HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09101996 - D14 D. 14
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSContra
y
Costa
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON County
OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r
DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 1996
SUBJECT: NEED FOR CLARIFICATION ON PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR SAN RAMON/
DANVILLE AREA PROJECTS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. REAFFIRM the Board of Supervisor's action on December 20, 1994
(attached), dealing with the duties of the County's three planning
commissions.
B. DIRECT staff to process an ordinance amendment which clarifies the duties
of the three commissions consistent with that prior Board direction.
C. CLARIFY that the County Planning Commission (CPC) is the official hearing
body for the Dougherty Valley (Phase 2), Wendt Ranch and Tassajara
Meadows projects.
D. RATIFY the proposed hearing schedules (Attachments 1 , 2, and 3).
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of staff time and for facilities for the public hearings on these projects and
for preparation of the ordinance code changes.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATUR
ACTION OF BOARD ON September 10, 1996 APPROVED AS ECOM DED I OTHER_
IT..IS"'BY. THE BOARD ORDERED that staff's Recommendations A, B, and C are
APPROVED; and Recommendation D is APPROVED with Attachment 3 modified to show
correcte&hearing dates.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: Ty y II NOES: T TTT AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN. p
Contact: James Cutler (510/335-1236) ATTESTE l`
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) 4PIL BATCHELO , CLER OF
County Administrator THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Public Works Department AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Counsel
Applicants (via CDD)
B , DEPUTY
JWC:gms
p16\bo/HrgProc.SRA
Need for Clarification on Public Hearing Process
for San Ramon/ Danville Area Projects
Page 2
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Each recommendation is discussed below:
A. REAFFIRM Prior Board Policy on Roles of the Commissions
In the fall of 1994, the Community Development Department, in consultation
with representatives of the Regional Planning Commissions and the Internal
Operations Committee, worked out the General duties of the various planning
commissions. On December 20, 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved a
report from the Internal Operations Committee which extended the lives of the
regional commissions and outlined the way the Ordinance Code, continuing
the existence the regional commissions, should be interpreted. A copy is
attached.
This Board direction indicated that for General Plan amendment requests or
Specific Plan proposals generating over 1,500 peak hour trips or for
subdivision applications over 1 ,500 units within a regional planning
commission jurisdiction and part of a larger project, that the CPC will be the
official hearing body. Regional Planning Commissions would have primary
jurisdiction over smaller projects according to the Ordinance Code. The
Board's action reflected the view that projects which exceed this threshold
were Countywide in scope and impact and should be reviewed from a
Countywide perspective.
The Board of Supervisor's December 20, 1994 action clearly spells this
approach out. That Board action directed this policy was in effect until
October 2, 1995 since that was when the regional commissions were set to
expire. The Board action anticipated, that in late 1995 these policies would
be reviewed when consideration of extension of the regional commissions was
scheduled to take place.
Unfortunately, the action extending the Commissions on September 26, 1995,
merely extended the Commissions time frame until October 7, 1995. It made
no reference to the prior Board direction on large projects as outlined in the
December 12, 1994 Board Order. The Board Order of September 26, 1995,
extending the regional commissions, reference the continued work on
Dougherty Valley, Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association, and Cowell
Ranch. It failed to clarify that the existing Board policy on large projects was
carried forward along with the Regional Commissions extension.
The failure to include the roles of the Commission within the ordinance code
appears to have been an oversight. The remedy is to REAFFIRM that policy
until the ordinance code can be clarified in this regard.
B. DIRECT STAFF to process an ordinance code amendment.
If the board wishes to reaffirm the policy listed above, staff should follow-up
with an amendment to codify that policy.
C. CLARIFY that the CPC is the hearing body for the review of the Dougherty
Valley (Phase 2), the Wendt Ranch and Tassajara Meadows projects.
JWC:gms
p16\bo\HrgProc.SRA
Need for Clarification on Public Hearing Process
for San Ramon/ Danville Area Projects
Page 3
As indicated above, the Board action of December 20, 1994 greatly simplified
the public hearing process for projects that contain 1,500 residential units or
that are a component part of a project larger than 1,500 units.
Staff is in need of additional guidance on how to best proceed with
consideration of the Dougherty Valley (Phase 2), Wendt Ranch and Tassajara
Meadows projects.
1. Dougherty Valley
When the original Dougherty Valley project was considered in 1992, the
CPC was the "official hearing body" for that effort, however, joint
hearings were held with both the CPC and SRVRPC. After the public
hearings were complete, each Commission considered
recommendations separately. Under the December 20, 1994 Board
decision, only the CPC would need to hold hearings on the next phase
of the Dougherty Valley approvals.
