The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 07242000 - D2 Agenda Item # 2 Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2000 - 7:00 P.M. POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY (GP#990001) I. INTRODUCTION The Board of Supervisors has authorized study of an amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan, 1995-2010, to modify or adjust the boundary of the County's Urban Limit Line. The Urban Limit Line, as referenced in the General Plan's Land Use and Open Space Elements, establishes the outer limit of the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County in which urban development may be considered. The boundary modifications would occur in multiple locations in the County that are eligible for placement outside the Urban Limit Line according to the criteria established under Measure C. The 65135 Contra Costa Land Preservation Ordinance (9990). If approved and implemented, the boundary modifications would place the following areas outside the Urban Limit Line for the duration of the current General Plan: • Crockett Area - A proposal for approximately 39 acres of unincorporated land area which are a portion of the former C&H Property adjacent to the community of Crockett, south of the town along Crockett Boulevard and east of Interstate 80. • Martinez Area. - There are three proposed locations in the Martinez Area: 1) The Martinez Ridge (also known as Franklin Hills)that includes approximately 3014 acres of ridgeline and slope area located mainly within the City of Martinez due west of Alhambra Avenue between State Route 4 and the Carquinez Strait shoreline. 2) The John Muir National Historic Site, located at 4202 Alhambra Avenue, that includes approximately 9 acres of land area operated as park by the U.S. National Park Service. 3) The Shell Marsh, located east of Interstate 680 and south of the Martinez-Benicia Bridge, that includes approximately 368 acres of predominantly wetlands and a portion of hilly grassland. • Tassaiara Area - There are two different proposals to move the line inward affecting between 3,927 and 4,513 acres of land area essentially made up of the Tassajara Valley, located in an unincorporated area of south-central Contra Costa County, bounded on the northeast by the Town of Danville, on the east by the City of San Ramon, and on the south by the County line border for Contra Costa and Alameda counties. • Clayton Ranch Area - A proposal to remove an "island" of approximately 1,030 acres of land area now inside the Urban Limit Line, located in an unincorporated area immediately north of the Marsh Creek Road and Morgan Territory Road intersection about 4-5 miles east of the City of Clayton. This is land area that is under acquisition by the East Bay Regional Park District. • Pittsburg Area -There are two different proposals for the inward movement of the Urban Limit Line that would affect between 2,582 and 2,550 acres (approximate) of unincorporated land area between the existing Urban Limit Line and the southern boundary of the city limits for the City of Pittsburg. • Antioch Area - There are two different proposals for inward movement of the Urban Limit Line that affect between 1,922 and 660 acres (approximate) of unincorporated land area between the existing Urban Limit Line and the southern boundary of the city limits for the City of Antioch. • Brentwood Area (South) There are two different proposals for the inward movement of the Urban Limit Line that affect up to 3,933 acres (approximate) of unincorporated land area between the existing Urban Limit Line and the southern boundary of the city limits for the City of Brentwood. • Brentwood Area (North) - A proposal to move the Urban Limit Line inward affecting approximately 100 acres of unincorporated land area between the existing Urban Limit Line and the northeast boundary of the city limits for the City of Brentwood, bounded by Delta Road on the north, a sewage treatment plant on the south, the Brentwood city limit on the west, and Marsh Creek on the east. • Oakley Area - A proposal to move the Urban Limit Line inward affecting approximately 322 acres of unincorporated land area located immediately east of the City of Oakley along Cypress Road. • Veale Tract - A proposal to move the Urban Limit Line to place approximately 1,040 acres of unincorporated land area on Veale Tract, located east of Knightsen at the end of Delta Road, outside the Urban Limit Line. 2 • Cowell Ranch r An alternative Urban Limit Line boundary modification proposal for the Cowell Ranch site, which is located in unincorporated area southwest of the City of Brentwood, that has been proposed by the property owner, involving approximately 345 acres of the ranch site that would be located inside the Urban Limit Line. II. CEQA AND RELATED ACTIONS A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared for POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY (GP#990001). The Notice of Completion for the Draft Environmental Impact Report was released on April 14, 2000 and the 45 day review and comment period concluded on May 30, 2000. The County Zoning Administrator conducted a hearing on May 15, 2000, on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. It is expected that the Zoning Administrator will forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the document's adequacy, completeness, and consistency with the guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act. Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Report were previously provided to members of County Planning Commission under separate cover when the document was released for public review and comment. Pursuant to Section 15025 (c)., Contra Costa County CEQA Guidelines, the County Planning Commission shall review and may consider the EIR in draft or final form when making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. 