS WHY THIS PARCEL SHOULD BE INCLUDED-' 1 . THIS PARCEL IS SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL OR PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 15. RORDER—ED -Y THE if—E-4LF TAarT AREA WtHICH IS WTTH.IN THE URRAH LIMIT LINE. IS BORDERED RY THE. EAGLE LANE AR.—PA WHCIH IS A SEM. —URSAN RANCHETTE DEVELOPMENT. IS ADJACENT TO THE ORWOOD RESORT AR-SA, A SITE OF CoNsIDE,RARLE RES- IDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. If. SOR.DFAEb;. --BY T,*.HT: PROPOSED NORTH CITY LIMITS OF DISCOVERY SAY- 15 ONE-:CALF MILE FROM THE NORTH BORDER OF HOFMANN'C5 DISCOVERY RAY WEST. i. THIS PARCEL HAS SOIL PRODUCTIVITY LEVELS WHICH ARE TOO LOW% TO RE IMO$..uDED WITHIN THE AG-CORE. ALL OF IT'S SOILS ARE GRADE 3 TO 5 AND THE STORIE INDEXES. ARE FROM 16 TO 54 PER-CENT OF 100. IT'S SOILS ARE A MIRROR IMMAGE OF THOSE OF DISCOVERY BAY WEST ALONG RIXLER ROAD. 3. THIS PARCEL HAS NEVER SEEN SUBJECTED TO THE. FLOODS OF MARSH OR .ELLOGG CREEKS AS. HAVE COME OF THE AREAS INCLUDED WITHIN THE URBAN LIMIT LINE. A NATURAL DISASTER IS IN THE MAKING BY OVERLOOKING THIS ASPECT. 4- OUR TOPOGRAPHY AND COIL CHARACTE.RISTIC:S ARE SUPERIOR TO SOME OFF THE INCLUDED OTHERS. WE ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY ALCOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL AND HAVE HEAVY FIRM SOILS UNLIKE SOME INCLUDED NEIGHBORS WHO ARE ALMOST TOTALLY BELOW SEA LEVEL AND POSSES SOILS OF QUE-STIONARLE CARRYING CAPACITY- IN CONCLUSION, THIS PARCEL FITS THE CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENT AND SHOULD RE INCLUDED WITHIN THE URBAN LIMIT LINE. S CERLY, IAr:K RLOOMFI D 49555 DISC.OVE PT RYA.ON CA 945514 CITY- 0FCLAY.T07.-- Founded 1857....Jncorporated 1964 P.O. BOX 280 CLAYTON, CALIFORNIA 94517 ,iGity:Gounr.1- -- TELEPHONE (415) 672-3622 ROBERT C.KENDALL,.11l Ayer GREGORY]. MANNING,'Vice Mayo, PETER A. LAURENCE JEANNE R. MU5TO WILLIAM R.WALCUTT March 26, 1991 Mr. Harvey E. Bragdon, Director Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine St. , 4th Floor, N. Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Mr. James Cutler Subject: Urban Limit Line to the Southeast of the City of Clayton and Subdivision 7584 , Clayton Ranch Dear Mr. Bragdon: I understand that the Contra Costa County Community Development Department is reviewing a subdivision proposal for the north side of Marsh Creek Road approximately at its ' intersection with Morgan Territory Road (subdivision number 7584 , Clayton Ranch) . I further understand that this subdivision is for the creation of 115 residential lots with a minimum size of 5 acres. In my judgement the establishment of 5 acre lots is suburban/rural estate in development intensity. To approve development of this intensity, I assume that the County' s urban limit line must either extend eastward from Clayton or must define a discontiguous island within the surrounding agricultural area to accommodate this proposal. The City of Clayton wishes to go on record opposing the extension. of the County's urban limit line for this proposal at this time. As you may be aware, the City of Clayton has just started the development of a Specific Plan for an approximate 1,750 acre area on Marsh Creek Road to the southeast of the City. Adoption of the Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan is scheduled to occur in winter/spring of 1992. While it is still early in the Specific Plan process and no decisions have yet been made, one could anticipate that the County's urban limit line may include all or at least a western portion of the Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan area. Any designation of an urban limit line to the east of this Specific Plan area is, in Clayton's view, premature and undesirable. Ideally, this proposal should be withdrawn or denied without prejudice until after the completion of the Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan. More information and policy direction would then be available from the City of Clayton in regards to this proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me at 672-3622 . Sincerely, Randall Hatch Planning Director * Post-It'brand fax transmittal m_io 7671 M of pages P- F--From t:o. January 4 , 1991 °' i /ems Dept. n Phone—# ,. ' S14 g 3 V FazNl` /.30 Fa`xN7 OZ�' G —Z7 i S/c7re Mr. Robert. Schroder, Supervisor 510 La Gonda way S Danville, CA 94526 U� S�J�t SC� CCS` Dear Bob: I am requesting your assistance. I have recently reviewed the proposed growth limit lines on a map for the Byron area. I own 25 acres of undeveloped property in that area which is now laying dormant. It has the soil type known as marcuse clay, a moderately alkaline-saline soil which the department of agriculture specifies as being suitable for use as irrigated pasture. I have previously leased the property to a good local farmer, Mr. Cliff Plum, who tried to raise cattle and sheep on the land but found the soil was not sufficiently productive to be cost effective and allowed the lease to expire. As this parcel of land will never be economically, agriculturally productive, and is somewhat surrounded by the proposed limit lines I am requesting that my property be included in the land on which development will be allowed. The acreage is located south of Highway 4, across from the Albers property and has a eastern border down the center of Kellogg Creek. The *acreage consists of two parcels; Parcel B, 10 acres and Parcel A, 15 acres as noted on MS 58-81 map included. Bob, I am very appreciative of the consideration you will give this request and hope you will recommend the land be included as part of that which can be developed. Sincerely, Wayne Farnholtz 954 Country Lane Walnut Creek, CA 94596 , �N U2t,23CW>OQOO q�Ot,my _ �IX >�O� 2 N -_ •:- .'s Qm~Q �I�aQ pmi Vzz q5 Eo- �V �� ..Fes.'. .• .. A _ _' Szl � OQ� yC~.l¢V10�VQy Vh3 Otucz c~iWtiO?�Wy�WUU �mOU�p2 W Hopi QWJ-�2�yjW JI+�UU , = of h0u ��2 U, a 2 G cr 2 p hQ "WhW D h V) ��W.�wO OQt-y�� tph W � QOW L- ac 02' 2'37X/9 ~2 OWOUt'N=DOChh UykpOh W 2 4+j0►•�20��E^ ti0 0220 �. N? yW . p_i M / V O W _Z QQ U 02 O� 2 ¢ J J W' .--- z: to to LL] 2.. 2 y �¢pyti�Q:cco _ WIn qQQ j t OyOj- - __.- - .�mW �_� , �Dy WOOO zh2WUp ¢R4J�UQ OJQ rWJJ 2W- S L0 AMN NONA9 �h ti �O I.�U Wzz �Q: Lu Wp-pU m `ly?00 C -tu to 22 N. ti4¢N.41 Q Om4C,2ati � Y2- ` < ZaWJ�tWim¢mp2Q W�W2lb¢OWO 3 .2\20ykOW �hWW Q De Qpj��OV2Wy� 22zt�pp %a mi yhja J¢y QM-j ca Oaymtp t1h 2 ¢J OOWmkW W Q 3 0�2UWWJ0¢�L. U klpQ CY 11)JW tlLtthQWZt i 1 2 >a tq Wh�¢y W02�2Q O¢ ►.Ima2¢ 3¢oWtr Jm ok►.m�a Qy 0001 ^ b y 0 0�'1 ?,J0 i%c!_G-- 7- 69 �lj0 El6Ei% tu /1 H S f 1\1 I f��t�f%4}i 0 1\1 J W 0/599 3.95.2/.695 1 ti ctu 99 O6Z OZ LSF O 2 2 F/lill WObZ29 B£y£- 2Oto 0OZEd'0o/90/9901 �(1N319:Sri39ry/.dG.Ol3 ¢Wmrz cc y2U Who¢ _ t1��..:,nom 2 N 2 QtiZt u V R. m I 2 S�/� j kn t� L� P/ m o'/ � _ '^ u7 iL LLJW 7 W � � Qz Q s bi .�. q ti 3 t l� , Q 0006 OS.LO.6P S VD la "'i, g Z O r me L dl 1p 70L b N075/A/09 SOp `3c � W `� to /GYi NOiS�M09/75 yF No/IJ35 2'3N2'OJ - 4 o ti CC o n o r31N37 .v i, ,� (1-•Od/;E 1118: S/b \ Lei L.' gt } o rvOre 031newoJ 9( Sbf/1 OOOc'Z �� '� �•� 2 �`� 9956£/ 309.[0.685 R 9ZL C) (019Z9/f SE7il/L j.96 /L 'J[d• 3.0910.!•99 CQ W ZbbL/ �tS32tKs' /O/ 400 /SZ£57/ AVAI14DI14 31b'1S erJi'sr7sHliAlae43a_v� era25-u SJNI Jd38-40 SISVG /L!/x yrs3y.'s 17 4. P. O. Box 19 r '+` �~ PH Clayton, Ca. 94517 _-. 672-7150 'J 20 January 199, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors c/o Mr. Harvey Bragdon Director of Community Development 651 Pine Street 4th Floor North Wing Martinez, Ca. 94553 Re: Stewart Ranch A. P. N. 001-021-003 320 Acres -Byron Airpark area Dear Board Members: In reference to the above subject property, we would request that the property be included in the urban limit lines for the Byron Airpark and any subsequent studies. As previously stated by our representative, Quentin Kopp at the General Plan hearings, the location of the property is logical for the development of airpark related land uses which will compliment the park and provide a tax base for income to Contra Costa County. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, amuel J. ewart r RECEIVED Tom Torlakson 300 East Leland Suite 100 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Dear Supervisor Torlakson: Thank you for meeting with me regarding our project on Jersey Island. As explained in the enclosed information, we believe our project should be included withiryq the Urban Limit Line. Out of approximately 700 Acres we have asked for only 210 F-1 recreational lots and . 38 Estate Lots. The balance of the property is in open space. This is a small project compared to the usual number of lots that developers want to place on 700 Acres. We ask for your approval and the inclusion of our project within the Urban Limit Lines and the General Plan Amendment. Respectfully, ynn Moore, Applicant Golden Key Partners 358 Princeton Lane Danville, CA 94526 415-838-9362 i JERSEY ISLAND PROJECT (Land Use Permit Application 2083-90) (Assigned Sub-division No. 7628) In our application for the Land Use Permit for our property, we are in full compliance with the existing Zoning for our project. The Zoning is A-3 and F-1. Under the A-3 we are allowed minimum 10 Acre lots, a Golf Course and a Marina. Under the F-1 we are allowed minimum Lot areas of 6,000 square feet. Out of the approximately 700 Acres w have asked for only 210 Recreational Lots on 56 Acres. Except for the 33 units on the Estate Lots, this leaves the balance of the acre-igo (644 Acres) in basically open space. We believe this pr.ojoct should be defined as a small development on 700 acres in comparison to the normal amount of houses that is usually requested in developing out a 700 acre area. We are historically correct and in compliance with the uses we have requested for our property. Our subdivision is a resubdivision of "Jersey Island Farms" filed in Book 18 of Maps, Page 419, in the Office of the County Recorder of Contra Costa County, Dated April 7, 1923. All taxes have been paid -continuously in accordance with the Assessor Parcel Numbers as required. We respectfully request your approval and the inclusion of our project in the General Plan Adoption and/or Amendment. Respectfully, 7,t-- n.-Moore, Applicant Golden Key Partners 358 Princeton Lane Danville, CA 94526 415-838-9362 cDirector of Connnommunity Contra Harvey tivyinn unity Upvnlnpn vast Development Costa Department County'Administration Budding County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 945530095 P : Phone: 646-2031 November 5, 1990 Golden Key Partners 3842 Geary Boulevard San Francisco, CA 94118 Gentlemen and Ladies: The Contra Costa County Community Development Department has reviewed your application, County File No. 2083-90, and has determined that the application is complete and acceptable. You will be further notified of the environmental impact assessment of the application and time and placer of the public hearing. If you have any questions concerning the application procedure, please feel free to contact this office at your convenience. Sincerely, Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community Development C,//- 4]-(- DEBBIE DRENNAN, Planner DD/jn 12:2083-90.ltr cc: County File No. 2083-90 Mary Fleming Glynn Moore . � f a � •i 1� •r .y ,��t ±1.�y ^!� �'��i Y"�� any i L J .,rr..�.✓'�•• j , 1 p► V!L'lA_?Jl0PE;i*rJ_--5 1AC. !)---LfA ?RUP-25 it'll S JAC. 03/_040-001 050-001, OUZ - -*---* " .. - \V U ALL ILI In 9. W CS ILI L z E E2 zzx Ln b. 0 0 0 CS 0 19 In MITI Mv M m 0 coram ILI 0000 L 14 91 ll N k ......... .. A 14 ,111141 Ai W V A IV A vlill i SC3 11. GOLDEN KEY REALTY, 3842 GEARY BLVD.:._7. Associated Professions Inc. sAN.FRANCISCO..CALIFORNIA- ENGINEERS.ARCHITECTS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS LAND-USE PLAN JERSEY 16LAN0.7 4161447m17 —_CONTRA COSTA COUNTY_ IMS PAILAGAO er. PASO ROBLE&CA U"d EMU-642r CALIFORNIA___ San Ramon , , . _ ..1; s-n - T CITY OF SAN RAMON 2222 CAMINO RAMON Co ;;;. P.O.BOX 5149;.:,`. SAN RAMON.CAi']FORNIA'47583 FAX(415)866.1.436•' ^" v' (415)275-22001,,,,.), January 22, 1991 Mr. Harvey Bragdon Community Development Director Contra Costa County 651 Pine St., North Wing, 4th Mr. Martinez, CA 94553 RE: APN: 208-240-039-7; Northeast Corner of Crow Canyon Road/Bollinger Canyon Road Intersection Dear Mr. Bragdon: The above-referenced parcel has been requested by Miriam Chu, agent for the property owners, to be included within the County's Urban Limit Line. My understanding is that County staff is refining the Urban Limit Line and Ms. Chu has requested support from the City for her property to be included within the Urban Limit Line. Consistent with the letter from the City dated August 3, 1990 (attached) to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, this letter serves to support the inclusion of the above-referenced property to be within the Urban Limit Line. Please call me with any questions you might have on this matter. Sincer y, P , Wo nin S ices Manager PW/ds/c013 Attachment CITY COUNCIL:275-Z330 POLICE:275 2270 PUBLIC WORKS:275-2250 CITY MANAGER:275-Z330 PARKS S COMMUNITY SERVICES:275-2290 PLANNING:2752210 CITY CLERK:Z75 2350 COMMUNITY CENTER:275 2300 BUILDING INSPECTION:27S.2220 San Ramon r CITY OF SAN RAMON i111 CAMINl7 RAMON PC) BOX 5148 SAN RAMON CALUORNIA V4563 fAK 1.415)a66-14 36 (415)1751200 August 3, 1990 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Bollinger Canyon Urban Limit . Line Dear Boardmembers: Please be advised that the City Council of the City of San Ramon reached a consensus on July 10, 1990, supporting the inclusion of Bollinger Canyon ,properties within the proposed Urban Limit Line. The City believes that this area, along with other areas within the City's Sphere of Influence, should be included within the Urban Limit Line. Also, in general, we strongly urge you to instruct the County Planning staff to consult with City staff regarding any significant planning issues that effect property located within our Sphere of Influence or planning area. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 275-2200. Sincerely, Ma� ou Oliver M a \Or IS/MLO/ap (URBAN LIM) ( :f Nff,Rt.IR //•.111!1 f.\ fiiN 4.i1.•.I r:,•.i` '. I(.,• .. .. f BRADFORD FINANCIAL May 4, 1991 Mr. Harvey E. Bragdon Director of Community Development Contra Costa Countv Community Development Department Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Bragdon: Thank you for letting me show you and Dennis Barry the property. Having reviewed Measure C, I am more convinced than ever that the property should be placed within the urban limit line. The topography is generally less steep and more suitable for the type of development currently proposed for the adjoining Boex property. Our property and the Boex property are the only non-Williamson Act lands in the area for which taxes have been paid for many years. Perhaps because of these similarities, we were assured that our property would be included within the urban limit line together with the Boex property when the Board met and prior to the meeting. When the map came out we were told that it was a mistake that our property was not included together with the Boex property. We have been proceeding accordingly and request that you please correct the error. Sincere , Bradford Liebman BL/kk cc Lloyd Strobel, Attorney at law 345 LORTON AVENUE, SUITE 304, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010•TELEPHONE(415) 348-2617•FAX(415) 342-4577 BRADFORD FINANCIAL November 12 , 1990 Mr. Harvey E. Bragdon Community Development Department Administrative Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor - North Wing Martinez, California 94553 - 0095 Dear Mr. Bragdon, Per your request at our meeting this past Friday, I have requested Sam Stewart to deliver a map showing the location of our property. If you have any questions regarding the map or the location of our property, please contact me. Based on your comments, it is my understanding that our* property will be added within t::e "urban limit lines" at the next Board of Supervisors meeting in December. Please let me know the time and date of this meeting as I plan to attend. As you are aware, our property which is 436 acres is directly adjacent to the property presently owned by Mr. Hal Boex. Mr. Boex's property which is 1100 acres was included within the "urban limit lines. " In the event there are any questions relative to our request, please make me aware. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, OtU4M Bradford L ebman cc: Mr. Lloyd Strobel Esq. Mr. Sam Stewart 345 LORTON AVENUE, SUITE 304, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-TELEPHONE(415) 348-2617•FAX(415) 342-4577 tt ` •T ` Y� O 1 `G f + '� `'•'� � fait� m fff C r AUGUST 23 , 1990 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DENNIS BARRY 651 PINE STREET,NORTH WING FOURTH FLOOR MARTINEZ , CA. 94553 . RE: PROPOSED COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AND BOLLINGER CANYON URBAN LIMIT LINE DEAR MR. BARRY, ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF A LETTER DATED AUGUST 3, 1990 FROM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON SUPPORTING THE INCLUSION OF BOLLINGER CANYON PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PROPOSED URBAN LIMIT LINE. IN ADDITION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHOULD HAVE RECORDED TESTIMONY FROM MANY PROPERTY OWNERS AS WELL AS A SIGNED PETITION FROM VIRTUALLY ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, EXCEPT ONE, •REPRESENTING APPROXIMATELY 2, 600 ACRES ADVOCATING THE INCLUSION OF BOLLINGER CANYON PROPERTIES . WITHIN THE PROPOSED URBAN LIMIT LINE. ELY, r RONALD 0. X11/ San Ramon J ,rla CITY OF SAN RAMON 2222 RAMON P.O. soOxX 5 s 1 1 4 a8 SAN RAMON. CALIFORNIA 94583 FAX(4 15)866-1436 (415)275.2200 August 3 , 1990 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Bollinger Canyon Urban Limit Line Dear Boardmembers: Please be advised that the City Council of the City of San Ramon reached a consensus on July 10, 1990, supporting the inclusion of Bollinger Canyon properties within the proposed Urban Limit Line. The City believes that this area,; along with other areas within the City's Sphere of Influence, should be included within the Urban Limit Line. Also, in general, we strongly urge you to instruct the County Planning Staff to consult with City Staff regarding any significant planning issues that effect property located within our Sphere of Influence or planning area. If you have any questions., please feel free to contact me at 275-2200. Sincerely, Maou Oliver Ma IS/MLO/ap (URBANLIM) CITY COUNCIL 1751310 !'t�t!(.! !151770 !J411(:•.t Jft 7SS 7157150 CItY.\I ANAI:(R 275 1110 filth\A f t1,N 1111 V1i,�I lt�l(i\ ;J'.; `tl i'1\\\IVI, IS 1710 .:..r.I r r,, ::...:II,11.c i..li.7 ;1•i, �:III"...I.`.I•rC rl`: ;75 771n an Raw- 1112 Yall.o.,.. CITY Of SAN RAMON PO BOX $ ��Mt�N r s 1IfJ2 4>i SAN RAMON.CALIfOANIA v45$3 tAA(4 151 866.1436 (41 S!J 15.4200 August, 3 , 1990 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors 631 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 914353 RE: Bollinger Canyon Urban Limit Line Dear Boardmembers: Please be advised that the City Council of the City of San Ramon reached a consensus on July 10, 1990, supporting the inclusion of Bollinger Canyon properties within the proposed Urban Limit Line. The City believes that this area, along with other areas within the City's Sphere of Influence, should be included within the Urban Limit Line. Also, in general, we strongly urge yQu to instruct the County Planning staff to consult with City staff regarding any significant planning issues that effect property located within our Sphere of Influence or planning area. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 275-2200. Sincerely, 1. Maou Oliver MA �fl IS/MIA/alp (URBANLIM) �I '3 i, ji ;s rif l•.)Y'.la 121/1I•. .r•It l:'.f7 f• i..;•u; :.,•fit•. Ir:2fr.0 � 212lf`\t`,L1.111 lt521t1 •;frit a,l..t1511111+.Irtr.t( '.22••U rt•'.'.1`.:. It•.1!ih r.ire ♦ e .1'. ` 1. ,. '1,. .Itii ..f !l • .rr ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tino Bacchini 1901 Concord Avenue - - Brentwood , California 94513 March 29 , 1991 To: Dennis Barry, General Plan Coordinator, Community Development Department RE: URBAN LIMIT LINE AS IT RELATES TO THE OAKLEY / NORTH BRENTWOOD GENERAL PLAN. More specifically, the area east of Marsh Creek Flood Control Channel , south of Southern Pacific Railroad, west of Sellers Avenue , and north of Delta Road . As per our phone conversation of March 14 , I have compiled the following information . In 1984 the Board of Supervisors appointed a panel of Oakley area residents to designate the boundaries of Oakley. I have been unable to locate a map of the committee ' s recommendation. But members of that committee assure me the east boundary was Sellers Avenue. After completing their assignment , the Board of Supervisors dissolved the Oakley Boundary Committee and appointed the same people to the newly formed Oakley Municipal Advisory Council . The Board directed the Council to work with the Community Development Department in preparing a new General Plan for the Oakley area and also in reviewing new developments within the area. From 1985 to 1987, residents and land owners , " including the area in question, " participated in numerous public meetings expressing desires and concerns in formulating the 1987 plan. At no time was the eastern boundary of Oakley changed from Sellers Avenue to the Marsh Creek Channel . Please review the maps in the 1987 Oakley / North Brentwood General Plan, page 25 , map A; page 26, map B; and page 32 , map C; enclosed . As is evident by these maps, the east urban boundary was Sellers Avenue. In the fall of 1987 , when I was involved in the County General Plan Congress , I noticed maps designating the Marsh Creek Channel as the east boundary of Oakley. I informed the Oakley Municipal Advisory Council of my discovery. Mr. & Mrs. Eugene J. Thomas Rt 1 Box 77 Bixler Road Byron, CA 94514 Phone 634-3010 June 24 , 1991 Harvey Bragdon, Director Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4th Floor-North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: APN: 0117210-011, 011-210-012 , 011-210-016 Dear Mr. Bragdon, To further clarify our recent contacts with your office, we request to have the above referenced parcels included within the urban limit line. We further request that the zoning for said parcels allow for single family residential, multi-family residential, commercial/industrial, and other uses. We would appreciate your earliest response to this request. Sincerely, Eugre J Th omas Marie' Thomas cc: Mr. Dennis Barry, Assistant Director Community Development Mr. Val Alexeeff, Director Gross Management & Economic Development Agency Mr. Tom Torlakson, Supervisor District No 5 BRAGDONZ.DOC The council advised the residents and land owners of the area in question to circulate a petition and send it to the County Community Development Department stating their wishes of remaining within the Oakley General Plan . The petition was submitted to the Community Development Department with a cover letter dated December 14, 1987. Please review the letter enclosed . Also review the response letter dated December 28 , 1987 , from the Community Development Department signed by Kristen Kestly,. As you recall the 1987 Oakley Plan was deemed deficient in court and subsequently disapproved by the Board of Supervisors . In 1988 , Naphtali H. Knox and Associates were engaged to review and analyze the 1987 plan. O.M.A.C. and the Community Development Department with input from the community of Oakley included the area in question devised the 1989 Oakley / North Brentwood area General Plan . Please review the 1989 plan , page 11 , map D; page 28 , map E; ,' and page 61 , map F. All clearly display the east urban boundary- as Sellers Avenue . In going through the hearing process of the County General Plan in the fall of 1990, I was shocked to see the east urban boundary of Oakley at the Marsh Creek Flood Control Channel , and not Sellers Avenue as the Oakley / North Brentwood General Plan designates . I brought the apparent change in the boundary designation to the attention of our area supervisor Tom Torlakson. He assured me it was a clerical error as the Board had instructed the Community Development Department to incorporate the 1989 Oakley / North Brentwood General Plan in total into the county wide General Plan. Please review letters dated September 4, 1990, and October 24, 1990, from Supervisor Tom Torlakson to the County Development Director Harvey Bragdon. In closing, I believe that if the east urban limit line is moved west from Sellers Avenue to the Marsh Creek Flood Control Channel in a derogatory manner without input from O.M.A.C. or the area in question residents and land owners , would create a very grave breach of trust with the Community Development Department after many years of working together harmoniously. If your have any questions , do not hesitate to call me . Sinn/ncpT- ely, Tino Bacchini 1901 Concord Avenue Brentwood, California 94513 (415 ) 634 - 3645 cc: Tom Torlakson = - s � a • • i • t. 'r.• • BIG BREAK r ;f • l 0 i4G() }.'`ta ::a2•r. >:.: 'f''r'fid•:<:y ': `<•;.};i. O :`;li;;�:;..:. •i:`i• 35; '-•ff.''' '-}fid-,':% �'�-��$' ;-::;•:4;;� ! /!r .f�Yf i,� <}.iti• ffi.19+�.''G:a�2:�<'iG 'n :'s}.: ,_r..'�Y':ci%:>:.;',-.•.:x.. ;:#'}`':7,�..L-:..::}:rA"�.j:'. / ! >�.� 6NN.. G46L � ,o .f-.: a ti•1,,.,.,•.tGt;c-.y:::ii: i'�':' `' tf:3.+\`.'"'; a�?c' i �� j r- : z[ I H SPHERE OF INFLUENCE: 4p,.-. L:'. :. ,yt,.... z; + 4. <'1...,,,• "'i: 5:;•::., r r. .ANT OC `t 2k`- Lr,LA::y$.`.'',;.;.:. ?� ..cy..•{.; ;17;rv>: .�Q':: J / 'r/l . l-. ..,�.+�'•.fr .,;t�;...i. %'c`-'4i;<.,�:"��:%:`• '�`,%t'.a:;:�:::u:y.r •>.�i`:2i>}>.;;;;::;^ <` / // r' i :>`, '}.+5i: ''}<:: r.':p :hL'i' :.�_`@,"'.';:x�•L*l•" bi}?•.,.,;:','4Y}t:':iv.:,... ::,.�::�:14.;t:,:.;.,.�>;•'i j//� 1 R:e}:;>'"-`%z=.{,., d!tyf`�a�'4 %.nXs;�>.{..,, :.v'3.,.o ':i?r...:::.•:.:r :}•x-ti'.v;:h f �` ,f / ` / ~<\f..L:�' +•,�y..�"{:a :q>: ;?:S\:..iCi4y:i�'ti1L'- ':\•Y.:' :• i'�`!V:. ,} :.:T`..};. .-`A:::n}}/ / / t >�:i- T.: 1 y� pN. v .i,.:�!::j:�':^.'•YY:'f.� �:S':•,:;:::\..'•ti Z.yt .'R:<�'-`rl.`Ys,•:R;.} •R.$•}g:" R•:�f? .{ r,,S:'+'. <:::'tlJJ}}.. ... /{f .'Y ,:fi: .:,8. �r •.;'{$i•`:•� J}:{<.:.'tis^C..;>i::!1`A�••',:p .:r:. ,,�,} :'•:`}J..S:i•>'!:Y ::':Z::L::i�:Ji s=+2�?�:ri>'" 1)'.r='• �! 1� [• ..�Y ;:$Sr.•}f:.t•:'. •t?'• +L...v:; .v ::.t...fcf•A•..� .{Y:v,-,.. -.g :�j>.:S<:y?�;;�,{f-r}'r`l�>;•'a+ i% >:^�o-'}a-'?�:r: �'-' '�.[.•.:... :.;{.� ,S4�L'• . -•'`'"t�'�.N'i%'£ ;•y-•;<y ,h�. :'•::eta. •3" .zs•.;; �::2"}it:.,r:}-f. ''r..<:;::.%i:: fi>tF,::._,�;,La ///// ////// y-'"_ Y�. }l- .t $. 3.t»i "".f S•Y' x. t'}tl�;�, N((`C 4 •f:}'W 4 �` J\•, .:fr. F�,� r.t '%�':'�? �iiMyj`.e'E P' /':' n r,Ys':. _ :_}'•�F;r�fi'...:'•�'�=`c%};` 'i<o'.i':;-3:•!r?:.:yr {{{�'V r � fri-� ,::�sx�,.:�;4y G: �g ;.%�^,..r'�•%'f.. .i��•�' ..':: �•. .o✓"o }fey � _ � . 5 Y f)jkley noaur.°rfl ,:GW,•y`6 •:•,r'>', F>y`•f%} S r {>: r "`.- - .N:•kL;¢�;., ,;F''+�:::}�.�y-tt4::s�:.3 •?�f:2;:�1. "•j•"ra 'p g' !yiyo:�%S::ff5.: ijf,"C;'>:•. rr :+i%'' :.R1�; f ' ,'• .�.�. ':yr*'.;::'3;:i :`:' of 'yt::.} '"'?k%L, u:; 4 ,,= f;} ':�:::;$C..,'F•. '?'4° 'Q<'}L.=}iy>,r°<d »?%,.. .rf. :t?•# ':c': ��-� :,�}�;:''"f 'h. ,y :,r::-�5., Lf .L;tic sy.'- 'ate ',�,�_.- ``•kFf`37`;:}<3f v `+ -t.� .c;:,. rd';. .:x•::<f;y`}•:,c; Akt ..},m:}.:h YCR'�.:2- :a. l.�,,.-t } } .vLh:.:;,•.{; ::��::`,": : 2:,,f'•,•( ri ,:x�;'x7c•:�9f"i_ �.<"RCv.:��2`•':'l n .,1,`s.;'.• � l'"'.}' .� .:�+�} ,i'`3F�,'. /,/ ::;,iny�:r ;• \:".: F -,• 'C 'Rl;.`,4` .` }- l' �< v.:, ,12:x,rz•.- •f ,;tn'-',�`,:�,,'x..r` •r+,.. ..:•1, w ♦ %,aN MA'Ll• •\.?l,? :., :�'`{t Y l"kn h`?`•'$;:, :`::. \.;. •�:..\, ^x ":i:-Cvfzress Road W y\' L.�}, .;�.f�'L,:l \,: .li' i•:R::~.\.:,"•.'' 4,l :.\:.}., t'4i:.. r`-, '� ":'Y�r`:-{' •sM .:. .^::'t;l.`fiR YCY2,1`�" :•,l•.,:1• ...o-. `4Si::?">St•:}}`:::,.\:. .yfa::;:Jv.; '.'ti:• :L.;`{;; .t.\..: .`:,,\�' ,-;.-....\l;i>#'=i; l "`i`` to-:. a\%:cl t .{..:;.}3:. :;;:i>�-.}zl.. .{,.- ,?•., R;\\ .•�ill���'\.1:,\•+ c..• ';a•`ta;e\z�::iCi:�\,� �k. .o 1:.�;... :a,::j•.`:,�.>•A14�=�fC`. ,.:.y�;.{,;;.,. .,`r•.' ' :•'�\•::��?:r>.•\`w\l\••';..\ ♦ ♦"• .-4:o-:`.':.v2` ^...•::t.•:;. // t '��:4�: •s;,l�l\,,ti;t., •l--.;,:.,,c�.;:.ay\\v\� , a:.``;.i:`yta;ti�l�,-.. `3 \••.,lVt:•,. '.-.+;.::`.:.w\>:.a?.y, 'l'1 +' ! •::=:�:' :.4;p \>l,\,1;Py::� }} 4,�}�lti l\��,;\t\C1``,, y{,,��.\, ���i"y;:'4¢,�av,�-i; `,'\'�' <: �r1 ;,aµ.: \. .;:}:,t �.•.1.:. � ,�.. PLANNIiVG �,i�`\�' , £. y...`R: F "`:;�`','-�•,,^ >;:; '4Y:-r:4;y. Ll'``t;'`c} a:;,R;,}:..:-.::{. - 7 AREA `: `l l";•v:�;2-:' . .$::':'> CITY Of '':a; vs :� l\l`•yv�'.y `'�'3`a S J'.v"'L' �} :,'>'•`::':` v- {•., -s `'9` ..4`�`'rt � ���..;�;2o--t\ '2�Y:ti' ��;.; , a (:aS"}'y\`?. g .;-.:� .y.•:- "Jr..a4', = „y---`�:: 5,,� 111�.'v +e r..,,y, fi.'-mss:. ' `-Y •, `i:; •s': :,'`1''L �;.:.�j` �`.,'� ,.a-. ati. � .. 1. .R,\ c,�- ':'ac>'.rn4"'{:a::�L" .`L`.•-.v'''-',x` 4 [', Oi+ - .Y ;::::•w.le�:.'vvc,::•r;•yt- :;:;,4,+• '`x ; \•. et•' Laun;� Road` �}; -�,;,.<,iti£ '�\;z�,' l a>;z}:, '`�1` �\�}•'c .'Zl`.�` a� ,�:5;•. •`� ''=�`--:~~75:..-:o'...+';3C;cr::y:ft-::.:v•i � � -r `y<•''l 1, \.Lll,��_.tk.-• 2>:; :'�1�:-`---.•. 2. '1�+,-'--•' Y;. `. .}''.R 't:lY• �' :;�C{�t:"..,,z,. ?c, O '`':?3rc:<;`"��.,',�\ n�.�, •, � ,.;� •"Ct, b�•`'�• ;l'�tC<`:\,;`-,fix {v `=' �tti y v'fi'��•.,�`�`-�.��;.,'n \��\.�`"�� �`l ���:�''.' 'o-,} �11�` 'l R(t���n'3 ':;5:'%'< .l'-`� + �\ <. ', \ • \2:,.414 tiw � ,.`: " .. '`�-'-" a i:'., yY,. ' / � . .. - v 1,;\l�� ,"�`;?.'\�'��C ``\ '\.: hi 'z Q l L:'•. ,a ,.ala Z !''�S/ ���,�•'v'lR`` ' ?dr `l `til k,•,• `.s4t-R`.''_� '4> i� p f \, �� .,\ �` Ur:.�,''+•.`• , .r•. De7ta Road` '' ��...� ����� �'`�'\,;;z\ F. �'ly��\'�Z�, Ro�:i.,.,� \+,`lv..L� ��` '�,ttva��:2��.�'^N. •:\?, �� BRENTWOOD SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ' i ;7 EXPANDED i I / PLANNING AREA • ` f 1 Lone Tree Way/ Iry OF O ` 00 f W N zo �\ 0! '7• W� � O • 00041 W!O O W \ � � H • ,, u+•. z 1\ 1 O O 0.ez $• ;. N e W O - �, • i U Oca wq- / 1 Z I a° W • ; 0. ca • FIGURE 6 PLANNING BOUNDARIES MAP LEGEND PLANNING AREA f/ EXPANDED PI-ANNING AREA J PLA%NI[dG AREA BOUNDAP I( CITY LIMITS . ••• SPHERES OF NFLUF',CE i ns\� • r� �� NNrrrr / J � �rJ�f?�"" � L r.'��Yil�� o fry '" r }.{ ■ • r 5• in r r :f<jj:•..:+iyj `'•'S t �r;?i•:yj�';::`ir•,, _�Rt •■ jjj�ii • i� �� 6�j'kY,r.irr y i ■ R �Itli�n# # w Na ann :�- f�:irlr'�r i:-=ii�j%- !� :t,'4?',,;%Fj 1�■■1 �t jr was ;5,;�:,1!'i:j,: ..;/f r %%JJ+%q/•;. f"•.r/,l.# t`i � ! ■��.■■i�='ri=� t v+. `X ��-.�� '%�-I.;<:'J�•�2.,'' ry!!'!•�'ss,:=.,.,,:r�,.r�:�';; 5 1 �f "��i�� t.'. ����y?fin.y�µgyro „�';;:•.;! .{`i;. ::# � # ii VE s '{ r.� ` • 7 ,r �►■tn■■ tngal alliliiiiiTlia� 'wi •'�� r.r {f?.,':Y},.}�-:�,,•, r ,>;:;;y:•�r.,5 '-r.�t�i t■■R ■ l#■an+ ■ ■ it■lR� ■## lRRR #■ttiin�RRRi1 ■ • `nt{:.a fir'••:%� :� irl! ■# •■■■ t# now ■ nr#11 R tt■r■ an a ■=# nRlfl ttfi_■L#■ i �' �I+j�j .c 4`'cl':K*:-ri�ic}:;: •r.:rs '•: :� �� tt�■ l�Rt■iirf; `ai■t !�f ■ ■ r t;.,. '`•. , :»-„rr �rii M #n n n n Goutit, ■ rn r s as>xi;.<.;>,:'z:z sarnnsuR■nsss■ an■n■■■■itllnnRn n no■#■ ;,-:,?, ,>.;.#ii■■#nt#R%t#Rn#rnilni#iusn■rnnn” n nn#tR °\h ' i�axlsii2014,88 slog, in \4 '� 7♦',�1�, ,'?;r`..`?s.�,snii:}.;411 J}t _. },. �',$ \• \., `' '{•i �;j'ca'{`:,x:'v:.;X?t;;,}Z:h { `{�f. n, 4 - 'h YJvv' -� v,��:?h,^:-tiff: • �41k4:�`+`. I \}... ,N\;�J,,\\..`t;.s y:,i�v.''`p�`J .l\ . ::�\:Jti•�:;;+��.�\`�`� j� � ,� '\\'' Vit:::.}iq\ti.:<;•��•:T1 VA f• � Z``: SF•,.C'f{,k'4}�'�>'?.)\;yam � t /: / r% MORE f� #' -T . :V:_t� �ti.-'-i.�c:>,.... - '�:`.G...t;.i�-.":-t, t\,`•�;:'.1'.4� y(� GG(�•� �� "�>'i'•,�-: - :�-,�. ',�:i(;�•=iii �}'.t•G,jrl�G, � l'v4 Cid t 4, F L flit: IMI Ah �.l:�l.t:.`t.:`t tJ•�r��G1 [lam K.'il 11 Ir ,._ `'•.► •,t` 1 - � G'`'.-�•ti,`~ '•��„�a �++1 V:-1, =e 1fi h '"�G 7' 7 t 17 ��•:.`�,`'-'`�. '`' �?'J?•`�'i��-.1•e.C4� .4°6 m�e�{' �a uv. a: / / t l . �J' (-�,•-1�_���`..��.� ..: ^.. �'y.,off,:C.,n;•.i;� •^rti.{r Ce .'R..�Z67o `I :tin•r,., ti.•:•• C:0•`�-GTi (�oCt;'qrSRS J _.`TI •`•C�,,,,r'`''J - �c c. ri a C�tt>�o,�'?, ��.•,a� C. S, . 't<! s '1 ,�C o r„-.M•t'c �.� `y •`'?u.{:;'C 63.` t �. +b�•. M1w^ , '9/� �ia p;'. OCGb�`.�.:♦ •'•.�� 1�CLQ `..t.N < I a 1 2iC. ..•;;,°£'`•4\$ c`t6v'�'' 'O• .C�: C L�• O tp r -qct°:p� E C ��:ot Pi•y�$" r4..4 L C t � :i`�•',�Q 11 .tr. Itr, '2`��, Yy_^_,o.__� t�£e�t•••.0 O•. �•t1. O,A X. : t -..� 3 1 � h'v�o ��,t".y`�o�..,Q:"•.i:�rCMe� °�.:)�'�l't��W"" 11 c:�,ECJ ,•cv :44.:c'u•:,.�°it. f.•:rc !' Tr'" ::C:.�•'y °:Cc .,tint' J' 01 t. E ccl •o c c s- c+ - •cr- •C e . c -o�`�C. •t 7• t G• 0 �q r•1 Ii••- C. C• f . o .•:1 a 1 T' i a c `v N .0 1 C" o' v •�r C ♦y S p ':./••ir�l n.nlr•r�•I,i r.rri :i�::.:';i:y::'?... 4 • ok Southeast Antioch Specific Plan �:�8•.cannon e• _ tL 7 J , P O /t 'RTl n ,d �J V•i fin. II �t NI RnM II' :!T •'l•"1�,�>.ri�p.•1 ,fj � r"pt .�or�`-c`S• • c ,�'+'•�.ti,� Il. n}.•.:11 c�•n .✓ f. F, F^ c�;. 6.1 '< a :�R •M�fy t:•< It 61�;,, �:�:�•`O, fR� •f�,J. .err• i,•,�o,°• _�[• �:•�=t:' o,.M 3. •,nt;,r,!�::!'a�:fl.d; ;�7)„19 . •'It+ 'z ,:$r ti� t;z C'S+•,. � : I t [,1 r ,.ff 9't:F). ,1•�n'•_n ,[��`dJ W ¢q fd)..f: ..... .. r •�t4 c 5-�.”: _•.c• a l;Z:r'' .i., ,•1.e•.Wry .7•...� kyr .......... ... L°ne T. War y. C :.CC•..r'lic -e i av flR ENTWD . •...cE I f••{;1� l•• ro j9l,On .'t'•(••Ctl'.•'f Va^9'a0 CIIY I)F nD :J. J•::'^:f•y... i� 6 n n f, .o' �' r3 t Ji.��rri n ns�?•t!•.Jn IC-,.d .lr!��'?.iiJ,.i ,f,,w`�r,;...p'PeD.rriri o!+!•'n;,•ip _ !rye •r,''r '•J'J' Ftn"r .M.�e• .!, o` ,. ,,....... •�q 'S• -S•' •� I. fP.. '� •r —� Ip 7� n 4+� I L' •J '•9.. . �`. f',,.�. .Y rNa'�},'°,41•.�;•: .�. fa'.:(Jp •J :vc::'�. e�r.�.n. .R< . 3� ntr•-21A;. ;�'rc` p�"q..yrr. n:a� .' r�t4.r. v n. L •� 0./19 .J:Cj're o.?v, Jl.. r,, rr 7. / i �O `�.: =•`�- . /l�' , :h :•� •. •�Crrnw,Ilr,;xli •.c, = Ll 77 IX I�+I •�r ���/r'°•�^j��.�^d,�//i�. ! � : ? �i i/�,i /�"i�i'/,� `,�i� //%/.� .y/ •v.SorMat •%• 7o v;J.�qnc r1 q•'1,. /,j i / /,_ � /i'-� /: �/j nq - 'ncy - FIGURE 8 OAKLEY AREA GENERAL PLAN Adopted by the Board of Supervisors April 7, 1987. 1 LEGEND : lI RESIDENTIAL- li 1 Acre Minimum Lot Size Commercial -c;`�:'r'.� Agriculture Residential 1 to 3 D.U.'acre Light Industry Agriculture Recreation ^� 3 to 5 D.U.;acre Heavy Industry Agricultural Core J ' .......... 5 to 7 D.U./acre Office Park & Recr^ation � � 7 7 to 12 D.U.;acre Public&Semi Public. Recreation f . :•::,;:. 12 to 21 D.U./acre I Antioch Suecific Plan Area Project Area ,C C.. FIGURE 3 :r � � � � _ `�•�E t i a \ ' S. .3't•:Y nv:n.. K• rq• kv i4• �: t;'r`$:}:3ir:i$:�r•::tr::�:: :?:':�:?•:;: ::?::::{c{c4 r.................. { i v.�4�??iii: v.:i4:?•Y:},;4v: ::.t:�YL$i+'*$:'?iii$$$?i:vv%;;•$}}}riY:•ir??i?: �? }:k{:i}: : :.i:.r.•tk}. :::r:a•v'r �'<? Y:}:tpa'?< :::,;,w°�ai�{c+?:. r.xQ:•• .. >3'.i,•fY...tr.. - }T :.:�.i:Cii:v:::.:ti a $:?a:ti?' vv'4:•.vi:4Y � r:•:4i)%•Y}:•:4:f:vti;!: `:::iiv<:i::... �+y�Y����{`� v:.\,n vrrlii'Yi?i?:..,. pn:!4^{v:v.).}.....:•Yl�+n;�ti}• ...{•.;,. .S. ;Y;:,?' $i .: i:.`t$.yU..^•.^;..tik7$ii::i;$::$;4$$•r;'`•$$r ::.iiiiiiiwwryii�:wf�.M:.'" :•.�w�w;:i�:: '"- . s;;:<;:;::»:;:$i$:k?�:•: -.::<:i•{?i$i:;?.ul:i�.}t•: }..1 t$:24:k;:�.. L� yr:`;Siii 2i:$;;k::4:;•:;;?:;:} ..11 X•;a:, ti�p•.. .,'.:x.•:4'.•.}•$: LtY{.v �f'w• ;'#rib:.:.. r.�, ::•*::..�;n• y.:•. 4t,�:•} •{)kM!slt!!!/!! :;:\}.'ts'ar >?:•�{{{ :3':4kr>f•..:::.t:+:;ti..:::�!::::.�:::.�.�:::: a�:;1 `i�:::>>'���`:`<G:)4$.K:•:�•�.' r.;%} ; W .•{or tk•;. t{C:32..5R.n;'�:r:-$;:;:: :..:;:i i$}'::ik:<:�:$$:�:i��r•�iwi :<f1;:. .Y :n...t ::r:• ...?%:,: 'rv•`F�. : .:{�: - •v.•:::n;;:;:;:,Y,.j .:r.::v;: .,.:... f :'$•}:'4':v'.:....:n.... n{$- :;t:42i:$;)2:$$$::$$:�::i::i$}J}Miiiii}:iii: .Y' �:� �'�?' v:��ii��.�.-.��..:.;;::'.:xM(..:nv::..� F.r..i$}:)r: .Y}:NF!:v.. t•.+i �. t m::.:: «:• tr ::.''.:.:;:�i;:: :::::k;:;$:i:� .xF 4{.vat•}:{•r:aXkr':\i:S•. 'k•'..�'�'� �$$$$.^•.::{ry:i :�i: .::!!s $:S :;:2:i:$?{�} Cry'.:{•:r..:;:•:ry$ii?:�;:t�t��:"+�.^_:$":.:.:i::.i::4?R:•. 'w"e'iiieYir�i'i• w�rA++!� :7jKlrf;Y' '"�'•"AX""'::�':::.�:?:::::::;:??::: ::INMiFr?}!?.:.>:•}:{•Y?rr?Y?}:r ; ::•J.•.F:J{}:t$t1:?,;r},+T{.};4:$^:{$?:b „! , C $$1:: ;S�$+$:•:{}T,:4„ ..r.:= ��t? :?t•�:}iry�:�i`;:fit.:�?':4`k`i5:: ...... .. �.... %kY :4114 y�. ...-"............:.v'e$:::}k$y{'vv$}vvarii^:}.... r irY;r,:i•;v4•k:a., ..v:: .... .:.i':.:':. ;:it;:�$' xrC:$:i:•�;.rxY.::Y:.•::r•$'1{.::vl:•�+. .:..:. ..:...... ------------------------- v;}:v.�.?i:?Yr!•Y'}?'':• i::}i::3:4.'v.4:4$:4$1$:v"? ..�lt� :...: tv'f.••. Y .......... ..a+. e� :<:�:4::ii:::;x ...:t:. xa3r.•.. ta$?r:4 .tr:,Y ns ' 2':!"v:i}:•ii}i}}r:4)?ii' �.• :.?K v\•{'ry:+.•:,w��.jY•:,vY I ♦ '14:4;}.}v, {?•: 224$$?`.4:vi'�"'6:^2:i$�4r:4$:?}:• nYk t C :':�Ylli".ilG$:::::k:::t?45:�:�• � ::%rr��:?i"�:' i:' ':?�:�1{y';`: ;}:;`{.;}•::�'3:}l%%`k'>:��'i}f " t Q...:........... •;{. .:;:;?:�.1.i'2}i :'414.4 }{•:. ........... nE;.$ n.M:v^.4}t:4:?:' :Y,��n$$:)i:{:{y}: :j::}4: •4w•:/.:t:.•4:tv'�:::'1 �4'.,':;':}ii:S4: � v, .........: :•Y':•�$:is;v-v.4:{{:$1i:� f$$$?v$$$$:;•:Y:•4?r:: v4v;•:•.kr v :$:$�4;Sfi4$:rv, .. '2':Sk4Y.tdi•,•::.:;. t.t}:{,+:$11 r u.. :grit :`f•:4 . ?.....4 .�. :..R .v.�:•:+•?{•??ri}i.y m:%4\y:...• wiC-�. ; .. ;:..:: }:vii: w::• .:. ..:., x::{.?'v? ....+.•........: :::. ...... ;:.;?:� } .1 1 LIU '{ _ � ' /�~t'..��— •!•.�1/moi/�7R'',J/~/}� w' 4V 3....ter;_ LrL• + �� S' +r V ^.• �` �C 1� PLANNING AREA MAP f t1a■its as agfw■ an- lose Me `' �, ea■■■agw■■aw■■■■f■iva■ `� .yo1� S!aggfNia■rM/1SNifi � � > +.f z. "tt vrA+• i; Ww�Y■■N■MYYif■■■W■ . .�, .. `'-.'yam � JN/ifQK�iN■fii■■i1q■Hifrf ...... � � u $I: -ANY■rNC\a■■■gaYi■■ai■rN■■■■ > ' ■■■tlfN■■N�R�a1■■a■Maa■arfafalN■ t �qtt•■ar■irafa7�ai■uaa■■f1■N■faas mr tip aa11i/■■ar■■u■a~.Cgs aq•■fwf■u■u agau■■■■NqN■ ■■ ■■ulcaaa■aN■Y■■■ Iw a,{ �a■■ta■argogafYN•asaf■INaal•aYNi ,„ a � N■t+Yfuugquur■Yssaf■a■wlaqu < ., aa•italr■a■■aa■aa"■■■i■iiaiw�fr■Yiaaa < ` n .rE ,° �; t�iom teaYmmusiNY*ff��iflf_ z ` Ji •t1YINY■Oiafaa■N■N I -+ala■■a �T < ' i.c+ ' < �, I■if■aiNiaaaf■NNfia■ I 4 5 '1■ liaa■Nia/■rapa■■afi■i I -� o■ Hos ■ai■ i < ?• t ■11■1 ■■a■ lir■■ M . v t I� r F t - t..l r■ 1■■fr■■■ f=a■ lalra---- Y■w C laa■rap a • "Moss■■f■■■a■pgf� 11■1■sai ■■■f la■N■■Ylraaai■w•1► S2 s -.t 7 ;� `F r \ - f to■•iafia•N■NNi■aifi • ta■iif•fM�i■q■qN'\ S > .`.� + C °> 2� ''■ IiN�■■■■Ni■aalwma■a■NI ^aM■■gNY/ONI�MY x,,� `wa. v 4 \,r 3 g � `itv'�.i■Ilifiii . - .� . -�i�aw� ft— -tYp-NN►�c- cilli■aN Nfuilli■M■fPi� iaaiaaNa■ari. '� •c^'i■il■■■■r ira■1■■IIaN■■i%Ia ■■ii■■■■1■a1 t + ��^'t s a■IJ■■■aiNN■ggaa■aIN■■■w11fa1Nr'a■■ aa7NY■■Nt fill■■of■ia■1■■iM■Na■■IN■tlNafl■'Ia■■ :a■■■q1■•■aa ` ' 6�. a' got tulaugquNuar/Lau1..■..�r..�aa■a•a■ra1 !t■iOmass us `M -7wllara•aral■•agla■oaf■YI•II•Y•raaa• • '.a•ga•tt••■1f p •` >. �" J•tla■••1a■w/••Irgria■w•w■■6/aM■■•ar■ ■uN•wuq ` ♦ruuauwugNlal•uu■otlgNwNun 111:88 N■■ .. �a.r,»7•a9aiN•NI■•■Y■NM/IN■rgra■M aon- .......... •Y..v > 1 DEVELOPING URBAN OAF Yu 3 //. /aiga •- N CL z2 ^ Q Q M ¢ O J C0 ID J W LL o ] > C, O C Q A Z J >- co CL Q LL J o ° m a mo D � m O O m o � J n � W 0 0 Z a` y- Ix L � Q W Divi, 7F, S yf 9 �� < s c ! yt* ' vY� �r' ` w„ `M 'tJ•tx vrY� O ' Y Ff{ -Y 'r 6._(i:�:i,G��SY/•:"tx'q...<f4"�.'. fl w �'fid S f S Off �� C q yV. r• '• L f r ��I✓" wr2 j'iv .