2. Wendt Ranch and Tassajara Meadows
In late 1995, the Board of Supervisors considered requests for the
authorization of both these,projects. Both were historically part of the
Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association (TVPOA) project. At the
Board meeting at the Clayton Library, a range of opinions and
approaches were presented on how integrated planning would be
approached in the area.
Ultimately, it was decided to separate the Tassajara Meadows project
totally from the TVPOA proposal, and it was to be processed separately
without reference to TVPOA.
The decision was slightly different as it related to the Wendt Ranch
project. Here the Board decided that the Wendt Ranch project could
also be authorized as a separate plan amendment, but that it should
ontinue to be considered as a part of the larger TVPOA proposal.
n discussion on timing, our staff indicated to the Board that it was
anticipated that the TVPOA EIR would be out first and that the Wendt
Ranch EIR would follow. This has not turned out to be the case. The
TVPOA EIR has been delayed, well beyond staff expectations, to allow
for adequate time to explore traffic solutions in the area that would be
required for consideration of the project.
Both the Wendt and Tassajara Meadows Draft EIR's have been
released for public review; TVPOA's Draft EIR is anticipated to be
released in October or November.
Since many of the environmental issues would be similar for both
projects, the same environmental consultants, Environmental Science
Associates, was hired to do both jobs. Traffic issues and public
services issues appear to tie these two projects together. In fact, if
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) requires a new water tank
to be constructed to serve these two projects, the Draft EIRs examines
JWC:gms
p16\bo\HrgProc.SRA
J
Need for Clarification on Public Hearing Process
for San Ramon/ Danville Area Projects
Page 4
a site on Dougherty Valley lands. It is becoming difficult to separate
off-site requirements for these two projects.
Since the Wendt Ranch hearing body is presumed to be the CPC
(based on prior Board action discussed above), it might be practical
and consistent to have the same hearing body hear both applications.
If this is desired, the CPC should be the official hearing body for all
three projects.
D. PROVIDE guidance on the hearing schedule as may be appropriate.
The applicants for all three projects have urged County staff to insure action
on their applications by the current Board of Supervisors since they are
familiar with the requests and the issues surrounding them.
Staff is not in a position to respond to that request. Once items are scheduled
before a Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors, those bodies
have ultimate control over the decision making process and whether or not
items will be continued on their agendas. Staff indicated that since guidance
was needed on hearing bodies, we would mention this to the Board so that the
Board could give further direction on this matter, if so desired.
To help understand the issues involved with this, attached are schedules for
the three projects based on the most optimistic assumptions.
As can be seen, these schedules are very tight!
To meet these schedules, all the following need to occur and be allowed to
occur:
1 the close of comments date for the EIR's needs to be maintained;
1 the staff will need to anticipate that certain actions will occur on a given
date so that public hearings can be adequately noticed for the next
superior hearing body;
1 the opportunity for additional public hearings will be limited due to
hearing notice legalities;
1 that there are no good reasons for additional continuances of public
hearings;
1 recognize that the Better Government Ordinance time lines for release
of written information may not be achievable; and
1 that the technical production efforts allows the schedule to be met and
that adequately sized meeting places are available.