111. BACKGROUND A. General Plan Amendment Study Authorization by the Board of Supervisors On January 26, 1999, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorized a General Plan Amendment Study for consideration of changes or boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line as contained in the County General Plan. Several locations for the proposed boundary modifications were identified at that time, including the Tassajara Area, Clayton Ranch, and Veale Tract. The January 26, 1999 action by the Board authorizing the General Plan Amendment Study also provided for consideration of potential boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line in ether locations in the County. The consideration to expand the study to other locations 3 would be made pending the outcome of a strategic planning process on growth and development in East County, which was initiated by Supervisor Joe Canciamilla (District V), and based on suggestions from Board members who opted to conduct public workshops in their District to solicit suggestions and ideas from the public. The Board of Supervisors gave final shape to the General Plan Amendment Study on September 14, 1999, when they agreed to include in the study a proposal and an alternate proposal for changes to the Urban Limit Line boundary in East County, as requested by Supervisor Canciamilla, and several proposed boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line near Crockett and Martinez, as requested by Supervisor Gayle Uilkema. The Board's action to authorize the General Plan Amendment Study has set in motion the first comprehensive review of the Urban Limit Line in the nearly ten years since it became policy. B. History of the Urban Limit Line Develooment - A Summary In 1986 when the Board of Supervisors initiated a countywide revision to the County General Plan, the Board of Supervisors included direction that the new document should include an Urban Limit Line. As part of that General Plan effort an 86 member citizen committee was created including, city and special district representatives, developers, agriculturalists, environmentalist, and citizen action groups. It was called the Contra Costa County General Plan Congress. The development of an Urban Limit Line was a very contentious issue for the General Plan Congress. It debated the issues over a two year period and ultimately voted to decline such a feature as a part of their proposal to the Board of Supervisors. In 1990, several environmental organizations drafted the Contra Costa County Open Space and Wildlife Conservation Initiative and gathered sufficient signatures to have it considered for the November, 1990 General Election. That initiative would have amended the County General Plan in a manner that would have restricted growth in large areas of the County by placing these areas under an agricultural land use designation that would have limited residential development to one unit per 320 acres. In the Agricultural 4 Core around Brentwood it would have established a maximum building limit of one residential unit per 40 acres. While there were other provisions, these were the most controversial. There were many within the County that believed this was an overly stringent initiative. In response, the County Board of Supervisors prepared an alternative ballot measure formally known as the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Use Preservation Plan Ordinance. The proposed ordinance text provided for the following policies: Restrict urban development to 35% of the land in the County and preserve 65% of the land in the County for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks and other non-urban uses; • Prohibit any changes to the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan standard except by a vote of the people; • Create an Urban Limit Line to identify the outer boundaries of urban development in the County; • Protect and promote the economic viability of agricultural land by appropriate standards and policies, including a policy that increases the minimum parcel size for prime productive agricultural land outside the urban Limit Line to 40 acres; • Protect open hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County from development by zoning and other measures; • Manage growth in the County by allowing new development only when infrastructure and service standards are met; • Advise the Local Agency Formation Commission to honor the County's 65/35 Land Preservation standard, Urban Limit Line and growth management standards in annexation and incorporation decisions; • Promote cooperation between the County and cities to preserve agricultural and open space land, wetlands and parks, by requiring the County to pursue preservation agreements with cities where feasible; and 5 • Safeguard the County's obligation to provide its fair share of safe, decent and affordable housing. The proposed ordinance was based in part on the prior work done by the General Plan Congress. The proposed ordinance's intent was to provide some certainty to where growth could and could not occur in the County. It also accounted for development within cities, while providing assurances to the public that the County would not approve growth which exceeded the 65/35 standard through year 2010. B. Ordinance Adoption As work progressed in 1990 on the Contra Costa County General Plan update, a countywide debate was underway on which of the two ordinances the voters should approve to guide and direct growth and development in the County. Ultimately both ordinances were placed on the November 1990 County ballot. A process was setup so that whichever ordinance received the most votes (over a majority) would become law and be implemented. Both ordinances received over 50% majority vote in the November 6, 1990 election, but Measure C, 65/35 Contra Costa Land Preservation Plan Ordinance, sponsored by the Board of Supervisors received the higher number of votes and became the effective County ordinance. The ordinance has an expiration date of December 31, 2010. While the ordinance was not an amendment to the County General Plan, it required the County to take all necessary steps to reflect the ordinance