�.+� a. ?'�r.,5cc,� � s•~��b.;its a� s1��,3� "> ,• ��S w )�.. �;�� 0 - O¢� � f i t..�:.. F.....r'1'�"J p�, !N�� a ,;�'�YYI,,t r}• 0.r is '•q•'�j;p� �A:,�7 ��yi e�..✓'L.!:n�.(,,�� Q L'S"�'�'..:t.., i�.� n ✓. .y .fF ( •1�r� '+iS�Jf, �:?5� J:�+�f 4 ++ '"::. ..p z.S�2,� :. 1• +l:•h�� 'n.r.' .,<,F,I{','r':::1.'�:�:,::;Sl tii. ".r.G (\�� T4 'j{�f l':l""•{i$i,'�l.:l tvP ' f 1�✓�::"C.:�'J'if1Y�rFlf �F 3?Yi. i7�?..}i !•�s' Ee:1h: � Sitw r'lyi�?tr .t g, rS EYa t V W Z Y v� s vjY�•. 1 si,�� � � 0 � HD: iy• j L KNIT n_is �s t� '?;�• .. P MUM VM VNI i t� - r w° ♦ � F n 1���,Y4�} ,',r�;,to�`p�•.. � .�R:��•t SSM"d«w" Y• s yt F7 ..•e ri� nnnmu.nn.a .. am i-s•5."o�(„ Sjr♦��}l'Us{'Wftl°° H0011NV 40 AID al»•�''.'`t';i'�^ �Iflafirl�rii),1}�)r 1 q•Wa'33,,.,'.f•N E ■ n` o ■ � h • ° W C W • LL � 2 G ry V J O � O N LL � O C O i 2 of ° y HuF FAKER & STF.I'LIF:NS; ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jj-AV?- KY I). ILUFFAKER IA07 "A" STREET TELCF-OIVE RANDY L. -4jTEYRF.NS SUITE 0 (A15) 767.0771 ANTIOCH. CALIFORNIA 94300 Harvey Bragden, Director Community Development Department Fourth Floor, County Administration Building Martinez , CA 94553 RE: General Plan for Region Bounded on the T,7est by Marsh Creek, and on the East by Sellers Avenue in the Oakley area Dear Mr . Bragden : I I hilve been requested by the property owners in the above referenced area, whose signatures are apre-:::e'-f tc the attached petitions, to request that their area be retained in the Oakley Planning Area for purposes of General Plan formulation,- zoning and development. The residents of this area have historically considered themselves to be included within the unincorporated area of Oakley. When the Oakley Municipal Advisory Council was formed at the end of 1983 , they supported drawing the Eastern line at Sellers Avenue, rather than at some point to the West of that line. During the three years follo;,:ir.a the establishment of GMAC, during which OMAC held a number of hearings concerning the revision to the Oakley portion of the East County General Plan, residents of the area bounded on the East by Sellers Avenue and on the West by Marsh Creek were in frequent attendance at public hearings , providing their input, and making their desires known with respect to planning within their area. When the issue arose as to whether or not their area should be included . within the region being considered for general plan revision under the Oakley General Plan Refinement, the residents of this area steadfastly supported the inclusion of their area in the Oakley General Plan Area, as the result of which the E. I .R. and the subsequent planning documents repeatedly made reference to their region. During the negotiations which took place *between members of GMAC Ind members of the Planning Staff following the initial Planning Commission Hearings on the Oakley General Plan Refinement in January and February cf 1987 , the designation of this area as "future urban" , was one of the primary bargaining chips discussed by all parties in return for concessions made by members of OMAC concerning other portions of the community of Oakley. It is now my understanding that in response to presst:rc exerted by a very small minority of residents in this area, that the County is once again considering excluding this region from consideration in making its long term plans for development of the Oakley area . Such an action on the part of Contra Costa County would not only allow the small local minority to control the majority in a manner reminiscent of the tail wagging the dog, but would also breach the trust which residents of this area have placed in the County during the negotiations conducted between the County and these residents during the last three years . I would urge you, therefore, to retain the area West of Sel'.ers Avenue within the Oakley Planning Area, dnd to plan the area in a manner consistent with the discussions and prEvious designations agreed to between the residents of that area and County Staff . Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Sincerely, Jeffrey D. Huffaker JDH:ch cc: Tino Bacchini cc: Supervisor Tom Torlakson cc: Richard Dillon, Chairman, GMAC C.cmmunity Contra Harvey of Bragdon Director of Community Development Development Costa Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phone: 646-2031 Huffaker and Stephens 1407 "A" St. , Suite D Antioch, CA 94509 Dear Mr. Huffaker: We have received your letter of December 14, 1987 expressing concern over the status within the Oakley Area bounded by Marsh Creek and Sellars Avenue. This area was designated as part of the Oakley Planning Area and within the Urban Limit Line by the Oakley Area General Plan. To this date, the Board of Supervisors has not altered that designation. The General Plan Congress has been considering the relationship of lands and out of urban limits, maps prepared to assist in this discussion apparently either omitted or incorrectly showed the Urban Limit Line of this area. Those maps will be revised. It is important to note that an error such as this does not reflect a change in policy. Thank you for your concern and bringing this to our attention. Should you have any questions regarding this letter please call me. Sincerely yours, A' t Kristen P. Kestly, Planner cc: Supervisor T. Torlakson KK/df L8:huffaker.ltr Tom Torlakson 300 East Leland Ad. 'l- 0 Suite 100 Supervisor, District Five - Pittsburg, California 94565 Contra Costa County ' (415) 427-8138 Board of Supervisors • r,� coor+� � t DATE: TO: Harvey Bragdon, Director, Community Development Attn: Karl Wandry, Deputy Director FROM: Tom Torlakson, Supervisor, District V I • SUBJECT: INCLUSION OF OAKLEY GENERAL PLAN AREA INSIDE PROPOSED URBAN LIMIT LINES (MEASURE C) This memo is to confirm the conversation held this date between yourself, Mr. Tino Bacchini, and Kathi Baladad regarding the Oakley area's inclusion inside the urban limit lines . you indicated today that all of the land included in the Oakley General Plan planning area is within the urban limit lines proposed in Measure C, reflecting the intent of the Board. The map as attached to the 65/35 Plan is for illustrative purposes only, needs to be refined, and indeed does not reflect the Sellers Avenue area accurately. Please take the steps necessary to ensure that all of the Oakley Planning area is accurately reflected as inside the proposed urban limit lines prior to final adoption of the 65/35 plan. i TT:kmb J Tom Torlakson 300 East Leland Rd. Supervisor, District Five Suite 100 •;f Pittsburg, California 94565 Contra Costa County a ••._.�_ 'S (415) 427-8138 Board of Supervisors r 4 DATE: TO: Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Department FROM: Tom Torlakson, Supervisor, District V, SUBJECT: INCLUSION OF AREA WEST OF SELLERS " IN COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AS PART OF OAKLEY GENERAL PLAN Pursuant to our conversation this morning, I am forwarding to you the maps and correspondence relating to the properties of Tino Bacchini and Louis Mangini. It was my clear understanding that the entire area of the Oakley General Plan would simply be incorporated into the Countywide General Plan and to any accompanying maps . Apparently there has been a clerical error in relation to the property referenced in the attachments . This area is west of Sellers and clearly in the intended area of urbanization under the Oakley General Plan both the 1987 and 1989 plans . Please review this matter as soon as possible. I look forward to your recommendation on how this situation can be rectified. TT:gro Attachments i i t CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CONMUNITr DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Supervisor Tom Torlakson DATE: November 15, 1990 FROM: Karl L. Wandry, Deputy Director SUBJECT: Inclusion of the Area West of Sellars in County General Plan as Part of Oakley General Plan The Bacchini and Mangini properties were included in the Oakley General Plan as an area designated Agricultural Lands, further refined by the Growth Management Program as "Future Urban." The Oakley/North Brentwood Area General Plan was to be included in the County-wide General Plan. I've discussed this with Harvey and he indicates that in order to meet the 65/35 plan certain agricultural lands within the ONBAGP were placed outside the urban limit line. Mr. BacchiniJ and Mr. ManginiJ were two of -the properties affected by this change. Harvey also indicates he advised the Board of this during the urban limit line discussions. For further clarification of this issue you may wish to discuss it with Harvey. KLW/aa LTRXXVII/P1an.KW cc: ONBAGP Harvey E. Bragdon Dennis Barry ( f . Z � .9- - 7 0 lacific Arbor Resources :l��Yies r Giving you a world as nature planned it July 12 , 1991 Mr. Harvey Bragdon Community Development Director Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Bragdon: As the owners of Orwood Tract in eastern Contra Costa County, we respectfully request to have our property included inside the County's Urban Limit Line as part of Board of Supervisor's General Plan update. This letter serves to provide additional information supportive , of our initial request of June 28, 1991. We own a 1, 176 acre parcel of land on Orwood Tract, approximately five miles east of the City of Brentwood. The property is bordered by the Santa Fe rail line and Orwood Road to the north, Old River to the east, Indian Slough to the south, and private property to the west. (Assessor Parcel Numbers 15-190-2, 15-210-10, and 15-210- 10-12) . Our property abuts the Urban Limit Line established to allow for the existing Discovery Bay development and the proposed expansion to the east. The Urban Limit Line follows Werner Dredger Cut, Indian Slough and Old River to our south. Our property is presently improved with two occupied residences and approximately 15 additional structures, including a packing shed and machine shop. Access to the property is provided via Orwood Road. Based on the standards established in the General Plan for the purpose of making changes to the Urban Limit Line (General Plan, Section 3 . 6) , we believe our property specifically meets the criteria under Subsection (d) , "a minor change to the ULL will more accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal boundaries. " 820 Flynn Road, Camarillo, CA 93012 • (805) 987-8456 • Fax (805) 987-5955 July 12 , 1991 Page 2 This criteria is met based on the following: 1. Topography: The land is nearly level and suitable for development. 2. Soils: Sacramento clay, egbert clay, ryde silt loam, kingle muck. Primarily Class 4 soils which are not considered prime soil for agriculture. 3 . Levees: The levees are in extremely good condition allowing for a water-oriented development similar to Discovery Bay. 4 . Geography: The Werner Dredger Cut on the west is a man- made cut. Orwood Tract is not a natural island. 5. Water: There are five drilled wells on the property. In addition, existing water rights allow pumping from Old River. 6. Power and Telephone: PG&E and Pacific Bell provide direct services to the existing residences and structures. Services could easily be extended to serve future development. 7. Access: Access to the site is currently via Orwood Road. The planned expansion of Discovery Bay to the west will include the extension of Balfour Road approximately up to Werner Dredger Cut. The construction of a bridge across the Cut will provide access directly to Orwood Tract. In addition, additional access can be provided by expanding existing Orwood Road. 8. Sanitary Sewer: It is anticipated that the sewer capacity provided for the expansion of Discovery Bay should be sufficient to serve Orwood Tract. Extending the Urban Limit Line to the east, to Old River, will provide a natural and logical boundary for development, and will provide consistency with the Urban Limit Line location established for the planned expansion of Discovery Bay to the south. In addition, planned development at Veale Tract and the Bethel Island Specific Plan Area to the north indicate that our property will clearly be surrounded with development. It is only logical to conclude that Orwood Tract will eventually develop as well. Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide this additional information. We look forward to the Board of Supervisor's consideration of this request. Please include us on the mailing list for notice of the hearing. r July 12 , 1991 Page 3 Please let us know if we can provide any further information. Very truly yours, Eliz eth Roges' Richard Rogers cc: Supervisor Tom Torlakson Bill Gray, William Gray and Company Alex Cross, Rodi Law Offices 210 !:X d �acjfic Arbor Nur- Giving you a world as nature planned it June 28, 1991 Mr. Harvey Bragdon, Director Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Bragdon: As the owners of a portion of Orwood Tract in eastern Contra Costa County, we respectfully request that our property be included within the Urban Limit Line when the Board updates the County I s General Plan. As we have discussed with you and your staff previously, we acquired the Orwood Tract property for production of sod in support of Pacific Earth Resources 's northern California operation. Pacific Earth Resources currently produces approximately forty percent of the State's commercial and residential sod. We believe that it is important to maintain flexibility with respect to potential future uses of our property. Contra Costa' s General Plan currently proposes residential development on properties to the south and west of Orwood Tract. In addition, development is proposed on the Veale Tract and within the Bethel Island Specific Plan Area to our north. Additional information in support of our request will be forwarded within the next two weeks. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you very much for your consideration of our request. Very truly yours, Very truly yours, Richard Rogers Elizabeth Rogers 820 Flynn Road, Camarillo, CA 93012 • (805) 987-8456 • Fax (805) 987-5955 June 28, 1991 Page 2 cc: Supervisor Tom Torlakson, Contra Costa County Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, Contra Costa County Jim Cutler, Community Development Department, Contra Costa County William Gray, William R. Gray and Company 0 N Y v > Y P .eti 4 L rj. -: �. . ,i 1 3 ;e 1 ,rtiu��^.�o• i, •...___-••� OVOIi A3l1VA S�l'�YH�ls—'"�' ? ,a^ '� �'• ►t• t dr ewe../'�. �_ _....--- in .. / r t. j+ +' aN�p• �,• n ��'I�i••`�••t• '; t tl // �. r �.1� V+-�o'�� 1. `i.��SYiy .�3t� t��Y a•'C h� G % / f � _ �', n' X1.7 i `�d'''i� �� �"� _-'• / -�' �`': , . � Vis,. `s:�` �•� •� �'.��, : s�`'•G �. �f�J`�- � _Wit— �r. `• t ili k , } 'G� r•` ( \ • y`+•� .�"� '�`�+•�_`, ♦ Jai. t \ ' p1 ! � y• i r 't 4• d } a �a 1 ' N •� 'n U �' d V w c cS � Q d u z d m 'm � n. •� '°C m b I :OY•:........................................ ... .. c '.................. "fin. ' y� �,,, •:::.L ,...................... I ° q2 • v x �O f'::� : :: : .... .:.� r•^��..� ��•:..:. _..moii• \l •` Vim" .......... .C:::•;:: . a-:' �` q O fu �aWmrc � •�7 d T�"y►.�•+.cy:�:r:•t:i:i'r:•tr::•:•tri:....:... / IVIN Z- 11 O All I E i s N arm 1lir % ot tai w y �.,�.....e 1� •.�}'•S\��p"i � � _ Mr. Valentin Alexeeff June 26, 1991 Page 3 After your staff has had a chance to review this request, we would be happy to answer any questions or provide any additional information that you may require. Please contact me or Mark Armstrong at Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong (837-0585) . Very truly yourp, R.LcIlard D. Baker, President Norther Division, Pulte Homes RDB:ke enc. cc: Supervisor Bob Schroder w/enc. City of Walnut Creek Attn: Mayor Gwen Regalia w/enc. Charlotte Flynn, Planning Director w/enc. Newhall Land & Farming Company Attn: Gary Cusumano, President and CEO w/enc. Rick Mork w/enc. Mark L. Armstrong w/enc. I:\client\21441\alex0625.1tr Mr. Valentin Alexeeff June 26, 1991 Page 2 July 11, 1991. Annexation to the Contra Costa Central Sanitary District is the only required service district annexation. We understand that the County Community Development Department is accepting requests for adjustments in the Urban Limit Line for common consideration by the Board of Supervisors in the next few months. We understand the deadline for submitting such requests to be included within the common review process is June 27, 1991. Pursuant to Section 82-1. 018 (d) of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, an Urban Limit Line change can be made only if one or more stated findings based on substantial evidence can be made by a 4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors. We believe that, there is substantial evidence to support one of the allowed findings, namely that this represents a minor change in the Urban- Limit Line that more accurately reflects topographical characteristics and legal boundaries. We are not aware of any other circumstance in which land within a city's incorporated boundaries that is designated for single-family use in its general plan has been shown outside the Urban Limit Line. Such an exclusion does not reflect the intent of the Urban Limit Line to accurately depict and be consistent with designated land uses within legal, incorporated boundaries. The Draft EIR demonstrates how the project as proposed protects the scenic hillside and open space qualities of the site. It can be used as substantial evidence to support the required finding. It is our understanding that the City of Walnut Creek made a formal request to the Community Development Department and the General Plan Congress that the Newhall North and South Parcels be included within the Urban Limit Line. That request was honored. However, the Urban Limit Line as finally adjusted during the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan review process did not. The line was changed without, as we understand, notification to or the knowledge of the Walnut Creek officials. It is our understanding through Charlotte Flynn, the Walnut Creek Planning Director, that the City supports including the Newhall North and South Parcels within the Urban Limit Line. We are making this request at this time in response to the County's apparent intent to consider several Urban Limit Line adjustments at one time. Perhaps it would make more sense to consider this request after the Portofino EIR is certified and the City acts on our project application. We are not aware of any restriction in the General Plan or the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan to such subsequent, individual consideration of our request. o Pulte Dome Corporatioh RECEIVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY JUN 2 71991 GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY June 26, 1991 Mr. Valentin Alexeeff, Director Contra Costa County Growth Management and Economic Development Agency 651 Pine Street, No. Wing, 2nd Floor Martinez, California 94553-1229 Re: Urban Limit Line Adjustment, Pulte Homes Walnut Creek Newhall North and South Parcels Dear Mr. Alexeeff: Pulte Homes has an option to acquire property referred to as the 'Newhall North and Newhall South Parcels located within the incorporated boundaries of Walnut Creek. The property is referred to as the project site on the enclosed local setting map. The current alignment of the Urban Limit Line does not include this property within the line. The line is located at the western boundary of the property. On behalf of Newhall Land and Farming Company, the owners of the property, and our company, we would ask the Board of Supervisors to modify the Urban Limit Line to include the Newhall North Parcel and Newhall South Parcel inside the line. The Newhall North Parcel and Newhall South Parcel are comprised of a total 220. 