JWC:gms
p16\bo\HrgProc.SRA
Attachment 1
DOUGHERTY VALLEY
PROCESSING SCHEDULE
AS OF 9104196
1. NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) MAILED COMPLETE
2. EIR CONSULTANT STARTS GENERAL INFO COMPLETE
GATHERING AND FORMATTING
3. NOP RESPONSES DUE (45days) COMPLETE
4. ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR COMPLETE
5. REVIEW OF DRAFT EIR COMPLETE
6. SCREEN DRAFT EIR REVIEW 8/27/96
7. CIRCULATE DRAFT EIR 8/30/96
8. DVOC MEETING 9/18/96
9. ZA HEARING ON DRAFT EIR 9/23/96
10. COUNTY PC HEARING 10/8/96
11. CLOSE COMMENT DEIR (45 days) 10/14/96
12. SCREENLINE DRAFT RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 10/28/96
13. FEIR PUBLISH 10/29/96
14. ZA HEARING ON FEIR 11/4/96
15. CONTINUED COUNTY PC HEARING/DECISION 11/5/96
16. BOS PUBLIC HEARING 11/12/96
17. CONTINUED BOS PUBLIC HEARING/DECISION 11/19/96
j\audrey\dv-rev.sch
Attachment 2
WENDT RANCH
PROCESSING SCHEDULE
AS OF 9/04/96
1. NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) MAILED COMPLETE
2. EIR CONSULTANT STARTS GENERAL INFO COMPLETE
GATHERING AND FORMATTTING
3. NOP RESPONSES DUE (45 days) COMPLETE
4. ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR COMPLETE
5. REVIEW OF ADEIR COMPLETE
6. SCREEN DRAFT EIR REVIEW COMPLETE
7. CIRCULATE DRAFT EIR COMPLETE
8. ZA HEARING ON DRAFT EIR 9/23/96
9. CLOSE COMMENT DEIR (45 days) 10/7/96
10. COUNTY PC HEARING 10/8/96
11. FEIR PUBLISH 10/30/96
12. ZA HEARING ON FEIR 11/4/96
13. CONTINUED COUNTY PC HEARING/DECISION 11/5/96
14. BOS PUBLIC HEARING 11/12/96
15. CONTINUED BOS HEARING/DECISION 11/19/96
j\a ud rey\wendtrev.sch
Attachment 3
TASSAJARA MEADOWS
PROCESSING SCHEDULE
AS OF 9110/96
1. NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) MAILED COMPLETE
2. EIR CONSULTANT STARTS GENERAL INFO COMPLETE
GATHERING AND FORMATTING
3. NOP RESPONSES DUE (45 DAYS) COMPLETE
4. ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR COMPLETE
5. REVIEW OF ADEIR COMPLETE
6. SCREEN DRAFT EIR REVIEW COMPLETE
7. CIRCULATE DRAFT EIR COMPLETE
8. ZA HEARING ON DRAFT EIR 9/23/96
9. CLOSE COMMENT DEIR (45 days) 10/7/96
10. COUNTY PC HEARING 10/8/96
11. FEIR PUBLISH 10/30/96
12. ZA HEARING ON FEIR 11/4/96
13. CONTINUED COUNTY PC HEARING/DECISION 11/5/96
14. BOS PUBLIC HEARING 11/12/96
15. CONTINUED BOS HEARING/DECISION 11/19/96
j\audreyltassmdrv.sch
_ ac
i ,o, 1 Attachment 4
To: - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE . f �y
`ROM: _ Costa
December 12, 1994 w County
DATE:
CONTINUATION OF THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION AND
SUBJECT: SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATIONS)6 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . CONTINUE the East County Regional Planning Commission and San
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission until October 2,
1995.
2. REQUEST the Director, Growth Management and Economic
Development Agency (GMEDA) to report to the Board of
Supervisors on the activity of the two regional planning
commissions and on the implementation of the following }
recommendations well in advance -of October 1, 1995.
3. DIRECT that, until October 2, 1995, the general duties of the
Commissions be as follows :
A. County Planning Commission: '
1 . Countywide general plan text or map amendments .
2 . General Plan amendment requests or Specific Plan
proposals for projects generating over 1500 peak
hour trips .
3 . Subdivision applications over 1500 units within a
regional planning commission geographic area when
such subdivision is part of a larger project which
project would be countywide in impact.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMI TRXTOR �r RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
.APPROVE O H
SIGN,TURE s: JE O 1DeSAULNIER
ACTION OF BOARD ON a ember 20, 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
-VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
/// AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED ^' 9 X-D �V 1q4
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
CC: See Page 4 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY DEPUTY
4 . Non-residential or mixed use projects generating
1500 peak hour trips within a regional planning
commission's geographic area when such project is
part of a larger project which project would be
countywide in impact.
5. Zoning ordinance text amendments.
6. All other duties presently performed by the
Commission.
7 . Other matters specifically referred by the Board of
Supervisors.
B. Regional Planning Commissions:
1. General Plan amendment requests or Specific Plan
proposals for projects up to 1499 units when such
amendments or proposals are not part of a larger
project which large project would be countywide in z
impact.
2 . Subdivision applications between 101 units and 1500
units, when such applications are not part of a
larger project which large project would be
countywide in impact.
3 . Non-residential or mixed use projects generating
between 101 and 1500 peak hour trips, when such
projects are not part of a larger project which
large project would be countywide in impact.
4 . As Board of Appeals to consider appeals of
decisions of the Zoning Administrator.
5. Holding meetings and taking testimony on local
proposed public works projects in order to provide
insights and recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors and the originating Department (i .e. ,
Public Works, General Services, etc. ) .
6 . Other matters specifically referred by the Board of
Supervisors.
4 . DETERMINE that under the County's adopted CEQA guidelines, the
division of the Planning Agency for hearings on Draft
Environmental Impact Reports is determined by the Director of
Community Development (the Board of Supervisors may express a
preference when reviewing proposed schedules for major items) .