in the new General Plan. The then "draft" Contra Costa County General Plan was modified to include the ordinance provisions for an Urban Limit Line and the 65/35 policies and standards, and, in fact, the text of the ordinance was added into the General Plan document, to ensure that its provisions would remain easily accessible to the public over time. The updated Contra Costa County General Plan (1990-2005) was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 29, 1991. The adoption of the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance did not permanently lock in the boundaries of the Urban Limit Line. The ordinance provides a process and criteria for 6 making changes to the Urban Limit Line which are described in this report under section IV.B. C. Impact of the Urban Limit Line on the Unincorporated Area, Incorporated Area, and Othe- r_Agencies As a component of the County General Plan, in addition to being an ordinance adopted by the voters of the entire County, the Urban Limit Line is a major factor in the determining the location of future growth within the County. It should be understood that this is a County program and the Urban Limit Line boundaries were established to reflect its use in County analysis and decision making, indirectly it may affect cities and other agencies. The following discussion is an attempt to put this program into overall context. 1. County Land development Restrictions The County General Plan text on pages 3-13 to 3-15 describes the implication and rationale of the Urban Limit Line on land use decisions in the unincorporated area. The text is states that land area located within or inside the Urban Limit Line can be considered for General Plan amendments which allow for urban development. All lands within or inside the Urban Limit Line that are being considered for urban development are subject to the goals, policies and implementation measures of the General Plan as a whole. The fact that a property is located inside the Urban Limit Line provides no guarantee or implication that it may be developed as an urban use during the lifetime of the General Plan. The land area located outside the Urban Limit Line is precluded from being considered for urban development through a General Plan amendment. Early in the development of the Urban Limit Line it was determined that the line would be countywide in geographic coverage and that it would attempt to differentiate between lands that were either developed or may be appropriate for development, from land area which was already protected for 7 public or open space uses and considered inappropriate for urban development. Consequently, the Urban Limit Line does not directly reflect either City limits or City sphere of influence boundaries, but it does locate major parklands outside of the Urban Limit Line. The Urban Limit Line was drawn with the intention that it be used as a tool for identifying and directing future urban development in the County. 2. Iml?act on Cities The Urban Limit Line has no direct impact on any of the planning policies for the 19 cities in Contra Costa County for land area located within incorporated city limits. As a co-equal planning agency, according to State law, the cities are free to differ from County Planning policies and visa versa. The cities and the County are required by State law to adopt and maintain a General Plan, which at a minimum address the subject matter specified by State law. In fact, jurisdictions are encouraged to have General Plan policies which overlap with adjacent jurisdictions, so that if a conflict in planning goals for an area occurs, it can be identified and considered during the public process of considering development applications. For the unincorporated land area within a city Sphere of Influence boundary that is inside the Urban Limit Line, the County regards this area as appropriate for urban development and has potential for annexation to the city. Urban development and its annexation into a city would be subject to the provisions of the city General Plan, the city's growth management obligations, and requirement established by LAFC©. For unincorporated land area outside the Urban Limit Line, the County considers this area as inappropriate for urban development and annexation to a city. A city, of course, is not bound by a County policy or ordinance, and may seek annexation of such an area through LAFCO. 8 3. LAFCO Policies The 65/35 Contra Costa Land Preservation Plan included a provision which dealt with LAFCO. It reads: (8) Annexations and Incorporations The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) shall be advised to (a) respect and support the County's 65/35 Preservation Standard, Urban Limit Line and growth management standards when considering requests for incorporation or annexation to cities or service districts, (b) apply the stricter of the growth management standards of either the County, the incorporating city or the annexing city or service district, when considering requests for incorporation or annexations of land to cities or service districts, and require unincorporated land located within the Urban Limit Line that is included in the incorporation of a new city or annexed to a city to provide a fair share of affordable housing when and if such land is developed." The key word in this section is "advised". Since LAFCO is a State commission administered at the local level, it is exempt from County mandates. It can give whatever weight it chooses to jurisdictional policies such as the Urban Limit Line. The Contra Costa County LAFCO has deliberated over the countywide election that brought the Urban Limit Line into existence and the Urban Limit Line itself. As a part of the document "A Guide to LAFCO Procedures, Contra Costa LAFCOw there is included a LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT (Adopted February 10, 1999). The relevant section of that policy reads: 9 "Although not bound by policies of other agencies, it is the general policy of LAFCO to honor the limits placed on