6 acres. The North Parcel is comprised of 161. 1 acres and the South Parcel of 59.5 acres. The property has a Walnut Creek General Plan designation of Single-Family Very Low Density (SFVL) which allows residential development at 0.1 to 1.0 dwelling unit per acre. The site is zoned H-P-D (Hillside Planning Development) under the Walnut Creek Zoning Ordinance. Pulte Homes proposes to develop a 210-unit single-family residential community on approximately 50 acres of the North Parcel, with 24 additional acres to be maintained as private open space and the balance of 148 acres, including the entire South Parcel dedicated to the City of Walnut Creek as public open space. To that end applications for an H-P-D permit and vesting tentative subdivision map were filed last fall. A map depicting the project is enclosed. A Draft EIR on the project, referred to as the Portofino Active Senior Housing Project Draft EIR was released on XO of 1 Northern California Division.5976 West Las Positas Bouievara, #100. Pleasanton, California 94588 415/460-0100 q THE CALIFORNIA PACIFIC PROPERTIIE.S COMPANIES, INC. A t June 19, 1991 Mr. Harvey Bragdon Commun ty Tleve!cpment Department 651 Pine Street, Fourth Floor Martinez, California 94553 Re: Cecchini Property, Byron Tract Urban Limit Line Boundary Contra Costa County Dear Mr. Bragdon: This letter is in response to the county staff's proposed modifications of the Urban Limit Line as approved by Measure C in November, 1990. The Urban Limit Line was drawn around the above referenced property to extend the existing Discovery Bay project east to Old River and is consistent with our proposed plan of development for deep water lots and a public marina on the property. The project as proposed exceeds the open space requirement cruide!ine suggested in the ordinances as we will he improving about 590 acres of land area out of 1,121 acres of gross land area and flooding almost 531 acres of land area to create waterways and a large public marina. The marina docks and launching ramps we have planned will encourage public access to the Delta and particularly Old River at Highway 4. We have completed extensive soils and geological work on the property to include over 170 separate boring and trenching logs. These studies and reports done by Engeo, Inc. were reviewed by Roger Foote and Associates in San Francisco, soils engineers and geologists for Reclamation District 800. The studies tests and 15 PRESTON RD., WOODSIDE, CALIFORNIA 94062 (415) 851-8684 complete review were positive and concluded that our proposed plan was feasible and economically viable. We have also completed a wetlands delineation study with Jones and Stokes Associates and the Army Corp of Engineers to determine that we have eighteen (18) acres of man made agricultural related wetlands as a result of irrigation canals and drainage ditches on the property. We have a proven water source for the project and access on the property to a waste water treatment facility that with some additional equipment can easily handle our project requirements as proposed as well as demands into the future. Rich Gorman at Bryan aru 11I.Ap►y Associates, is preparing sur General Pan Amendment at this time for the property and the planning concept has changed to utilize the westside on the existing levee along Old River for homes facing into the project and an access for the public marina. Our project is a continuation of the existing Discovery Bay deep water lot concept that is proven economically. The project encourages public access to the Delta through its marina facilities, provides treatment of wastewater through an; existing treatment plant and. serves as a logical "infill" to the county .line in the center of Old River while providing a variety of housing types with deep water access. We have also worked extensively with W.A.P.A. to move a proposed massive power line off our land at cost to us over the last two years. This has now been achieved, leaving the proposed project and land visually and economicallty unencumbered by a large utility line and towers. We ask that you leave the Urban Limit Line boundary in place, around the Cecchini land and our proposed project and ask that you not change or amend the line as approved in any way that will impact our proposed project or the Cecchini land. I am available to answer any questions you may have on this issue or our project at any time. Rich Gorman of Bryan and Murphy is also available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your consideration and time spent on our behalf. Sincerely, � - GLGGc Steoen E. Macie SEM:pm C.C. Karl W andry Tom Torlakson Jim Cutler Art Dersford •>b� '� `,�3a`�Aa 4 i ;� � .X� ^sv �'gr�� : a -:Q �r �,� ¢P2 ME3 r: m �•. jWill ONE f );. •.fa y 'tea I�- t� � � ,�,��' 1 110 CF a l CSL N:E)'R'p Iffin .v tum s os am no Is F, \ a It,5 •. £� Vie=' r s`t f.. s, r' § e n L � � 1 s s 0 VICINITY MAP FIGURE NO. CECCHINI PROPERTY ENC;EO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA INCORPORATED c,1.01L( IINR AL: NI)LNVIRONNILNLAL SCALE: 1--3000• JOB CONSULTAM5N90-2 967—E1 DATE: JUNE t9so NO. l 2 t t '�..,- '1. �_ ��"`� � � - .'`i ( t: �(�t..t,..p,� r+�•'\ 't: tfi M L.� fit•-. ,1 At- 09 m�'�{ 1 1..:,,Y et• • tt r-�r °a cl D h S* i•- ``' _,.• fig T`""' O G $ M y a O m Z � •o .i Ow { o •n Z m ' O m � 2 � r r > � Z a c a a 2 i K5 _ N °m June 27 , 1991 -. Mr . Harvey Bragdon , Director Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street , 4th Floor , North Wing Martinez , California 94553 Attention : Mr . Dennis Barry RE : The 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Urban Limit Line Designation Request for Change to Urban Limit Line Dear Mr . Barry : We are the owners of sixty ( 60) acres , more or less , situatedin eastern Contra Costa County and the purpose of this letter is to request achange in the Urban Limit Line provided for in the Land Preservation Plan as defined at section 4(B) ( 3 ) of the Ordinance adopted by the voters in the November 6 , 1990 election. The request for change to the Urban Limit Line is made pursuant to the provisions /of si�!ction . 4(B) of the ordinance, with particular reference to subsection (d ) , which provides for a minor change to the Urban Limit Line where it would more accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal boundaries . Thirty (30) of the sixty ( 60) acres is in the original Urban Limit Line of the County wherein Sandmound Slough is used as the benchmarker . Therefore, we are requesting the balance of our property which is thirty (30) acres, to be included using the Western 'boundary . Our sixty acres is included as part of the Veale Tract Development into which we have spent a considerable amount of money as well as effort . Also, twenty-five to thirty acres ( 25-30) of the sixtywill be open space within the Veale Tract Development . Location of the Property. The Baldocchi property (hereinafter , "the property" ) consists of sixty ( 60) acres , more or less , and is located in the unincorporated area of the County southeast of Oakley and northeast of Brentwood . The boundaries of the property are outlined and shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A andincorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein . I have highlighted the property with a marker for ease of reference . Reasons for the Requested Change . This request for change to the Urban Limit Line is Bragdon , Director ATTN: Barry June 27 , 1991 Page 2 made pursuant to the provisions of section 4(B ) ( 7) (d ) of the Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance . The property is a generally flat group of parcels lacking any visually significant qualities . There are no visually significant hillsides or ridgelines on the property. As is more clearly shown on the attached map, the topography of the property is substantially the same as the parcels to the east lying wholly within the Urban Limit Line . As such, there is no topographic basis to exclude the property, as it is virtually the same as the properties lying directly to the east within the Line . The characteristics of the property and the topography are wholly consistent with those lands within the Line , and are inconsistent with those lands proposed for exclusion from the Line . The requested change would achieve topographic consistency and more clearly define by parcel the concept of urban limits as defined in the ordinance . Moreover , the adjustment would remove the anomaly of the island within the line created by the large area contiguous with the eastern border of the Property (please see attached map) . The exclusion of the subject property from the Urban Limit Line and the inclusion of the adjacent easterly parcels within the Urban Limit Line presents an inconsistency which should be resolved by this minor change to the line to more closely approximate topography and property boundaries . The property is not prime agricultural land ( it is considered class 4 and 5) as the soils are of generally poor quality and unsuitable for agricultural purposes. For example, the soils are very high in boron, chlorides (salt) and E.C.E. (mmhos ) . As a result , the land is not agriculturally significant and it is not crucial or significant to maintaining a healthy or competitive agricultural economy in Contra Costa County . Moreover , the land does not provide a unique habitat for wildlife or plants . This request for change in the Urban Limit Line has been presented in accordance with the requirements established by the Board of Supervisors for presentation of such a request , and is made without prejudice on the part of the Baldocchi ' s to present such other and further evidence as may be brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors and/or their designee relative to the background and reasons for the requested change . On the basis of the foregoing, it is respectfully requested - that the Board of Supervisors hereby approve the requested change to the Urban Limit Line as consistent with the purposes and goals of the Ordinance , with appropriate findings. Bragdon , Director ATTN: Barry June 27 , 1991 Page 3 We thank you for your immediate attention to this request and if we can furnish further supporting information please contact us . Respectfully, Thomas E. Baldocchi Kathy Baldocchi P .O . Box 47 Knightsen, CA 94548, Phone : 415-625-3115 cc : Board of Supervisors John B . Mass Rachel Baldocchi � 1 / 1 KL CC UA ca {c tib '3t- v v w i x �4 � t �• � j �3 t� z !; .(��,_. 1,14 { �•'+': tt I Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council 2727 Alhambra Avenue v° _ `'""'°ti,, 9 Greg Feere Suite No. 2 ,�= ?„ Secretary - Treasurer Martinez, CA 94553 �(, ��ihy�9�)y Business Manager FAX (415) 372-7414 Phone (415) 228-0900 J�d1SN03q�� June 27 , 1991 Mr. Harvey Bragdon Director C.C.C. Community Development Dept. 651 Pine St. 4th Floor N. Wing Martinez , CA. 94553 Dear Mr. Bragdon, It has come to my attention that the county staff is address- ing the possibility of putting the Veale Tract Development outside the existing urban limit line. The Contra Costa Building Trades Council would be totally against this proposal. There has literally been to much time, effort and planning not to mention the dollars invested to make this project possible. In addition to this we have recieved the support and commitment from Mr. Mass that Local Building Trades men and women would be used on any future development. I would hope this proposal to exclude the entire Veale Tract Development outside the urban limit line would be dropped for any future con- sideration. Fra ernall r Gre eere Con ra Costa Building Trades Council MACINNIS, DONNER & KOPLOWITZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW JAMES MARTIN MACINNIS(1913-1979) -. 465 CALIFORNIA STREET CONRAD A. DONNER SUITE 222 EDWARD A.KOPLOWITZ - -- SAN FRANCISCO.CA 94104 TELEPHONE:(415)434.2400 FAX:(415)433.1917 June 19, 1991 Harvey Bragdon Director. of Community Development Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94551 Re: 15000, 15001 Highway 4, Byron (Baldwin) Dear Mr. Bragdon: This office represents William. R. Baldwin and Marilyn C. Baldwin as trustees of the William R. Baldwin and Marilyn C. Baldwin Trust, and Enrico Lembi and Robert E. McCarthy as trustees of the Baldwin Trust, who are the owners, respectively, of 15000 Highway No. 4 in Byron (A.P. No. 011-210-004-5) and 15001 Highway No. 4 in Byron (A.P. No. 001-210-007-8) . Request is hereby made on behalf of such property owners that the above-described property, consisting of two separate . 40± acre contiguous parcels, be included with the Urban Limit Lines for Byron. The subject acreage is directly across from the development known as Discovery Bay, and is appropriately included within such designation. If you need any additional information or documentation, please contact the undersigned at your earliest convenience. Your anticipated courtesy is much appreciated. Very truly yours, EDWARD A. *OW EAK:rac c: \rac\ltr\bragdon. ltl I I c; nBIXLER ROAD w II 3 � •� N �9D .� CA S[t! _ f to t . b rn i .................................. t �1 o ^ Af 0 ° > ! K } A { Oin1 o s ff CIO O > D _ 0 In i m g r 0P. "p % t;n! n ? W - i 77 Ak ADEVCO DEVELOPMENT CO. •June 28 . 1991 Mr. Harvey Bragdon Community Development Director Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez , CA 94553 RE; Inclusion of APN #020-160-991 into the Urban Limit Line Dear Mr. Bragdon; I am formally requesting that the Planning Dept, review our property in regards to the 65/35 County Land Preservation Plan for inclusion inside the "Urban Limit Line" . This property should be considered beneficial for future development as it will help achieve the goals set forth and meets the guidelines established by the county under the 65/35 plan as a property that should not be placed outside the urban limit line for the following reasons; 1. The property in question is approximately 205 acres in size. It is adjacent to and contiguous with a 553 acre parcel that is inside of the Urban Limit Line. These two parcels are owned by two seperate companies. However, the shareholders , the boards of directors and operating officers are comprised of the same individuals. It is therefore very necessary to include the subject property as part of a total development plan under the DR General Plan Designation. 2. All municipal utilities such as; sewer services , domestic water, etc. must pass through this subject property from the north in order to serve ..the adjacent properties that are included inside the urban limit line. -1- 2980 Railroad Avenue , Pittsburg , California 94565 415 - 432 - 2542 3 . The subject property and that of the adjacent 553 acre parcel provide a key to a plan that would. upon development, provide a solution to tie current storm drainage problem in the area. This entire area has been deficient for many years. Past storm drainage problems have seriously impacted upon the public health and safety and have subject the county to civil liability in damages. Development would address this need. Without development. the storm drainage needs are not capable of being addressed. 4. To the- north, Hotchkiss tract, is currently being developed. The property to the east and south of this subject property are located inside the urban limit line, thus this property provides a critical lint: in any future development plan. 5. There is a critical need to make decent safe and affordable housing available all Contra Costa County residents. Fair housing opportunities should prevail for all economical segments of the county and housing should be available in proximity to employment and recreation areas. The addition of this subject property into the urban limit line would preserve that opportunity for the residents of Contra Costa County. 5. The soil of the subject property is substandard agricultural 'land. . The Dept. of Agriculture, ASCS office has determined that there are no class 1 or class 2 soil classifications present on this property. 7 . The Dept. of Agriculture, soil conservation service has made determination that there are no wet lands present on this subject property. Above I have described many reasons as to why this subject property should be included inside the proposed urban limit line. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Should you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to call or write. Sincerely, ZINIG N LAND COMPANY ANC. Mich 1 J. Aff pito President MJA/mm cc: Dennis Barry -2- r 1►. R�- YEALE TRS CT FA June 27 , 1991 CD Mr . Harvey Bragdon, Director Contra Costa County Community Development Department -' 651 Pine Street , 4th Floor , North Wing Martinez , California 94553 Attention : Mr. Dennis Barry RE : The 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Urban Limit Line Designation Dear Mr . Barry: It has come to our attention that the Community Development staf-:L' is reviewing the Urban Limit Line boundaries to provide a precise definition. Amidst some speculation that the staff may wish to have the Urban Limit Line more closely represent - the actual 65/35 boundaries , we would like to .offer the following comments : ( 1 ) It was known by all concerned that the Line prepared by Measure C and adopted by the Board included more than 35% of the County within the urban area, and that development within the line would, therefore , be expected to contain substantial open space . ( 2 ) Veale Tract was clearly, explicitly and specifically included within the Urban Limit Line by both Measure C and the Board. ( 3 ) The proposed Veale Tract development will contain a significant percentage of open space . See attached Exhibit A. We, therefore, respectfully request that the final map under preparation clearly indicate the inclusion of Veale Tract within the Urban Limit Line. As you well know, we were among the earliest applicants for consideration during the review of .the General Plan by the Planning Congress . Veale Tract has been thoroughly reviewed and considered throughout the process leading to adoption of the General Plan . Again, the Board clearly and deliberately included Veale Tract within the Urban Limit Line . We have proceeded with plans for the property relying upon that action and continue to do so . P.O. BOX E, DELTA ROAD . KNIGHTSEN, CALIFORNIA 94548 . (415) 683-2193 Mr . Bragdon, Director Mr . Barry June 27, 1991 - Page 991Page 2 Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been expended on this project to date and is continuing forward with a partner- joint venture imminent . The boundaries of the Veale Tract project are : To the North - Rock Slough To the East - Warner Cut", To the South - No Name Slough To the West - Byron Highwayi FohnBT ' respectfully for your due consideration , I remain, s JBM:ss cc : Board of Supervisors Rachel Baldocchi Thomas E. and Kathy Baldocchi �• .. � t( �_ 1 r 4 r ¢ 1 1 .,,nr n 1 . Lfnuur r r BR 1 IN NtUlilllh- ,'I J 1 (I(-rl)t 't rr,( HAft L ts,1 Mt: N F_NGINFERS PLANNEH'S SI.JRVEYORS t,r�r�rn�� .� rre�r A(ta (,•.v lr;641 vWITJlNCR cnntt.:1•;C sn't AN June 26 , 1991 EXHIBIT A TOTAL SITE AREA = 2,363 ACRES TOTAL OPEN SPACE AREilt = 962 ACRES - 41% 'TO'TAL UFVELOPED AREA = 11401 - 59% Contra Costa wilding and Construction Trades Council f 2727 Alhambra Avenue Greg Feere Suite No. 2 y - `' Treasurer �.