5. REQUEST the County Planning Commission to continue to meet in
various areas of the County when appropriate and to meet
jointly with the Regional Planning Commission when a project
of countywide impact is proposed within the regional
commission's geographic area. The implementation of this
request should take into consideration the County Planning
Commission's other hearing obligations and hearing schedules .
In this regard, note that in the past two months the County
Planning Commission met:
A. In North Richmond on October 4, 1994, to conduct a public
hearing to rezone the' area to P-1 .
B. In Rodeo on October 4, 1994, to conduct a public hearing
on the Unocal Clean Fuels Project.
C. In the San Ramon Valley on October 19, 1994, October 26,
1994, and November 9, 1994 in joint public hearings with
the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to
consider the "Country Club at Gale Ranch" project.
2
6 . DIRECT the Zoning Administrator to conduct evening hearings in
San Ramon Valley, East County, and West County on projects
located in those geographic areas, consistent with the
requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act. Such meetings
should start in January or as activity warrants .
7. DIRECT the Community Development Director to monitor the
activities of the three Commissions and the Zoning
Administrator and report back to the Board of Supervisors as
part of the Department's budget presentation for the 1995-1996
County Budget. In addition, DIRECT the Community Development
Director to include within the Department 's budget request for
the 1995-96 fiscal year projections of anticipated planning,
and general plan proposals with plan implementation and
application work load for the 1995-96 and 1996-97 fiscal years
and the possible impact of these activities on Commission
activities.
8. REMOVE this subject as a referral to the 1994 Internal
Operations Committee. }
BACKGROUND:
On October 18, 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved a report
from our Committee which included the following directions to
staff:
1 . DIRECT the Director, Growth Management and Economic
Development Agency, to return to our Committee on December 12,
1994 with additional information on the County Planning
Commission and Regional Planning Commissions, to include at
least the following:
J Additional clarification of criteria by which a decision
is made (or could be made in the future) to refer a given
application to the County Planning Commission rather than
one of the regional planning commissions .
J What are the local concerns and what are the regional
concerns that should influence the decision to refer an
application to the County Planning Commission as opposed
to one of the regional planning commissions?
What procedure and process could be used to get the
County Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator into
the community more often in order to insure local input
on issues?
What process can the Board of Supervisors implement to
most effectively insure that both local concerns and
regional concerns are heard and fully considered without
tilting the process either toward local concerns or
regional concerns?
2 . DIRECT the Director, Growth Management and Economic
Development Agency, to invite the members of the County
Planning Commission and regional planning commissions to
provide their comments and recommendations on what steps the
Board of Supervisors can take to improve the process of
insuring that we have in place as objective a system as
possible for receiving and considering all relevant local
issues and concerns as well as all relevant regional issues
and concerns .
On December 12, 1994 our Committee met with Val Alexeeff, Harvey
Bragdon, Dennis Barry, Vic Westman and representatives from the San
Ramon area and the East County Regional Planning Commission. Mr.
Bragdon reviewed the attached report, which we agreed to endorse as
presented.
3
• YI /
Representatives from the East County Regional Planning Commission.
indicated their opposition to the October, 1995 sunset date for
further review of the Regional Planning Commissions and also voiced
their opposition to the use of the 1500 unit figure for the County
Planning Commission. They indicated they would prefer that the
Regional Planning Commissions be left with authority up to 2500
units .
It is the opinion of our Committee that it will be important to
maintain flexibility and communications among the Commissions and
between the Commissions and County staff. We are asking for
presentations as a part of the Department's budget presentations
this coming summer and are also asking that the Department report
back with an update on the activity of the Commissions and on the
implementation of the above recommendations well in advance of
October 1, 1995 so that the Board of Supervisors has time to make
a reasoned decision regarding the future of the Regional Planning
Commissions .
x
cc.: County Administrator
Val Alexeeff, Director
Growth Management & Economic Development Agency
Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Director
Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
4
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: December 7, 1994
TO: internal Operations Committee
FROM: Val Alexeeff, Director W
SUBJECT: Regional Planning Commissions
RECOMMENDATION:
i
I. The San Ramon Valley and the East County Regional Planning Commissions.be
continued to at least October 2, 1995.
II. Until October 2, 1995, the Board of Supervisors directs that the general duties
of the Commissions be as follows:
A. County Planning Commission:
1. Countywide general plan text or map amendments.
2. General Plan amendment requests or Specific Plan proposals for
projects generating over 1500 peak hour trips.