�; �, Secretary Martinez, CA 94553 <' �' "' 4 ,. � Business Manager FAX (415) 372-7414 *=� ;t 1 - c� Phone (415) 228-0900 �d4—M. g 9 June 27 , 1991 I 1 Mr. Harvey Bragdon Director C.C.C. Community Development Dept. 651 Pine St. 4th Floor N. Wing Martinez , CA. 94553 Dear Mr. Bragdon, It has come to my attention that the county staff is address- ing the possibility of putting the Veale Tract Development outside the existing urban limit line. I The Contra Costa Building Trades Council would be totally against this proposal. There has literally been to much time, effort and planning not to mention the dollars invested to make this project possible. In addition to this we have recieved the support and commitment from Mr. Mass that Local Building Trades men and women would be used on any future development. I would hope this proposal to exclude the entire Veale Tract Development outside the urban limit line would be dropped for any future con- sideration. i ! Fratrernall i { r �r ./�6r Gre eere ( Con ra Costa Building Trades Council I { I i June 7 , 1991 Richard J. Taylor P 0 Box 446 Byron , CA 94514 Mr. Harvey Bragdon , Director Community Development Department 651 Pine St 4th floor , North wing Martinez , CA 94553 RE: Byron Hot Springs APN: 002-200-013 parcel 3 002-200-014 002-200-015 Attached please find the assessor' s map showing all parcels (202 acres ) that are contained in the Byron Hot Springs. At present this property is scheduled for a new golf course , hotel renovation , and submission of 200 building permits. The present general plan shows that parcel 3 is the ONLY "> 'M part of this property that is NOT within the urban limit :` r ' line. Therefore , parcel 3 would be restricted from it's highest and best use. I have a 20% undivided interest in the total 202 acres. I am in the process of a split and will become sole owner of parcel 3. I , therefore , request that parcel 3 be included within the urban limit line to allow for development to coincide with the contiguous parcels . I would appreciate your earliest response to this request . Sincer , Ric rd J. Ta or Enclosure RJT:mf cc: Mr. Dennis Barry , Program Manager General Plan Review Mr. Val Alexeeff , Director Gross Management & Economic Development Agency Mr. Tom Torlak.son , Supervisor District No 5 I WIC I •are' I .a e C r z up cn T IWO CN I i C7 -. 12f0 �,r��, u�1.- ;&.1 O �oj W ara.n rrl N I Q �$ m flfl 2 1 i 1. `.�d I aa.•,='•'�'�'rl �t 061- _ --— sea _ -- I :ato .m ttI NOPE— _ '(SYRON NOT SPRINGS RD.) WAY t d� I • � H x t ( N Ll rso t9 r CA N 30 a > " a = 0 4A liwo A Jo O O z � r w Oakley Advisory C ' Municipal Advi P y ounc 11 P. 0. Bo: 827 a Oakley. Calltorala 9456.1 June 21, 1991 Mr. Harvey Bragdon, Director y ; Community Development Department i".• Contra Costa County ~'1 651 Pine Street, North Wing Fourth Floor Martinez, CA 94553 SUBJECT: Urban Limit LInes Dear Mr. Bragdon: As you are -no doubt aware, the community of Oakley worked extremely hard and long with County Staff to formulate the 1987 , and subsequent 1989 Oakley General Plans . Numerous public meeting were held in the community to gather input from Oakley residents. Considerable time was spent by both Staff and OMAC to achieve a delicate balance among the various zoning and density categories . When the 65/35 plan was introduced, and ' the concept of urban limit lines along with it, the Oakley community was given to understand that all of the Oakley Planning area as designated in the Oakley General Plan would be included within the urban limit line. However, detail maps now indicate that this is not the case. The Oakley Municipal Advisory Council supports the inclusion of the complete Oakley planning area inside the urban limit line, and would like to be on record as supporting the request(s ) of any property owner within that designated area to be inside the urban limit line as well . We appreciate your consideration in this regard. Sincerely, Howard Hobbs, Chair Oakley Municipal Advisory Council HH:kmb Attachment IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillillililljllllllllllIlI -'NORTH I"•2400' BIG BREAK iq 73 M. s`:i+, ,j5;;iii,..-:,...• a .t. ^' 't•i. - '.? •r'::i`i: R7,2F'`" :.'•S R e11/f1 111/11111 ;. _; :i •, .. � _-�• .r,^:' ..Y;-..-.<isll,ti { � t}. .i:., i �l ai`='14�7t�r:•:jii=. 1�,A, _ ± : - tip Y•'i � - •r'?!��yj';t;,�..1!�,,:, { ��,'�.L 1:1i�1 Vie;: ?.. ._kl. S t474xE ., ii";ilk l:.'_ }ti 11'n':.'H•:,:f'.�.1•'ti i'{t. Y .i`. V2 �' ;- 1 Y 2:ta_ J.l:?,' `.i4w:Fi�:v�• :il'.,'•i••�:'4, Oakley flnad- -'}•ti,a] Cont'.C �7•. e k S ars N.... `:+..•.,ti.,�.a:.;,,a{' � r ,- fR 4 fioatl Y.a 'r }' •]:: ?i,7r:. :CYPrns'Rmtl(. ':'Y:p -:'i;::i,i c.)'v'.=`.• , �. •Q ^:}Fail' !-c�:'i:!>,fi�:•�:: .� Co.".Co.'.Canty i`: t„� b •1 t-In� :i Laurel Road n,.• £ .Z ✓g,f +.. t.Yz•rasx,'°f5;' .f, L „:' i i>lj':� •?i':.a 110 R n Y Z � • �+ �� a�r�Se's1= �`' xs'8"`r� �F ��?g,- E•I :.r'`i�''�: =,1':, V''i::a�"' z Tl -r' a y SOUTHER T ANTI .�_ 'R'^ rf• .•1-.+:_• :::......::: S OCH .: .::...::..... r,n U SPECIFIC PLAN `. L• e i o/Ui:uY./ii�iii�iiii►iiii� �YiiiiiYiiii�ff�ii'fj�fiiii��.k w. Dart .;-:..:: .:%y;•'t:6i %,y:,i!y:�;.%f;j:i;;;:�: ' Brentwood Sphere of Influence :c�'•- _:.,..-' v ence: ...i_,,:ten::±'.'.(:�' i:i•;;..r;�:; )•li; I:1 N• .2• ..1.1.•x, ){ 1• o} •rr5` ,,.Y, i4 Ay ............ :............ {{ (. :1. r., r .rt' M :.Y. ':ti'• ��'"•' r.�:. l> s.krt 1. �l l' -., is <ih•. �ij. �/�l .t. :•< 'Lan a hn rra Yy .ij:: l• "� �a ;l'i •Lon•T ` • i:iS • rn W a nrrJlw000�... v r ' :.1..... ......,,.h..;_r,.l-•. :,<:.,>:::;•:•':;:•;:..K.. :'fib''! :::;, ,i!i::? t• F:! :::::::.......... .s...`:..+:;:..• .... _....,:..,,.•.tel:.... .s .. ...:::::::::::' 6, art > r. ........... 1"...;....,h.t,1.:•:.r..s: ..,TY y.::.,.:;�-... .::.1...; �9 ......... -�... :;.-:.Y.:.....n..., ,.:[.. ... '':`c::'i... ..a ........ _ at'c.•.• ,j'•`:::'i:.l,. '�::';i i ::�•:• .... ,. '.. .,.:..: .. .t••.:....1.1:'!x•...;,..'•{"'•' .v,.,.:..� : ...... : !. F ,. . . ,..:... ....- ....._. .;,•-...:....._}..r.'o ..,•' .±. .. ..............::::::: CITU San.er RoM:} 3r•v' 16 ti Y T,`-:y:': t• 11t L�Sf•i3rr4 .yY 1 �) J•'. .J .j}I-, ";i'L:�i'.•:::!'l::: urd. :..,.:__.Js :r; Int:t•.% _o ?h`�, .•Lt: bi,.� �t:d: � a f.ri; }t ... . n:�:; �.j:r.5?�LYf' d•tf� y. ,J,l � ' � :� G �i•-r.!;: r. J �'lf � I h �1'C;;: •»;>�'••a•F:tti�'::.<i�`;fi\'4 '!L :i•+137 i S�'F ;v]EJ.j'ri riy), y.. ��,�+�'-,I.� S� �. (I j..,�. ar. _�:;<.rh.�°st¢r.' }T'.,i.�:•at•� 'f{:, .,.,1�r -' r•+ �ttt;`' '+r,•. .�'` _�r�, ' „3r,S 3°.�S' ..y 1, 3 :yfS..lS� j '.�y •.ya �,., 11...'.?.. i:�i'�.. ^moi�`•�i.ys�:ii•--�Ci. ,:.Fj::ii��j- '� �.7•. ,�ilj _f �•.;• �.•),f'S� /I�. '�'. -�>;r.,.- -.:r:;.;*�.;-.:��.:;:i 7�•Sy°., ;�.;•.�,.:.�.i,,�. :j .v-�1��;+��.>�.:l�i+, 3�'F :t�',;J�:��'.•,,.•. .,yy"5���=�;,�f �• ?�;y:''a.�jr'.: p.,4df::•`` •!? I:,!/,• .,;,.,;. g .," r ,.,� ,lu t. '✓„f •(�-^• l ?'':_j"••�`i Jii':�1`it t r /},+JA '3'' �• f F �.�ir fu.1' OF ✓ i i.. ;'t:;; . �...: i::Ti±.. t" . .%i• r sJ J ,� r %, ;� s .S�.lT,:Y i a'-:., :.,r,�d. �r;?�.:� ,rl�.,,.''�3i��:J. i�S•�!•,.�.U.,y. J��• h.,:,.r),.j.• �J, fY J%r il' �� .)i. ..3.. �:j'y'b.�>rs' ,;'�f; a:, ♦ ). J �>��'� y� �' �a ICJ:- $'Y �� :?>,{` 5165s:i;:•,/}.'j J ):1•s ,'': - !ii/Y^' y:7•,i'P•' �ifll'�,.I�. BRENTWOOD �d�rs...•1,;; ���3- :y !A ? i� cf.rn-:.li•^ ,f..r�,l•,!,J'sfc:i• ,r.{�.1�,,:F,'.:�tLt t :�.'..! 4rr:4r� ..��J rr�% �} 1�''�]r'.:. •}[,? .C�i'-I••. ,iJ •�3..}'::, -{:.::"f 7,rr;�.' �{�.fr: ,:t1.� -1:U�f ' Yrtr .•,v•+a ,t.•1:7 .,- __j,,;. r OAKLEY/NORTH BRENTWOOD AREA GENERAL PLAN LEGEND RESIDENTIAL- 1 Acre Minimum Lot Size Commercial ' '" Agricultural Lands 1.0 to 2.9 D.U./net acre Light Industry _ - Delta Recreation and Resources 3.0 to 4.9 D.U./net acre Heavy Industry Agricultural Core 777 5.0 to 7.3 D.U./net acre Office Itfy'VPark& Recreation 7.4 to 11.9 O.U./net acre '. '. Mixed Use . Future Fire Station 12.0 to 20.9 D.U./net acre Public&Semi-Public Project Area Interim Agriculture' 1111111 Spheres of Influence 'Antioch Specific Plan Area FIGURE 6 LAND USE ELEMENT MAP CITY OF CONCORD CITYCOUNCIL Farrel A.Stewart Civic Center 11m,11 Campb0l. Mayor 1950 Parkside Drive Cmicord,Caffornia 9.1519 Nanc\-Gore.Vice Mayor FAX: (415) 671-3381 Collecil Coll L -d D. Mashorc Ronald K. Mullin Telephone: (415) 671-3152 Uone Rita Hardin.Citv V11111ager �ky June 24, 1991 Harvey E. Bragdon Director of Community Development Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4th floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Subject: Urban Limit Line Dear Mr. Bragdon: I am responding to your letter to Rita Hardin regarding the County's Urban Limit Line. The City of Concord requests that the following changes to the U.L.L. be made: 1. The site of the California State University-Hayward Off-campus Center is shown as "non-urban". Although the campus is anticipated to incorporate significant open space, the college campus land use is urban in character. The campus does not fit the criteria for non-urban areas listed on page 3-14 of the County General Plan. The campus should be included in the urban portion of Concord. 2. A small portion of the Concord High School site on Concord Boulevard is shown as "non-urban". The high school campus land use is urban in character. The campus should be included in the urban portion of Concord. This would be a correction of the U.L.L. based on criterion d, page 3-16 of the County General Plan. 3. An area zoned R-20 (Single Family Residential with a 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size), R-15 (Single Family Residential with a 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size); - and POS (Public Open Space), on the north side of Kirker Pass Road, is shown as "non-urban" (see attached). The land zoned R-20 is a 10 acre parcel which has the potential for subdivision into lots with a 20,000 sq. ft. minimum size, subject to the City's Hillside Development Ordinance. The land zoned R-15 and POS was subdivided as Tract No.7043, Canyon Creek Estates. This area is designated in the City of Concord General Plan as Very Low Density Residential land use. The area does not fit the criteria for non-urban areas listed on page 3- 14 of the County General Plan. It should be included in the urban portion of Concord. Harvey E. Bragdon Page 2 4. The future North Concord BART Station is shown as "non-urban". The BART station is part of an essentially urban transportation system, and will be a focus of individual and mass transit activity. The station does not fit the criteria for non-urban areas listed on page 3-14 of the County General Plan. It should be included in the urban portion of Concord. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on this issue. If you have questions, call me at 671-3166. Please keep us informed of any meetings or hearings regarding the Urban Limit Line program that could affect Concord. Very truly yours, David Golick Chief of Planning DG:mmob �y\wpaocs\wnGm;t.� \ • �` 1 / _ /f 1 �y rY�' �� � w -'~mow 11, � ��\' � 4. JlP 29 . .fit • F :' .. \ _ � � a .. � � / . t � , � . ` •�' .'�,-.Y-:�•..,-y-,tet._.:. 3 • ' i' V � ' L^/ } i I RERT1100D 1� June 26, 1991 Harvey Bragdon Director of Community Development Contra Costa County 651 Pine St., North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Urban Limit Line Dear Mr. Bragdon: We are in receipt of your letter to Donald Russell, City Manager, dated June 19, 1991. It states that any adjustments in the Urban Limit Line (ULL) suggested by the City must be submitted no later than June 28th. Given the time frame set forth in your letter, the City Council will be unable to take formal action regarding any adjustments. The comments which follow only represent the views of the Planning Department. 1. Our knowledge as to the location of the Urban Limit Line is based only on small-scale, county-wide maps. The City's ability to make meaningful comments on "adjustments" would be greatly enhanced if larger maps could be provided with the location of the Line shown as you believe it exists. 2. When the county was formulating the Urban Limit Line last summer for ballot purposes, the City of Brentwood had requested that Sellers Avenue (from Delta Road to ECCID Main Canal) be the easterly location of the Line. We would like to have the ULL adjusted accordingly. Please see Exhibit A attached for our proposed boundary. 3. It appears that the ULL may include land already annexed to the City in the vicinity of Sunset Road (see Exhibit B attached). We request that all areas within the City limits be located within the ULL. City Hall - 708 Third Street. Brentwood. CA 94513 _Administration Offices - (415)634.6900 - Planning/Public Works - (415)634-6920 - Fax - (415)634-6930 Police Department - 500 Chestnut Street. Brentwood. CA 94513 - (415) 634-6911 4. The City is engaged in a General Plan Update. The study area of the proposed update includes the area within the ULL westerly and southwesterly of the existing city limits.. The study area is intended to be generally consistent with the location of the ULL as we understood it. We would like the adjustments to be consistent with the study area boundary as highlighted on Exhibit C. Minor adjustments or "interpretations" as to the exact location of the Urban Limit Line in the southwesterly area may be appropriate due to such factors as: alignment of Delta Expressway, re-alignment of Deer Valley Road or more definitive topographic studies. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We request that we be sent any draft or preliminary maps that your department has produced regarding the Urban Limit Line. We also request notification of any Board of Supervisors meetings or their sub-committees regarding this issue. Sincerely, Ron Rowland Planning Director Attachments: Exhibits A, B, and C Tr 17� P `' cc: City Council . .7' Planning Commission •' .'' City Manager LTR\ULL-RW CITY COUNCIL Gayle B. Uilkema, Mayor Donald L.Tatzin,Vice Mayor Richard F.Holmes Scott Talan -7rl Avon M.Wilson LAFAYETTE WMED Wa-INIDDRPONArEDOW June 26, 1991 Harvey B. Bragdon Director of Community Development 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez CA 94553-0095 RE: Urban Limit Line In response to your letter of June 19, 1991 requesting comment on adjustments of the General Plan Urban Limit Line we have the following to offer. Lafayette is mostly surrounded by developed County property, other cities or land in regional park jurisdiction. We are not significantly effected directly by urban limit lines. . Therefore, our concerns relate to the general impacts of urban growth in the County, specifically traffic generation. We believe that the urban limit lines all over the County should be pulled in closer to I the existing developed properties. This action would increase the area of very low density, agricultural and open space uses. These uses produce less traffic reducing our future problems of traffic congestion in our City. Sincerely, Don Tatzin 14 Vice Mayor DT:lt 251 LAFAYETTE CIRCLE, LAFAYETTE. CA 94549 TELEPHONE: (415) 284-1968 Richard J. Taylor P O Box 446 Byron, CA 94514 June 24 , 1991 Mr. Harvey Bragdon, Director Community Development Department 651 Pine St 4th floor, North wing Martinez , CA 94553-0095 RE: Byron Hot Springs APN: 002-200-013 parcel 3 002-200-014 002-200-015 a Dear Mr. Bragdon, This letter is to further clarify my letter of June 7, wherein I requested that parcel 3 be included within the urban limit line. I am requesting that this parcel be zoned to allow for single family residential on one-half acre parcels. I would appreciate your earlies response to this request. Sin ely, R' hard J. yl RJT:mf cc: Mr. Dennis Barry, Assistant Director Community Development Mr. Val Alexeeff, Director Gross Management & Economic Development Agency Mr. Tom Torlakson, Supervisor District No 5 BRAGDONZ.DOC - 27 Harvey Bragdon i Director Community "Development "--' 651 Pine Street Martinez , CA 94553 June 24, 1991 RE : Parcel #011-210-017-7 To Whom it may concern; I have just learned that my brother, Eugene Thomas is requesting along with Taylor homes of Byron to have his property rezoned into the Urban Limits for a Commercial Development . We have 22 .66 Acres connecting with his and do NOT dant to be included in Urban use . We are zoned Agricultural and want to stay that way. We are sure other residents in the area would also like to stay in Agricultural Zoning. We would appreciate any notification from your offices if this is to transpire so we can speak against it . Sincerely, Philip & Barbara Arezzi (415 687-0494 le,,2 cc: Harvey Bragdon : Tom Torlakson Tom Powers r � Nancy Fanden Robert Schroder Sunne Wright McPeak LL J _ Q N V W I �: O J 2 Oa. 7 Ir Ln it V N 0 _ Y NW — �� n1 tD — 0 V: v^n N p u K Q W O Y G ; � co C. L .............................'................. .. ............ ..... / W / M „ � N F- ../ / .. ...,. .sl.+ :::::: •...::::::: SIN ..... ::`..'.... ...'.%. - \'" o Q. N 4rSt< N N M x 05 ascr w . N N CL Y 0S f� y a N ry o o ` �• J cr W Q OM1 t W O g: -- avow "'<" aa-ixia I NO 1 I I / Mr . Dennis Berry Community Development Department 851 Oine Street / 4th Fl . , North Ping 'z ,yartinez , caliFirnia 94553-0095 r7 -_ june 23, -1�91 Dear Mr ' Berry , With this letter 1 am requesting a reconsideration t -+ County' s 65/35 Land preservation Plan. On your map , (enclJ 6ed)'" I have identified each area for reconsideration and labeIel` thwe 1 , 2' & 3, for ease of ±icussion ' Area 1 - Parcel # 010 070 001 ' This eighty plus acre Parcel owned by Lopez-Nunn Partmers, reoresents some of the highest quality farm land in all of the Brentwood area. The ranch is in the Williamson Act . with a continuing contract . The soil type is Sorrento Clay' Loan , a soil type only occuring in Eastern Contra Costa County and judged superior to other soil types in the area for the growing of cherries and apples, as well as many other croos' A second unique feature of this farm is the co-owner/ooe, ator , Nasario Lopez, He is a gifted cultivator of deciduous trees and has developed very outstanding orchards in the area. Human resources such �s Mr. Lopezn need to be nutured and concerned. . / ' The County's 65/35 plan splits the parcel approximately 2/3 - 1 /3 with its AgCore and Urban Limit Line designations. The entire � western boundary of the property is MarshCreek and that natural � boundary should serve as an Urban Limit Line-Ag Core seperation. / A split designation for land in the rural area of Brentwood is not in the best interest of the County' s Land Preservation Plan. Therefore, I am requesting that the County adjust that line, removing approxdmately 35 acres from within the Urban Limit , leaving the property entirely Within the Ag Core designation' Area 2 - Parcel # 010 040 015 This property, part of 178 acres owned by Ronald Nunn; represents the only protrusion of the Ag Core Line west of Marsh Creek Rd' The approximately 30 acres involved is composed of Rincon Clay and mostly Corning Gravelly Clay Loan' These are class II and IV clays respectively' ' This site is a small hill approximately 50 feet in height and it ' s application as Ag Core Land is completely inappropriate. Again , the creek forms a natural boundary for a land use change and I request that Area 2 be removed from an Ag Core designation. 1501 Highway Four Route/. 8uvZ00 Brentwood, California 94513 4151634-2148 E8Y:415/634'6040 Area 3 - Parcel # 016 190 013 (and others) This strip .,f land, bounded on the east by Sellers Ave. . the south by Chestnut St . _ the north by Sunset Road and the west in part by the -. _. . C. I . D. 44 north lateral . contains opprox .mstely 240 acres. This property is within he City of Brentwood' s Nanning area and Contra Costa County' s flood control area. 52C, which is already under development . it is also in the Brentwood Park and Recreation tax district and has been: For more than forty years. _ recuest that this sropertiq 5e included within the urban limits. The changes recommended in these three area=_, while minor , more ar_'aurately ref 1 &ct topographical character ist ics and legal boundaries. These are allowed under- Section a of Measure C. Thank you For your consideration. Since els; . R nal d E. `Rlunn i �c : County -Board of Supervisors RN/cr _ Book 16' —— — - Book 11 j Book 12 Book 13 (SHIN/ifi)JI N ' o•.,_,� l _ IL 1y C31 aQ <_ CL Q. I o M �,I' Qco —N G CO I m h of s Q1 J O (ZI Q:I cc s.:c 1c• � � � � Olist : �. �- _ x v m I mF U3 z LJ I cd N (Y F < Cc) Q a h 7 LIZ O m e' a L c� ws; Y to Q Y CDN Q ur J cr ~ Z Z p ! m o C a (TIS m co M.Yi o Y o • \ I Oe i sb �• W m I w cn O �0 t h ■�� !bole'1r� �"� _ ._ - _ _. Ap Book-"16 W.. j � • —_77i- � Book 11 � Book 12 Book 13 j C - 0 kn 0 q v ,00♦ { 5 �'` - oar: - . .-✓.7r;i:::% ( ,, Q3 F.. Z w; 3 \' '�� •�� C 1 x it - 2 i x Q a0. cs •+{ rt��w 0 ; O t ',l•' 0 M 0 1 cn jr �rw z r' yi t r x �t t MMLBook 33 I_ °k'S4't Book 18 BookAML ORA o 00 v r � I ► r m � Q O ()j to Q1 14. o:a N 1� ka 6 — r � (� w M ` J a ar a c1 r Z � i N �r O� F- O Z y i s U W N a -� � 001 --1 oa �a i i 'm e 00 C� Y N o AON 3 of396433SseIovoa �.. 7,W .� *r .—� C�...M^•• x " ` i i• • t1 ! x --to ' rte` —�, .s_-� •».. .`�,...�' ._ .' .r x: -- �r; 71 47 23, its Alf ��' i� is , •, , ,i ' :�, i x •� _1 �•..x :i .:� ;t ix ..�`��; •f, = WI u rt �..... 'a Sit• _._.... r ,t 71 .. . .` •.r.w ! :�I '1 x'.11 i w. ✓ STREMEL ENTERPRISES 2762 Hutchinson Court Walnut Creek, CA-94598,, (415) 935-3438 June 28, 1991 Mr. Harvey E. Bragdon Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: Parcel No. 257-240-001, Moraga Area Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Dear Mr. Bragdon: I would like to request that you include the above referenced assessor's parcel number containing approximately 76.147 acres of unincorporated area, Contra Costa County, within the developable area of the Urban Limit Line. My engineer, Mr. Frank Bellecci, is currently working on maps for the above referenced property and I will forward those to you in the near future. I am currently considering developing the parcel into a number of residential lots and would like the property included within the Urban Limit Line. If you have any questions, or if I can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at (415) 935-3038. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, C. Streme 9CS/ao Enclosure } .�te� s 4t • 11 c}tLt� t t � • a.. 1 if it•r�b 4.�.1 �4x F�S.� •�� 'r'i f."A�+ yS"t �a i �f!•,�, � ♦��`i ,t t a•'��i ; ,t.4 '� ,:,I .fel, .Yti l,. ) �''.Z W � t "� i,sv ♦ tS, MS .� , tIu•tt tv r i, '=•#S,t "'tt '• 1}tf !-`R 'a r it A,11+�''' as.{i j..t�.•I, t � . '? !.t r � :s.T. :��•.i.r- r►•'l� � � s p''+,t, ,. 3 t4 fs. s y • t • !' t t • t r f t t t ( s t • k r> t }4 tt� jj • S :/:� '.�:..ty2,'�.i.:�N� •i!�(:� •,T'•Y'�`..�.;r irk. t � •� ,1 ,1 'fit 3 H• M yriaA J�^7 s♦ t� • M y aro+ !'• t I a ,,:.,�#:;:5 �?` Y ,.�?IG—•,�,�':JR' �f-..s`4�Vis. • S* ,a •T i � it �. 4�� ,. ,.::? •+�tet'"' • • t• !'.;I;i.�:•','S: .:;: -I .,•,,;tri;'•s:�'t:.��: •t l� r,. ,ti."•{r�,.t +..:i�:�: irt �w✓'�►�.' H y •f11{'�'�t t{, ..ti .✓.: :+ 1 `.47+1.•! , 'A.�i+'!r��;'�1��1 '.. 141. N :�,`+� t•'44 fit.,- `".i f =tY•�.;1•f.tT.`�{•�i l t•.1• l '*t 4�1 } '•Ys 1, L ,r PLANNING INQUIRY -- ENTER PARCEL NBR 257 - 240 - 001 PCL' NO 257-240-001-4 SITE CAMINO PABLL MRGA USE CODE 68 50. 0% T OWNR RENZ KEN NOTF 783 CROSSBROOK DR 94556 B DENNISON JACKSON R MORAGA CA ******************************** PLANNING ****** r** r*************************** PLAN AREA TO **** TRA 77001 **** SPECIFIC PLAN FROM MORAGA FIRE PARK DED LAND- 166 ,517 EMS -1 ZONE B ZONING A-2 T-10M IMPR- 0 CO SERV AREA P-6 CENSUS TRACT 3521. 02 TOTL- 166 , 517 SERV AREA LIB 12 SEISMIC ZN CO SERV AREA R - 4 GENRL PLAN ? . FLD HZD ZN EL��� CC RES CONSV SCHOOL FEE DRNGE FEE //-"' i MOSQUITO ABATE 1 SUP DIST 2 ACREAGE 76. 147 ,1 EAST BAY REGNL PK DESC RO COLORADOS 76 . 147 AC EAST BAY REG PK BD **APPLICATIONS** ACALANES HIGH AG DP PL NO. CD DESC LOT C APP RCVD HRNG/FNL ST MORAGA ELEMENTARY CO CO COMM COLLEGE -AOB LAMORINDA 07/05/91 LFF2763 4Br1 NUM - 07 01, 3 9 PLANNING INQUIRY -- ENTER PARCEL NBR 257 - 240 001 PCL-'! NO 257-240-001-4 SITE CAMINO PABLG USE CODE 68 50.0% T OWNR RENZ KEN NOTF 783 CROSSBROOK DR 945 B DENNISON JACKSON R MORAGA CA PLANNING PLAN AREA TO TRA 77001 SPECIFIC PLAN FROM MORAGAFIRE PARK DED LAND- 166, 517 EMS -1 ZONE B ZONING A-2 T-10M IMPR- 0 CO SERV AREA CENSUS TRACT 3521. 02 TOTL- 166,517 SERV AREA LIE SEISMIC ZN CO SERV AREA GENRL PLAN ? FLD HZD ZN -El-, CC RES CONSV SCHOOL FEE DRNG MOSQUITO ABA' :,E FEE SUP DIST 2 ACREAGE 76. 147/! EAST BAY REC DESC RO COLORADOS 76.147 AC EAST BAY RE, "APPLICATIONS" ACALANES HI AG DP PL NO. CD DESC LOT C APP RCVD.HRNG/FNL ST MORAGA ELEV co CO Comm -AOB LAMORI* 07/05/91 4%-- 1 NUM 9 PLANNING INQUIRY -- ENTER PARCEL NBR 257 - 240 - 001 PCL` NO 257-240-001-4 SITE CAMINO PABL(.1 USE CODE 68 50.0% T OWNR RENZ KEN NOTF 783 CROSSBROOK DR 945 B DENNISON JACKSON R MORAGA CA PLANNING PLAN AREA TO TRA 77001 SPECIFIC PLAN FROM MORAGA FIRE PARK DED LAND- 166 ,517 EMS -1 ZONE B ZONING A-2 T-10M IMPR- 0 CO SERV AREA CENSUS TRACT 3521. 02 TOTL- 166,517 SERV AREA LIE SEISMIC ZN CO SERV AREA GENRL PLAN ? FLD HZD ZN -E-Er,�1 CC RES CONSV SCHOOL FEE DRNGE FEE MOSQUITO ABP SUP DIST 2 ACREAGE 76.147 EAST BAY REC DESC RO COLORADOS 76. 147 AC / EAST BAY RE "APPLICATIONS" ACALANES HI AG DP PL NO. CD DESC LOT C APP RCVD-HRNG/FNL ST MORAGA ELEV CO CO Comm -AOB LAMORI 07/05/91 4B&-, 1 NUM 9 June 27, 1991 Mr. Harvey Bragdon, Director of Community Development Contra Costa County Community Development Dept McBrien Administration Building Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Bragdon: With this letter I am requesting that the Urban Limit Line be adjusted to include my property known as the Orwood Resort located on the south side of Orwood Road at the Werner Dredger Cut being approximately 2600 feet east of Bixler Road. The parcel contains 50.09 acres. Presently the Urban Limit Line runs along the south boundary of this property. The subject property consists of soil identified as Sacramento Clay, alkali, which is rated as Class IV in the Soil Conservation Service Land Use Capability Chart; At present its major use is a mobile home park which contains an airplane landing strip. A boat launching ramp is also provided along with some boat docking facilities. This site is physically suitable for development and can be done in a manner to be a complementary extension of the potential development to the south which is within the Urban Limit Line. Environmental impacts would be minor and could be easily overcome with appropriate mitigations. I am prepared to provide you with any additional information you deem necessary to adequately complete your review. A map indicating the location of the property is attached. Your positive consideration of my request would be very much appreciated. Sincerely yours, Thomas W. Moir Route 1, Box 88 - Brentwood, CA 94513 Attachment :4 a I O t � g 'tp O N I l r-Z Mw N m � N � O O• D O� � I •�a 1 � 1 ® t o ,o I � B oI �o I p m C ^ $ « C O0 Ammor a w I 26 orinda way orindo colifornia 94563 415 •254-3900 June 3 , 1991 Mr. Val Alexeeff, Director Growth Management & Economic Development Agency 651 Pine Street, No. Wing, 2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Val, You have recently inquired as to the position of the Orinda City Council on the request by Mr. Vince Maiorana to go on record with a vote that the urban limit line in the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan does not extend beyond OrindaIs city limits. This matter is apparently before the Board of. Supervisors in June. Please be advised that at its April 23 , 1991 meeting, the City Council declined to support this request. Please contact me if you have any further questions on this matter. Sincerely, Tom Sinclair City Manager TS:nh U4/ oar;on F'cc�d:c f' per iF--�SCHOOSS= PHILLIPPIi-ASSOCIATES�INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING LAND SURVEYING CARL F SCHOOSS L.S. THOMAS S.PREBIL JAMES RASP P.E. THOMAS S.PHILLIPPI P E. JOHN D.PAYNE L.S June 27, 1991 Harvey E. Bragdon Director of Community Development Community Development Department County Administration Building f' 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, Ca. 94553-0095 Subject: Inclusion of Lands within Urban Limit Line Boundary APN 015-200-002 015-200-003 Dear Mr. Bragdon: It is understood that the window to submit this request for changes in the Urban Limit Line expires at 5:00 p.m., Friday, June 28, 1991. This letter will serve to comply with the request that the County consider adjusting the Urban Limit Line to include the Lands of Ralph located in the Orwood Tract as indicated. In accordance with my understanding, the supporting data to justify the change to the Urban Limit Line will be provided within two weeks. Please process this request appropriately. Very Truly Yours, Qom . Thomas S. Prebil Principal cc: James Cutler, Community Development Department Dennis Barry, Community Development Department Bob Henn, Henn, Etzel & Mellon Jack Williams wind/0365ralp.doc(2) 322 South Abel Street . Milpitas, CA 95035 . (408) 262-4739 . FAX (408) 945-9331 1Pi�m-SCHOOSS�-�PHILLIPPli&w---AS-SOCtATES-f-"INC.-i.-�, CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING LAND SURVEYING CARL F.SCHOOSS L.S. s: THOMAS S.PREBIL JAMES W.RASP P.E. THOMAS S.PHILLIPPI P.E. JOHN D.PAYNE L.S. June 27, 1991 Harvey E. Bragdon Director of Community Development Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, Ca. 94553-0095 Subject: Inclusion of Lands within Urban Limit Line Boundary APN 015-200-002 015-200-003 Dear Mr. Bragdon: It is understood that the window to submit this request for changes in the Urban Limit Line expires at 5:00 p.m. , Friday, June 28, 1991. This letter will serve to comply with the request that the County consider adjusting the Urban Limit Line to include the Lands of Ralph located in the orwood Tract as indicated. In accordance with my understanding, the supporting data to justify the change to the Urban Limit Line will be provided within two weeks. Please process this request appropriately. Very Truly Yours, Thomas S. Prebil Principal cc: James Cutler, Community Development Department Dennis Barry, Community Development Department Bob Henn, Henn, Etzel & Mellon Jack Williams wind/0365ralp.doc (2) 322 South Abel Street n Milpitas, CA 95035 n (408) 262-4739 FAX (408) 945-9331 2 V n U X ? ItN t F OUT DREDGER 64 =e •O � w � � R S 53 Y 1 C O \ O Or MI•\- .•. W� � .... in r ,.• I /r I 6 k oR C D � y O x rft lA tp s- N �Q1AMW 7 NO �r m '� N � � O i � � PLANNING INQUIRY -- ENTER PARCEL NBR 015 - 200 - 002 PCL NO 015-200-002-2 SITE ORWOOD RD KNTSN USE CODE 66 100. 0% U OWNR RALPH WILLIAM E TRE NOTF 2428 PYRAMID 94550 LIVERMORE CA ******************************** PLANNING ************************************* PLAN AREA TO **** TRA 72001 **** SPECIFIC PLAN FROM 015-200-004-8 EASTERN FIRE PARK DED LAND- 141,660 EMS -1 ZONE B ZONING ? M-29M IMPR- 144 , 988 CO SERV AREA P-6 CENSUS TRACT 3040 . 00 TOTL- 286 ,648 CC RES CONSV SEISMIC ZN MOSQUITO ABATE 1 GENRL PLAN AG REC 78-1 FLD HZD ZN EL EAST BAY REGNL PK SCHOOL FEE DRNGE FEE EAST BAY REG PK BD SUP DIST 5 ACREAGE 93 . 810 LIBERTY HIGH . DESC PCL MAP 67 PG 16 PCL A EX 1/4 MR *KNIGHTSEN ELEM **APPLICATIONS** CO CO COMM COLLEGE AG DP PL NO. CD DESC LOT C APP RCVD HRNG/FNL ST -ECCTC (SR4) AOB CC PL MM 30-88 MS 93 . 8A 4 N 04/04/88 06/30/88 A -AOB EAST COUNTY 07/05/91 LFF2763 4B1 NUM - 07 01,3 9 PLANNING INQUIRY -- ENTER PARCEL NBR 015 - 200 - 003 PCL NO 015-200-003-0 SITE ORWOOD RD KNTSN USE CODE 66 100.0% U OWNR RALPH WILLIAM E TRE NOTF 2.428 PYRAMID 94550 LIVERMORE CA ******************************** PLANNING ************************************* PLAN AREA TO **** TRA 72001 **** SPECIFIC PLAN FROM 015-200-004-8 EASTERN FIRE PARK DED LAND- 120 ,993 EMS -1 ZONE B ZONING ? M-29M IMPR- 0 CO SERV AREA P-6 CENSUS TRACT 3040. 00 TOTL- 120,993 CC RES CONSV SEISMIC ZN MOSQUITO ABATE 1 GENRL PLAN AG REC 78-1 FLD HZD ZN EL EAST BAY REGNL PK SCHOOL FEE DRNGE FEE EAST BAY REG PK BD SUP DIST 5 ACREAGE 76. 900 LIBERTY HIGH DESC PCL MAP 67 PG 16 PCL B EX 1/4 MR *KNIGHTSEN ELEM **APPLICATIONS** CO CO COMM COLLEGE AG DP PL NO. CD DESC LOT C APP RCVD HRNG/FNL ST -ECCTC (SR4) AOB -AOB EAST COUNTY 07/05/91 LFF2763 4B{ 1 NUM - 07 01,3 •:1 9 ii CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING LAND SURVEYING CARL F SCHOOSS L.S. THOMAS S.PREBIL JAMES W.RASP P.E. THOMAS S.PHILLIPP! P.E. JOHN D.PAYNE L.S. July 11, 1991 Harvey E. Bragdon Director of Community Development Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, Ca. 94553-0095 Subject: Change of Urban Limit Line Dear Mr. Bragdon: I represent Mr. William E. Ralph who owns approximately 205 acres of land immediately south of the proposed East Contra Costa County Airport and is designated as PS on the General Plan. (APN 001-031-018-3 and 001-031-019-1) . The property complies with the guidelines established by the General Plan and the East Contra Costa County Airport Master Plan Report as it applies to light industrial use. There exists strong justification from adjoining properties to support airport ancillary uses which will augment the activities of the proposed airport. The requested change to the Urban Limit Line is appropriate in light of paragraph (e) on page 3-16 of the Contra Costa General Plan which reads: (e) an objective study has determined that a change to the U.L.L. is necessary or desirable to further the economic viability of the east Contra Costa County Airport, and either (i) mitigate adverse aviation related to environmental or community impacts attributable to Buchanan Field, or (ii) further the County's aviation related needs; The topography of the site is gently rolling and the existing agricultural use is cattle grazing. The soils have been badly eroded by both water and wind. Accordingly, the site is suitable for urbanization as the agriculture use has been compromised. This request is submitted although notice was not provided in accordance with the June 28, 1991 deadline. This non-compliance was not intentional but was prompted by the owner's absence from the area. I was unaware that this site was a possible site for U.L.L. change. Upon Mr. Ralph's return to the area, he requested that this change of the Urban Limit Line be submitted for consideration by the County. wind/0365ralp.doc(5) 322 South Abel Street . Milpitas, CA 95035 . (408) 262-4739 . FAX (408) 945-9331 Harvey E. Bragdon East Contra Costa County Airport July 11, 1991 Page 2 Approval of this change of Urban Limit Line request will promote orderly airport oriented development consistent with the General Plan. In accordance with the provisions of the General Plan, please schedule this request to be heard before the Board of Supervisors. I will provide exhibits in a timely manner to support this request. Thank you for your favorable consideration. Very Truly urs, % Thomas S. Prebil Principal cc: William E. Ralph Jack Williams Bob Henn ��►�ri.,`s,gtLlr y �aehl6�ld, wind/0365ralp.doc:2 (6) t1PR t ` - - - - - 4 AL 'S - - - - - - - - - VuHt , . PS r` • • DR CO s SM i; -- MM Wit' w •. .. SM l. � - - - - SH PS CO U ri r aIo x .wY _ T t AL _.... .._........ IlaN r .. •XT WA 6: 7 1 0 le K ItA1 ' �r L PS v w PS D 7P .� PS AL all — — ---- 33 34 }1p_ i h CO 0 cq _ ----------------— DATE 1 /99/JOB N0. 0,�r'.S SCHOOSS—PHILLIPPI—ASSOgATES—INC.— SCALE None 1..0 SLOw9 0 Cl%% ENGMEWC tAOM KANI&W 1 322 South Abel Street • Milpitas,Ca. 95035 DRAWN: T.5chODSS SHEET /01111/ Civic Center • P.O. Box 1518 • Pittsburg, California,,.-.9,4S65 � f OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER June 28 , 1991 Mr . Harvey Bragdon Community Development Director Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 RE: URBAN LIMIT LINE Dear Mr. Bragdon: This is in response to your correspondence of June 19, 1991 regarding requested changes to the Urban Limit Line (ULL) . We would like to request a modification to the U.L.L. in the area southeast of the current city limits . This is a further modification of" our U.L.L request which was submitted during the original hearings . To the extent possible it excludes properties where the property owners do not wish to be inside the U.L.L. The proposed modification recognizes requests of property owners for annexation to the city and we believe it to be a logical extension of the existing U.L.L. We will be glad to provide you with any additional information you may require.. Sincerely, S. Anthony Dom o City Manager/ 358PRD/SAD/LJP/ly League of California Cities Helen Putnam Award-1988 National Center for Public Productivity Exemplary Award-1989 City of New Horizons ! r o w • r s t s � s � R f � t a O � U t i C+ O F arc o O z r ¢+ r G O eb W A V p 7 Y W ♦ V a to { u s z < = a< O i Y O z r o r a^6 psoill , pg r c m ' z � 1 Y r , � o O s 3 i m 0 ss� o Q, a a a W � r � W � a • i v r o r Y r i r a 3 < rr W 3 J •!L W t. St.L R1L?1C. wt-te8 Unfimita inc. PHONE: (209) 838-7363 P.O. Box 1675 • Empire, California 95319 June 19, 1991 Contra Costa County Community Development Department Attn: Mr. Dennis Berry 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA. 94553 Re: MS-7-87 APN #002-040-039-6 APN #002-040-040 Dear Mr. Berry, I would like to have this MS- 7-87 - ( 002-040-039-/002-040-040) included in. the urban limit line. Should you have any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Charles Prin e RANCHETTES UNLIMITED, INC. CP:pks Office of the PLANNING DIRECTOR``-_ City of File : 001 . CCCGP July- 2" 1991 -Mr . Har�,,ev E . Braddon Director of Community- Develol)ITIen-t- Contra Costa Count? 651 Pine Street ., 4th Floor ,. ming Martinez , CA 94553-0095 Dear Harvey: In follow-up to my letter to you of June 25 , 1991 , 1 refer vou to my letter of -January 1 , 10190 to f1r . jam-es Cutler . A copy of the letter is attached. We ha`.-e never received a reply tc. our We still have concerns relative to the Urban Limit Line in the area of Castro Ranch Road and along the North Richmond Shoreline . The line should be consistent with the City' s Sphere of Influence in both o-f these areas . The current line does not recognize that there are currently development proposals for properties along Castro Ranch Road and that environmental impact reports are being prepared to determine the impacts of those projects . The line in the North Richmond Shoreline area is in conflict with the land use alternative proposed by the Citizens Committee for the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan. We realize that the ,urban limit line was drawn several years ago for a different reason. It is inappropriate to continue to use the same line for a twenty year plan without recognizing the changes currently being proposed. It would be helpful for us to have a copy of the Urban Limit Line Map at a scale where the boundaries can be readily related to existing landmarks or property boundaries . Please let us kncw if you would like to meet to discuss our concerns . Sincerely, Jim Fara Planning Director Attachment cc : Supervisor Tom Powers 2600 Barrett Ave. P O. Box 4046 Richmond California 94804 telephone: 415 620-6706 Office of the PLANNING DIRECTOR e city Of File. January 1 , 194b Mr. James Cutler Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Ref: Contra Costa County Draft General Plan Dear Jim: Prior to adoption of the County ' s Draft General Plan three areas should be reviewed. Two of these cases require changes to be implemented. In the third case, measures for handling potential conflict resolution need to be addressed. The plan calls for a large parcel south and east of Castro Ranch Road within the Richmond Sphere of .Influence to be beyond the Urban Limit Line (ULL) . This appears to, in effect, remove the parcel from the Richmond Sphere of Influence. This also occurs for a section of North Richmond extending north and east from the San Pablo Creek to the Point Pinole Regiona1 Park which is shown as beyond the ULL. Finally , the draft General Plan is in potential conflict with future plans for the North Richmond area. This is recognized in paragraph two, page 4. 