3. Subdivision applications over 1500 units within a regional
planning commission geographic area when such subdivision is
part of a larger project which project would be countywide in
impact.
4. Non-residential or mixed use projects generating 1500 peak hour
trips within a regional planning commission's geographic area
when such project is part of a larger project which project would
be countywide In impact.
5. Zoning ordinance text amendments.
6. All other duties presently performed by the Commission.
7. Other matters specifically referred by the Board of Supervisors.
B. Regional Planning Commissions:
1. General Plan amendment requests or Specific Plan proposals for
projects up to 1499 units when such amendments or proposals
are not part of a larger project which large project would be
countywide in impact.
2. Subdivision applications between 101 units and 1500 units,when
such applications are not part of a larger project which large
project would be countywide In impact.
3. Non-residential or mixed use projects generating between 101 and
1500 peak hour trips, when such projects are not part of a larger
project which large project would be countywide in impact.
4. As Board of Appeals to consider appeals of decisions of the
Zoning Administrator.
1
5. Hold meetings and taking testimony on local proposed public
works projects in order to provide insights and recommendations
to the Board of Supervisors and the originating Department (i.e.,
Public Works, General Services, etc.).
6. Other matters specifically referred by the Board of Supervisors.
III. CEQA
Under the County's adopted CEGA guidelines, the division of the Planning
Agency for hearings on Draft Environmental Impact Reports is determined by
the Director of Community Development(the Board of Supervisors may express
a preference when reviewing proposed schedules for major items).
IV. Request the County Planning Commission continue to meet in various areas of
the County when appropriate and to meet jointly with the Regional Planning
Commission when a project of countywide impact is proposed within the
regional commission's geographic area. The implementation of this request
should take into consideration the County Commission's other hearing
obligations and hearing schedules.
In the last two months the County Planning Commission met:
(1) In North Richmond on October 4 to conduct a public hearing to rezone
the area to P-1.
- 2 -
(2) in Rodeo on October 4 to conduct a public hearing on the Unocal Clean
Fuels project.
(3) In the San Ramon Valley on October 19, October 26 and November 9 in
joint public hearings with the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission to consider the "Country Club at Gale Ranch" project.
V. Direct the Zoning Administrator to conduct evening hearings in San Ramon
Valley, East County and West County on projects located In those geographic
areas, consistent with the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act. Such
meetings should start in January or as activity warrants.
VI. Direct the Department of Community Development to monitor the activities of
the three Commissions and the Zoning Administrator and report back to the
Board of Supervisors as part of the Department's budget proposal. In addition,
the Department's budget proposal stall include projections of anticipated
planning, general plan proposals with plan implementation and application work
load for the next fiscal years 1995-1996, 1996-1997 and the possible impact z
on Commission activities.
DISCUSSION:
The recommendations would allow the Board to define the roles of the various units
in the Planning Agency, put the policy in action, allow for nine or ten months of
evaluation of the roles and activities, and then, within the context of the County's
budget process, make a decision.
VA:gg
cc: Supervisor Tom Powers
Supervisor Jeff Smith
Supervisor Gayle Bishop
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
Harvey Bragdon, Community Dev. Director
Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
- 3 -
n 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.
i T— A R.T Phone: 5 c — S 6 7— � S`76'5
Cx v.y o� la c`,nn owe
I am speaking for myself._or organiution: ��vvk Ck� v'o C
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item #= Date-11.k-
MY
ate: 1- tMy comments will be: general _.Jbr._&SWns _____-
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave comments for the Board
to vn *der-. Avc--Ac-bk
n
f0
- —
t
m
ell
cr
cr cr,
t y�
r 7 ry
Y F f4 f r�
F
IlatAy
i
a � � xt �.�� .4o'G°E "fit y"��` •Y ��A1
Q d 'Gr
�
47 y � 3
Q � 0 n
If you like
an ant
you'll love Sue Rainey
TharDougherty alley
,airs fo, "Khomes,
30,000
now -people and
160, icle trips,
_77*a
r
Advocate for limited growth Since 1979, an employee and
]Leads opposition to the spokesperson for real estate
Dougherty Valley development and development interests
Supported by leadership of: ]President, Contra Costa
Development Council
• ]League of Conservation Voters Supports Dougherty development
• Save our Hills
Supported by:
• Sierra Club o Dougherty Developers
• ]Leaders of Alamo Improvement (Shappel Industries)
Association o Developers' ]Political Action
o 1,000's of concerned Committees
homeowners
Paid for by Friends of Gayle Bishop,George Hall,Treasurer; 1601 North Main Street,Suite 205,Walnut Creek,CA 94596 1.D.#911618