1-16 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report by reference to the current land use study. It is not clear how potential differences in the land use study and the draft General Plan will be resolved. Prudence would dictate that this be addressed prior to adoption of the General Plan. Sincerely, /Jim Farah Planning Director cc Supervisor Tom Powers 1 2600 Barrett Ave. P. O. Box 4046 Richmond California 94804 telephone 415 620-6706 AtEMORANDUAI TO: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community Development Contra Costa County Community Development Department FROM: Kevin J. Gailey, Chief of Planning Town of Danville DATE: June 28, 1991 SUBJECT: Requested changes to the Urban Limit Line - Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005 This memorandum is in response to your letter of June 21, 1991, in which you requested Town-recommended changes to the Urban Limit Line (ULL) indicated in the Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005. The proposed Urban Limit Line (Figure 3-1 of the draft General Plan) includes the Gale and Windemere Ranch properties, which, in conjunction,%ith portions of the Camp Parks facility, comprise the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan Area. The ULL was extended northerly and easterly from Dougherty Valley during the public review process for the General Plan. The proposed line was modified to include lands now covered by the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association (TVPA) General Plan Amendment Study request. Inclusion of the TVPA lands along Camino Tassajara, Finely Road,Johnston Road and Highland Road appear to be inconsistent with the criteria on Page 3-16 of the General Plan. The text of the General Plan identifies the reasons certain properties were placed outside the ULL. The factors that pertain to the TVPA lands include: (2) Open space areas Note: The lands generally are zoned in one of the Exclusive Agricultural District designations or under Agricultural Preserve Contract. (3) Lands ,%ith slopes in excess of 26% Note:A large percentage of the lands in question have extreme development constraints due to; excessively steep slopes, existing landslides, high susceptibility to landslides, and high susceptibility to debris flow. (5) Other areas not appropriate for urban growth because of... inadequate water availability, the lack of appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing development... Note: Shapell's proposed development of the Gale Ranch property has been indicated as a 15+/- year phased project, bringing the project to the close of the term of the County 1990-2005 General Plan. Inclusion of lands in the ULL which are further removed from existing development and necessary infrastructure improvements appears inconsistent with the intent of the establishment of the ULL. The above factors considered, it appears inappropriate to include most, if not all, of the TVPA lands within the ULL. Because of the short time provided for comment, the discussion above reflects the Town's preliminary comments. When and if additional comments are available (following consultation with the Danville Town Council) they will be forwarded to the County. CC: Mayor Greenberg Town Council G. Sipel L. Christman kkgm3.j28 \ \ \ � $ _ g � / 3 | \ / \ \ . o $ \ V) \ - % � 2 \ / \ / \ � $ % Lu / \ d ± /�y� a ees / Q % $ _ \ - \ & � ± / \ j / A ' � $ / . � i IT yt-1 17 RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT June 11 , 1991 Dennis Barry CCC Community Development Dept . 651 Pine Street Martinez CA 94553 Re: Proposed Urban Limit Line Dear Mr . Barry : The Brentwood Recreation and Park District would like you to consider extending our service area to match the proposed urban limit line currently under review at this time. If you should have any questions regarding this request or need further information please contact Linda Cawthorn at the District Office. Sincerely, Gilbert Dominguez President , BR&PD GD/llc 740 B Third Street Brentwood, California 94513 • (415) 634-1044 SOUZA REALTY 35 E. 10TH ST., SUITE A TRACY, CALIFORNIA 95376 12091 835-8330 FAX 12091 832-8355 Harvey Bragdon, Director = - 05/06/91 Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553 RE: East County Airport Urban Limit Line Dear Harvey, On April 15, Tony Souza, Fred Etzel, and I met with Dennis Barry to discuss the final determination of the urban limit line boundary around the East County Airport. In light of that meeting, I have prepared the enclosed map and this letter, which is intended to convey our view as to the preferred placement of the urban limit line surrounding the East County Airport. Our view is driven by three thoughts; the bisecting of parcels by the urban limit line, developable area within the urban limit line, and natural barriers to development. From the County's perspective, these can be condensed into one idea: utilizing the urbar, limit line for the long-term economic practicality of the East County Airport. Referring to the attached map, it is evident that the existing urban limit line severs sixteen parcels (parcel numbers 1,2,3,5,6,8,9,24,26,27,28,25,29,37,39,and 41). Since the urban limit line by definition implies eventual rezoning to allow urban uses, an inordinate amount of conflict is bound to result. The urban limit line that we propose cuts through three parcels (numbers 3,4, and 10). These three parcels will be physically split by the Vasco Road re-route, so actually no parcels are cut by direct result of the proposed urban limit line. This translates into sixteen less headaches for the County. Rather than use a simple parcel map to illustrate our views, I chose to use, as a base, the map utilized by the county for Measure"C" and the Airport Land Use Commission for the Airport Land Use Plan. This map clearly shows the limiting effect of the various approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, safety zones and topography within the current urban limit line. Once all of these factors are accounted for, it is quite obvious that there is little developable land within the "urban" limit line. On the other hand, our proposed urban limit line is more true to the intent of an urban limit line, since it includes land that actually has the capability of being converted to urban uses. To the County, this means maximizing its investment by allowing developable property the opportunity to share in the foreboding infrastructure costs associated with creating this profitable (tax revenue and job generating) area. JIM2:ULL1 Page 1 The logic behind the boundaries of the proposed urban limit line is quite simple. To the west is the relocated Vasco Road. To the south is the kit-fox habitat and problems associated with mitigating development in such areas. The eastern boundary consists of existing transportation routes (Byron Highway and North Bruns Road). The northern boundary is predetermined by topography, and the inclusion of parcels that are already zoned for industrial (this would deal with the legal problems associated with down-zonina). For your convenience, I have included a sheet delineating ownerships of the parcels involved in this discussion. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, James A. Gwerder enc: 1 (one) map 1 (one) map legend cc: Lou Souza Dennis Barry .1M2:uLL.1 'gage 2 URBAN LIMIT LINE-EAST COUNTY AIRPORT LEGEND FOR MAP Map .No. APN Property Owner --------------------------- ------------------------------------- 1 003-160-002-6 COELHO, EVO TRE 2 003-160-004-2 COELHO, EVO TRE 3 001-011-001-3 SOUZA (THELMA) 4 001-011-030-2 SOUZA (THELMA) 5 001-011-031-0 BRADFORD, ALAN & DIANE 6 001-011-032-8 LONNERGAN, OLIVER & JEAN 7 001-011-028-6 JARVIS, DENNIS & DARLENE 8 001-011-027-8 JARVIS, DENNIS & DARLENE 9 001-011-005-4 LOPEZ, DENNIS 10 001-011-004-7 MASTER, LEO & MARIA 11 001-011-021-1 BRADFORD, ALAN & DIANE 12 001-011-014-6 RIGGIO, BARBERA ET AL 13 001-011-026-0 BRADFORD, ALAN & DIANE 14 001-011-025-2 BRADFORD, ALAN & DIANE 15 001-011-007-0 WICKLINE, ROY & J IRENE 16 001-011-016-1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 11 001-011-009-6 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 18 001-011-013-8 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 19 001-011-015-3 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 20 001-011-011 (PT) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 21 001-011-011 (PT) CALDERA, FRANK & GUTIERREZ 22 001-011-012-0 LOONEY,H JR. & DIANE 23 001-011-017-9 TODD, ELMER & APPLEGARTH 24 001011-018-7 VAUGHAN, RICHARD & JEAN 25 002-200-C01 (PT) CONTRA COSTA REDEVELOPMENT 26 002-200-001 (PT) COELHO, MARIA 27 002-200-014-5 FOWLER, D&S & TAYLOR, R. 28 002-200-015-2 FOWLER, D&S & TAYLOR, R. 29 002-200-007-9 COELHO, MARIA 30 --------------- ------------------------------- 31 002-210-006-9 WELDEN & COMPILLI 32 002-210-005-1 COCCIARDI , ANTHONY 33 002-210-019-2 MACOR INC. 34 002-210-020-0 MACOR INC. 35 002-210-021-8 SOUZA (VAQUERO FARMS INC. ) 36 002-210-022-6 SOUZA (VAQUERO FARMS INC. ) 37 001-031-003-5 SOUZA (VAQUERO FARMS INC. ) 38 001-031-014-2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 39 001-031-004-3 SOUZA (L TRE c/o VAQUERO FARMS) 40 001-031-013-4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 41 001-031-016-7 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ` I 3 3yy Zoc $32.$ �PY' 209, ocl 2: 2" F O¢N�P 9 Y� No"a ;a�t�j�t e e Ays�s �peP�' vo a en VN a111Gou�y ai` io „ae e�ANs Goy ©eJQioQ o�pta ded a a�C.�`'; °<ra�i 0 o��t�v`'�ctteeir�Nit`g c�patp `e ince he ata e s GO'90e<,N°��ot�`a aStG fe et Cd��%q . (go 1 F o C� ti '('��5 Cee pieye d '`a of ie9 6a�a� Ga R� da`1• ©61g aid � of e caii e°of o6� �5t35 Car aGtet�s iseG�'t`sio XNeg teiePr°�y ie� *,,L 0%"C•, Qa �Gai Gra res,�h a,Dat<`{ot,ire try dv�Vo trete syCe c eG�`o o�CaP .�,o\0 na��o�reCs) d et�tc�'�a dei ��t4° fie odea plat�'eGti�aP �i,;Qe`e,an oC�g e's �� C peC���s, ou i°�a ay Go���a�,, te`a�yeti, ,ijo ,,reit {,�errrC`�'`�aa�g�a�� ire a�Go Jet,6Ca% gdat� ©ea �ra�`� oC�' �reEaS yo°e5�a5`�d Pie aGG�ra e�,i5 e\Y A as tea ed 'i&vP aNaNe� a�ets'a 0d in9�,t C tea�5135 a`Ca°te „pv<s r�� Ce Geed teyel sko se rage opt daCy aet�ai�i��°`�ire 6y`V,e 06yg1,atee a,�e5 a ap as 4 of daiid�ai'�° aa�t` P•I ei Gia tt°m itt``k 0{�51 aaie art`d ire Go`�pi e`oe�$ a Gail. rc{��o °�Utaar� eie�`et�e-40 e4aip Ce�ie� it a°aide ire tie i9 'tr e, a e�°;ye �eit00.'kvia4ry ao fieeiaia�,��eret��`� `t,ee�o9 Gro, dat`�o 0v1 ata 'tai°g °C US��`Xge G s der�r ea5e gee aytrg $° . - �,c�ai�a i� ,ttiG°r ��s't'i r.:Gte:yj tGeis fiett Crat` ere ti�o� �,�g °, Pa eiop ai,Le Oe �t�Ga '(00 ais G°tt� dei tested �a4 e mod eet`t'°'C,5 0< tt`1 uta i°t 5 Som aye �etv e r G n Uo�$�$a9do Katy GG' LAW OFFICES MANERNEY & DILLO,N :. FAX 14151 465-6556 WILLIAM H. M.INERNEY PROFES51ONAL CORPORATION - %:� RETIRED TIMOTHY F.WINCHESTER HARADON M. DILLON ROBERT L.LESLIE ONE KAISER PLAZA • 18TH FLOOR RICHARD F. RENTON _ WILLIAM H. M<1NERNEY, JR. OAKLkND,CALIFORNIA 9461'2-Wo , L.RANDOLPH HARRIS - MICHAEL E.LONDON TELEPHONE 14151 465-7100 FRANKLIN H.YAP MICHAEL D.VALE ROBERT G.ZELENKA TIMOTHY L.MCINERNEY CHARLES E.TOOMBS EAMONN P.CONLON WILLIAM A.BARRETT DAPHNE D.GOLLIHER RICHARD W. LUND JEWELL J.HARGLEROAD OUINLANS.TOM CAROL K.WATSON ROBIN S.MYREN June 19 , 1991 Dennis Barry AICP Assistant Director Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez , California 94553-0095 Re: Urban Limit Line and its relation to the Foley property Dear Mr. Barry: The purpose of this letter is to supplement the formal request you received ,from Diablo Ventures West on May 7, 1991, for modification of the Urban Limit Line as it affects the Foley property. This property lies directly east of the Blackhawk development near the intersection of Camino Tassajara Road and Finley Road. As the attorney for the Foleys, I invite the Board of Supervisors to consider the following facts which support revision of the Urban Limit Line. The Foleys ' request is straightforward; they ask that the Urban Limit Line be moved eastward slightly in conformity with the 10001contour of the hillsides located on their property. A :trap of the Foley property and the proposed revision to the lire is attached for your reference. As it is currently drawn, the line runs diagonally across the property and bisects the property. The line does not conform to the contours of the hillsides and does not include the majority of the portion of Tassajara Creek which runs through the property. Under Measure C - 1990 the Urban Limit Line may be changed if the result of that change would not increase the urban uses within the line above 35% of the total land affected by the Contra Costa County General Plan. Because the Foley property is agricultural land, its inclusion within the Urban Limit Line will not raise the percentage of urban uses whatsoever. Thus, modification of the line is not barred by the 65/35 standard. Under Measure C - 1990, Section 4 (B) (7) (d) , changes may be made to the line if: Dennis Barry AICP June 19 , 1991 Page 2 a minor change to the Urban Limit Line will more accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal boundaries. The change requested by the Foleys is a minor one in relation to the 219 , 000 total acres included within the Urban Limit Line. An estimated 250 acres lie between the line as currently drawn and the 10001contour line. Moving the line to follow the 1000 ' contour line will more accurately reflect the topographical characteristics of the area. The line follows the ridgeline along the eastern segment of the Blackhawk area .and similarly follows the ridgeline east of Camino Tassajara to the south of the Foley property. As it stands, the line runs from an elevation of approximately 1200 ' in the northwest corner of the Foley property, down to as low as 750 ' around Finley Road and then back up to around 900 ' in the southeasterly corner of the property. Likewise, it makes sense to move the line easterly to the 1000 ' contour line because the land lying east of this proposed line is extremely hilly and rugged whereas the valley west of the proposed 1000 ' contour line is more typical of the lower-lying, less rugged areas in the vicinity of Camino Tassajara Road. Although the Foleys do not request that the revised Urban Limit Line follow the legal boundary of their property exactly, the proposed modification to the line would more accurately reflect the parameters of the Foley property than would the current line. Thus, the second criteria for modification of the line under Section 4 (B) (7) (d) is also met. Moreover, modification of the Urban Limit Line as recommended would comport with the Hillside Protection goals of Measure C - 1990. That is, there would be no danger of development of the hillsides within the property lying east of the 1000! contour line. This eastern portion of the property includes the majority of the hillsides on the property which have a grade of 26% or greater. These facts constitute substantial evidence that the criteria set forth for modification of the Urban Limit Line in Dennis Barry AICP June 19, 1991 Page 3 Section 4 (B) (7) (d) have been met. Thus, I request that the Board of Supervisors recommend the revision of the line as shown in the attached map. Very truly yours, McInerney & Dillon, P.C.. L. R ndolph rris LRH:dr 030D5571 Enclosure cc: Mr. Patrick Foley Mr. Robert D. Johnson, Diablo Venture West C ^�rU,;�� 1 •,11tH/' �, � .�� � ...: l(j�� a r '. • `�1��\ ��{�(/ t •�'. �)�{� {� "k;j r ; .\ ? } �� t;' A' f(. �.✓ lin !rti= t , `� rs IM;; '1 t'/•j'I' ,! � it t+! � �\�. ` � q M , .� ��� � � �• / ��`� i `./ / i� 'tom •�� _ `\' , ,' �� r /,�`� �(+."� t;� . 8007 ��� te`t`, ,��:..• `, .� ' _,; ♦ ' �:, -'% As'J'1J{,SPA a$g8'�'�' 1 /.) � " \\ t � r ��I.•� X13 NZ 9. s -/.i f � \,��,yea�r s..ra�r�4�i , '.. /, .•.�. J --- J_�' . , ,� , � � �t=lr X11• J^� ,. S . H . C O W E L L F GU.; N`D A T I O N 260 California Street, Suite 501 San Francisco, California 94111 415-397-0285 J. June 4, 1991 Mr. Valentin Alexeeff Director Growth Management and Economic Development Agency 651 Pine Street, No. Wing, 2nd Floor Martinez, California 94553-1229 RE: URBAN LEMT LINE ADJUSTMENT, COWELL RANCH Dear Val: The enclosed map of the S. H. Cowell Foundation property southwest of Brentwood shows the alignment of the Urban Limit Line as established in the County General Plan. The drawing also shows a proposed adjustment of the line which we would like to submit for formal consideration by the Board of Supervisors. As indicated on the drawing, the same amount of land would be placed outside the Urban Limit Line as would be brought inside. The rationale for making this change is to have the Urban Limit Line follow more logical boundaries formed by the existing topography of the area. The revised line would also respect natural drainage areas. We believe there is substantial evidence to support the Board making the finding that this minor change to the Urban Limit Line will more accurately reflect the topographical characteristics of the Cowell Ranch. Given that the amount of acreage inside the Urban Limit Line on the Cowell Ranch will remain the same with this adjustment, the underlying purposes of the Urban Limit Line as presently formulated, in the context of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, will still be achieved (see pages 3-16 and 3-17 of the General Plan on the findings required for changes in the Urban Limit Line). We would be pleased to meet with you and other appropriate County staff to answer any questions you may have and to provide substantial evidence to support a Board finding to adjust the Urban Limit Line on the Cowell Ranch. Please call to arrange a mutually convenient time for such a meeting. Very truly yours, Nathaniel H. Taylor }� Vice President Real Estate NHT/itl/enclosure 1Gf 6, •r p,q/ 4-1 �- . D. E R I C K S O N, President M A x T H E L E N, ]R., Vice President G E O R G E A. H O P I A K, Secretary/Treasurer STEPHANIE R. WOLF, Executive Director NATHANIEL H. TAYLOR, Vice President Real Estate x ! 4 / x v s ➢ _T1 a 1 s ! t Lh •y 7 ,' ' , ( i ( c .... ; HORIZONYAL tb1�"c�•�i.' ��- 1�• �.`����• `� � 1 1»`; l"' `` � � ' ,. suerAcc ' 336' YA4 j c�' � �y Z• �- ,'lj � Alt*�h t1�ya14Awt t 4� '1 t . . .^ ! �(i '«' ••,' � fir'. Atiit�ACM j} .firms {(}ft:, .Gl{tl ti �.1 r. 1 ♦ 5 .7 If r►111Y, Y�\• 4 p �, , 1.+<'.• .7 ,4 til 5 f V sump � $ .� ' ....,• il4AM10MA4ti f' lu- 14 �� f►� d, 1 « Ori � � 1�. 1. `4 N. MAIN ItA !f- t �� )1 11- ri+1y,d�l�]��, I � 1. ( ' Or�J y` .•'/' _� (ti 4•'i�.l ...fit •��1�i!4 +A.}.:.' *.�+� .•1 r , � '�It�(`';«(e tt ,, .+1.t N r.v*�'{ • l.'�.fl ' 1,1� . i�l /� 1 4 �` Vy rdr.'.%'r'X` ..t '� :,•.�` , v:�,'�t.l'1 r'h+G• •!•,lY�.� '+ .�.a+s�. - BRUEN & GORDON ` A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 7 1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD : I SUITE 1020 WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596 - - (415)295-3131 FAX(415)295-3132 - June 19, 1991 Mr. Harvey Bragdon, Director Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Mr. Dennis Barry Re: The 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Urban Limit Line Designation Request for Change to Urban Limit Line Dear Mr. Barry: The undersigned represents Mr. Joseph Cerri and Mr. Ivan Cerri in connection with their ownership of 645. 5 acres, more or less, situated in .eastern Contra Costa County. The purpose of this letter is to request a change in the Urban Limit Line provided for in the Land Preservation Plan as defined at section 4 (B) (3) of the Ordinance adopted by the voters in the November 6, 1990 election. The request for change to the Urban Limit Line is made pursuant to the provisions of section 4 (B) (7) of the ordinance, with particular reference to subsection (d) , which provides for a minor change to the Urban Limit Line where it would more accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal boundaries. Location of the Property. The Cerri property (hereinafter "the property'') consists of 645.5 acres, more or less, and is located in the unincorporated area of the County southeast of Oakley and northeast of Brentwood. The boundaries of the property are outlined and shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. I have highlighted the property with a yellow marker for ease of reference. Reasons for the Requested Change. This request for change to the urban limit line is made pursuant to the provisions of section 4 (B) (7) (d) of the Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance. The property is a Mr. Harvey Bragdon, Director June 19 , 1991 Page 2 generally flat group of parcels lacking any visually significant qualities. There are no visually significant hillsides or ridgelines on the property. As is more clearly shown on the attached map, the topography of the property is substantially the same as the parcels to the east lying wholly within the Urban Limit Line. As such, there is no topographic basis to exclude the property, as it is virtually the same as the properties lying directly to the east within the Line. The characteristics of the property and the topography are wholly consistent with those lands within the Line, and are inconsistent with those lands proposed for exclusion from the Line. The requested change would achieve topographic consistency and more clearly define by parcel the concept of urban limits as defined in the ordinance. Moreover, the adjustment and would remove the anomaly of the island within the Line created by the large area contiguous with the eastern border of the Property (please see attached map) . The exclusion of the subject property from the Urban Limit Line and the inclusion of the adjacent easterly parcels within the urban limit line presents an incorisistency which should be resolved by this minor change to the line to more closely approximate topography and property boundaries. The property is not prime agricultural land as the soils are of generally poor quality and unsuitable for agricultural purposes. For example, the soils are very high in boron, cholorides (salt) and E.C.e. (mmhos) . As a result, the land is not agriculturally significant and it is not crucial or significant to maintaining a healthy or competitive agricultural economy in Contra Costa County. Moreover, the land does not Provide a unicrae ::abitat for wildlife or plants. This request for change in the Urban Limit Line has been presented in accordance with the requirements established by the Board of Supervisors for presentation of such a request, and is made without prejudice on the part of the Cerris to present such other and further evidence as may be brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors and/or their designee relative to the background and reasons for the requested change. On the basis of the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the Board of Supervisors hereby approve the requested change Mr. Harvey Bragdon, Director June 19, 1991 Page 3 to the urban limit line as consistent with the purposes and goals of the ordinance, with appropriate findings. Res ctfully submitted, Sc tt W. Gordon Counsel for Joseph and Ivan Cerri SWG:jcf Enclosure cc: Board of Supervisors County Counsel Joseph Cerri Ivan Cerri 1 a of z ' Al C _ O T 0 Z m o N c7 s r o D m - M rn -/ N m Igo :qD O r a m 1 n R- a I� a z O ! w 2 m � - •Z I c D :m w 1 •N G I Z rDr D N M C n !` 0 \J ? O 17 rm o+ C f /tp. m b. f7 o<•,5F 0 1�. Y•9 %Ex .3�wta+ ) H >E. o. H `m C D O a I 2:S ?kr "s$ - o� n3>asS%.i5%�¢%'.E'.;d.... h;., Ep.. "''';ik/%�%.,�:pd:Mfii;: .+.s. �.: ..:3{y£i' z .7•i .5..;' i3;C;:�Z'i..��` .�yi%�E::''.io,�rfaw�•.`�7,:,.,•f..,,�: '..(+"i'S 9 J.:<�% _ °:C:'3'h• 't:r'?�`•,.,;fw�E<I'',Yie.'s�:.i7.!'�^J'''�`bj4'z`,�yy.&#�RX�%a�3iz'Y .. / L'J 17.:. ?>Rrw:fv°'R'r' "��':3::.::`3�%.:fl>' r�?'TS i£:oy� •1 ro c ':r?3:o';'::jt^.!::'.�.'•�ir�i:%::9;v a%:<k> `�IF%1�:£;7::$R: m /.. Ylw D r. 0 s p. � Y :S D 3Srg!.:4r v s• ,� 3• i r S� E '."<::k:. ..jjam� 'J• �.. — � m Z 1 J' 3 < i 3:<E N O .. 66 0 _ TU/ 1 if Wt If 4*11 JE4 I :r Iraw '15 to 15 ov vr 0 4:'71 mom r-4 k Ll ..................... Qf 4f•°4IY YYIp�q�t I 1 if t U W, W ti 01144 cyry qk `t O k(} , C4 i ci Z '0 +s co 4- F co a m .4 1° a J o; f , k ° 2� A ' SJR' ell .1 .2. 132 ;ES. s �%v 335 g°C ° 4S' Bg °fl'1 .13° '1. fl° �1g3fl cgs os � Twp fl°� ,1'�"�.'1 A $ �� p �wv- .oa .. �°°.0�°g.4 A �� g° p1? g� g� Q'ss 15'R 3,.22°0.00 (0'1 g .�gE•`� gS7 �'.g�'� 01 3.22 � 3 ,1 3S g0� 1j, lap?, pgs °sp °1p A` J ;Oo ?o OJYV- �g���°° °S,S4Y 30s 3°'$� 3°s� %', a 5°s� 1 J t 91 L r Harvey Bragdon, Director June 13, 1991 Community Development Dept. 651 Pine St. Martinez,California 94553 Dear Sir, We write in reference to our two parcels situated on the South side of Marsh Creek Road approximately one-third mile West of Walnut Blvd. We feel that the proposed alignment of the Urban Limit Line along the South boundaries of our properties will not reflect the best long-term use of the area,as increased heavy traffic generated by garbage trucks to the Marsh Creek Landfill site,coupled with the proposed Delta Expressway and its use of Marsh Creek Rd.as the principle connector to Highway#4 East will render our properties an island between Cowells proposed residential development and the busy throughfare. We have reviewed Mr. Leonard Gerry's letter of May 30th and are in agreement with his comments and request. We wish our parcels to conform with the adjacent George Nunn parcel to theWest and square off the proposed configuration of the ULL and use Marsh Creek Rd. as the natural division to separate incompatible long-range planning goals. We urge you to consider our request,as we feel that the currently proposed alignment will adversely affect our property and result in severely hindering our ability to continue farming these parcels in the future. Sincerely, Victor Castello C 9_ar� Joseph Castello 10251 Brentwood Boulevard, Brentwood, CA 94513 �s to recycled paper City of Pleasant Hifi , July 18, 1991 Mr. Harvey Bragdon Community Development Department T:-'' - -3.. C:.untY AdmI nistration . �i. iny 651 Pine Street 4th Floor., North Wing Martinez, Ca. 94553-0095 Re : Urban Limit Lines Dear Mr. Bragdon: ° Although the City has received a copy of the County General Plan, we have not been able to accurately identify the Urban Limit Line. It iS the City' s policy to exclude all lands within the Briones Hill Preservation Agreement area (signed April 17, 1988) from urban development . . The County is a signator to the agreement and thus, should comply with the restrictions of that agreement. If you have any questions concerning the City' s policy, please feel free to give me a telephone call at 671-5209 . Sincerely, RTC,11AgD T. BOTT LitlN� Community Development Director . vt :county\bragdon.ltr � 100 Gregory Lane - Pleasant Hill - California 94523-3323 - (510) 671-5270 - FAX 256-8190 A A'Ps sE '!AOKN DEVELOPMENT C 0 M P A N Y January 25, 1991 Mr. Harvey Bragdon, Director Community Development Dept. Contra Costa county 651 Pine St. Martinez , CA. 94553-0095 RE: U.L.L. Roddy Ranch Dear Mr. Bragdon: Attached please find map indicating a suggested Urban Limit Line affecting the Roddy Ranch as suggested in your meeting with Mr. Herb Epstein on January 17, 1991. Mr. Epstein prepared the map from a larger 111=300' scale map including all lands above 25% slopes and maintaining the overall acreage inside the U.L.L the same as is presently found within the preliminary General Plan U.L.L. The following is a tabulation of the acreages: A. Total Acres, Roddy Ranch 2650 Total Acres, Prel. Plan U.L.L. 1078 Total Acres, Suggested U.L.L. 1076 Total Acres, Open Space- 1574 B. Developable Area North of Suggested U.L.L. -766 Developable Area South of Suggested U.L.L. -310 Open Space North of Suggested U.L.L. -312 Open Space South of Suggested U.L.L. -1262. The suggested U.L.L. is based on topography rather than property lines except for the Ennis property since it was not included originally in the U.L.L. All acreage was developed by planimeter and consequently is not without error 4.1,460 Fremont Boulevard - Fremont. California 94538 - (-fli) 051-4100- FAN No. 651-12,M)i U^ If we can be of further assistance in helping to finalize the Urban Limit Line please feel free to do so. Thank you again for your consideration and your assistance to Mr. Epstein, our Planning consultant. Sincerely, Jo n S.Wong Mission Peak Uelopment Co. i MIPSSI®E A KN - DEVELOPMENT COMPANY August 8 , 1991 By Hand Delivery Mr. Harvey Bragdon Planning Director Community Development Department County of Contra Costa 651 Pine Street Martinez , California 94553 Re: Proposed Modification to Urban Limit Line Dear Mr. Bragdon: This letter and the attached exhibits constitute the revised application of Mission Peak Development Company for a modification to Contra Costa County' s Urban Limit Line. I. INTRODUCTION Mission Peak holds an interest in approximately 2200 acres of real property located south of the City of Antioch and commonly known as "Roddy Ranch. " Roddy Ranch includes substantial portions of the two valleys known as Horse Valley and Deer Valley, respectively. These two valleys, which are separated by a ridgeline rising 100 to 600 feet above the valley floors (the "Ridgeline") , historically have been used for grazing and other ranching activities . Because of the scale of the County's general .plan maps , it is difficult to ascertain the precise location of the Urban Limit Line as it applies to Roddy Ranch. However, it appears that the Urban Limit Line trends from Northwest to Southeast, generally between the two valleys . The environmental impact report prepared for the County's General Plan earlier this year analyzed the possibility of 47460 Fremont Boulevard • Fremont,California 94538 • (415)651-4100 • FAX No.651-3765 v Mr. Harvey Bragdon August 8 , 1991 Page Two development in Horse Valley and Deer Valley as "reasonably foreseeable. " One of the basic policies of Measure C, approved by the voters last year and incorporated into the General Plan, is to protect visible and sensitive hills and ridgelines by limiting urban growth to flatter areas. In accordance with this and related policies (described below) , Mission Peak is requesting a modification of the Urban Limit Line that would locate a greater portion of the Ridgeline and hills separating the two valleys outside the Urban Limit Line and thus , as shown on the enclosed map, locate a portion of Deer Valley inside the Urban Limit Line. II . DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The approximate location of the Urban Limit Line is shown, together with a dep�ction of this proposal, on the map attached as Exhibit A. As shown on the enclosed map, this proposal would relocate a portion the Urban Limit Line to the north, so as to offer more extensive protection to Roddy Ranch's westerly Ridgeline and hills. The - land that would be so protected includes not only ridges and hills with slopes exceeding 26 percent and some of Roddy Ranch's most interesting visual and geographical features, but also significant and potentially valuable developable acreage as well . In fact, this proposal would offer Urban Limit Line protection to substantial portions of Roddy Ranch's westerly hills with slopes as low as 20 percent and less. Also as shown on the enclosed map, this proposal would locate within the Urban Limit Line a portion of Deer Valley extending westerly of Deer Valley Road along Chadbourne Road. This area, currently operated as a ranch, comprises only a small portion of Deer Valley. The substantial majority of the valley, including the westerly portions of Roddy Ranch and substantial acreage located south of Chadbourne Road, would remain as open space. By moving the Urban Limit Line to include this portion of Deer Valley, the rest of the valley could more feasibly be made 1 As noted above, it has been difficult to ascertain the precise location of the line. However, we understand that the depiction shown on the enclosed map is generally acceptable to County staff . Mr. Harvey Bragdon August 8 , 1991 Page Three available in the future for recreational and other open space uses consistent with the General Plan. In summary, this proposal would accomplish two goals : First, it would afford greater protection to hillsides and ridgelines useful for recreation and open space uses while making available for other uses lands of limited agricultural value which do not require special environmental protections . It would also, as noted above, facilitate eventual public access to significant portions of Deer Valley itself for open space and recreational uses. In so doing, this proposal would conform the Urban Limit Line more closely to the criteria set forth in the County's General Plan and the provisions of Measure C. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a brief point-by-point analysis of how this proposal is warranted by those criteria. Second, the protections afforded by this proposal would be provided with little or no net loss of land area protected by the Urban Limit Line. We understand that "no net loss" is not required in this case for the County to meet its 65 percent open space obligation, since property inside the Urban Limit Line is still subject to dedication requirements. Nevertheless , this proposal recognizes (and seeks to protect) the County's interest in preserving the integrity of the Urban Limit Line approved by County voters last year. III . CONCLUSION This proposal is an excellent way for the County to obtain greater protection for its hillsides and ridgelines , preserve the integrity of its Urban Limit Line and ensure a long-term supply of land to house new County residents. If you or your staff have any questions about our proposal, or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. We look forward to talking with you in the future and reviewing any environmental documentation Mr. Harvey Bragdon August 8 , 1991 Page Four prepared by the County in connection with this and other proposals being made with respect to the Urban Limit Line. Thank you very much for your assistance and consideration. Very truly yours , J n Wong Enclosure cc: Herb Epstein Paul Kozachenko, Esq. F38077 0000, x / 1«, • W z • w ¢ z / W H -� •r! ww .» / L Lli ai 6 ro AIR P 1.1 w A / ., CC' a o L E o i •-+ u M 6 � 3 w cn u a tO/ u a� 2 b cn ca •rt ct3 � c w a o <U E E., -H • • • H ro s s s : • pa j }4 . • • • • • t^i O d • • s ! • W � • I • • i • 04 4 w • • • • • • t APA 14 y,� i • • • t Y + ! O r.1 G s • s ♦ s f . s s ��ti • • • • • r + • �►;. a e ..�.ri w I• ' . . . . . . • M too 0 cn • M • •� 4 • • ,f • • ! • • • • • • • • • i f �i • i ! f • • ! i i • • • • • • • • W ' • • . • • i • ♦ • • • • • I • • • f • `� • i A M i • • • ! • • • • • • r • • • • �'• ♦ • f • ♦ • • i • • i i t • i • • • s • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • r • • ♦ • • • • • • • M • ♦ • • • • • • • r f • ♦ ! ♦ i s s 4 0 • • i • • • • • • • • i EXHIBIT B to Submittal of Mission Peak Development Company According to the General Plan, the County considered a number of criteria in establishing the initial location of the. Urban Limit Line. These included (a) the existence of Class I or Class II soils , (b) the facilitation of open space, parks and recreational uses , (c) the existence of slopes in excess of 26 percent, (d) the existence of wetlands and (e) whether property is suitable for urban growth in light of physical constraints , geology, infrastructure, surrounding land uses and other environmental issues. As set forth briefly in the following paragraphs , this proposal would conform the Urban Limit Line, as. it applies to Roddy Ranch, more closely to these criteria : 1 . Class I and Class II Soils. Those portions of Roddy Ranch that would be moved inside the Urban Limit Line by this proposal are of limited agricultural value. Roddy Ranch contains only small, isolated areas of Class II soils (and no Class I soils) insufficient to establish a viable agricultural operation. Accordingly, the property .historically has been used only for grazing and other ranching uses. 2 . Open Space, Parks and Recreation. This proposal would greatly enhance the goals reflected by this criterion. First, it would extend Urban Limit Line protection to substantial portions of Roddy Ranch's northwesterly hillsides and ridgelines, including features of visual and environmental importance and potentially developable hillside property with slopes less than 20 percent. Second, by including a portion of Deer Valley inside the Urban Limit Line, this proposal would establish a means of access to the balance of Deer Valley ( i .e. , that portion located outside of the Urban Limit Line) for its eventual use for open space, parks and other recreational purposes. 3 . Slopes. This proposal would substantially increase Urban Limit Line protection of slopes in excess of 26 percent. Moreover, those portions of Roddy Ranch that would be moved outside of the Urban Limit Line by this proposal include significantly flatter lands, generally with slopes less than 20 percent. 4 . Wetlands. The property that would be moved inside the Urban Limit Line by this proposal contains no significant wetlands. 5 . Appropriateness for Urban Growth. This proposal would adjust the Urban Limit Line in a manner that more precisely reflects those portions of Roddy Ranch that are appropriate and inappropriate, respectively, for urban growth. It offers increased protection of hillsides and ridgelines while ensuring a greater supply of land appropriate to satisfy the County's long-term housing needs. In addition to satisfying the above-stated criteria, this proposal proposal would (as described on page 3-16 of the General Plan) (a) better reflect the topographical characteristics of Roddy Ranch by locating the Urban Limit Line more precisely along the Ridgeline between Horse Valley and Deer Valley and (b) enable the County to better satisfy its future obligations to provide a fair share of affordable and regional housing. F39158 _ _ - ::: » _ 2 I 4 - - f �` -. _ �� ��;.. - ,I ���e� �' �_� ,ifs� p � - . l; �'� �. �R,i, -,,_.- ,� Ate'`` ,K-,'y ''�•� `. .\