urban development by other agencies. Therefore, LAFCO generally has honored the County Urban Limit Line (ULL), discouraging sphere of influence (SOI) amendments and annexations beyond the ULL. A proposal for an SOI change or annexation of territory beyond the ULL generally will be denied unless the proponents present evidence demonstrating that the need for the SOI change or annexation compellingly outweighs the public interest in limiting growth to areas within the ULL." This very carefully drafted policy statement makes it clear that LAFCO intends to respect the Urban Limit Line in terms of future growth areas. LAFCO, however, is not limiting itself in terms of annexations to create better jurisdictional boundaries. For example, annexations including areas of shoreline parks or protected marshes or areas restricted from development that would yield a better jurisdictional boundary are not limited by this LAFCO policy. 4. Other Local Agencies and Special Districts Other local agencies and special districts are not directly impacted by the Urban Limit Line, except if they attempt to annex areas outside the Urban Limit Line. Those will be subject to LAFCO scrutiny based on the above policy and other LAFCO factors of consideration. D. Relationship to the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard The 65/35 Land Preservation Standard was fundamental component of Measure C - 1990. The standard limits urban development in the County through at least the horizon of this General Plan to no more than 35 percent of the land in the County and requires that at least 65 percent of all land in the County shall be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, water areas, parks and other non-urban uses. The Urban Limit Line works to enforce the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard and establish a line beyond which no urban land uses can be designated. The standard ensures that both within and outside 10 the Urban Limit Line, a maximum of not more than 35 percent urban development could occur in the County, irrespective of potential General Plan Amendments in the future. As described above, substantial portions of land to be developed within the Urban Limit Line will be required for the open space, parks, recreation and other non-urban uses. The 65/35 standard operates on a countywide basis and therefore includes urban and non-urban uses within cities as well as unincorporated areas. Concurrent with the study of potential modifications to the Urban Limit Line, the Community Development Department has completed an inventory to determine where the County is in relationship to the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. The results of this inventory indicate that 69.6% of the land area in the county (both incorporated and unincorporated) is under non-urban uses and 30.4% of the county land area is made up of urban uses (as defined in Measure C-19901). A summary of the inventory and description of its methodology is attached as Exhibit "A" to this report for the Commission's consideration. E. Summa[y of Urban Limit Line Amendment History to Date Over the nearly ten years of the Urban Limit Line policy there have been 5 separate actions by the Board that have resulted in shifts or modification to the line. According to the record, a total of 261 acres have been added inside or within the line and 762 acres have been placed outside the Urban Limit Line. The net result is a 491 acre reduction of land area within or inside the Urban Limit Line. IV. APPROACH TO REVIEWING PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE REVIEW A. Relationshig of the Urban Limit Line to the County General Plan The 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan ordinance outlines the procedures for considering boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line. Since the Urban Limit Line is a component part of Land Use Element, and referenced in the Open Space Element of the County General Plan, all prior modifications to the Urban Limit Line have been processed as amendments to the County General Plan. The modifications under consideration for this review of the 11 Urban Limit Line are to be considered as an amendment to the County General Plan. B. Criteria for Changes to the Urban Limit Line The 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (Measure C-1990) specifies the findings necessary to change the Urban Limit Line. That section of the ordinance is reproduced in its entirety below: " (7) Changes to the Urban Limit Line There shall be no change to the Urban Limit Line that violates the 65/35 standard set forth in B(1) above. After adoption of the New General Plan, as long as there is no violation of the 65/35 standard, the Urban Limit Line can be changed by a 4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors after holding a public hearing and making one or more of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: (a) a natural or man-made disaster or public emergency has occurred which warrants the provision of housing and/or other community needs within land located outside the Urban Limit Line; (b) an objective study has determined that the Urban Limit Line is preventing the County from providing its fair share of affordable housing, or regional housing, as required by state law, and the Board of Supervisors finds that a change to the Urban Limit Line is necessary and the only feasible means to enable the County to meet these requirements of state law; (c) a majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the County have approved a change to the Urban Limit 12 Line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement; (d) a minor change the Urban Limit Line will more accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal boundaries; (e) a five (5) year periodic review of the Urban Limit Line has determined, based on the criteria and factors for establishing the Urban Limit Line set forth in B(3) above, that new information is available (from city or County growth management studies or otherwise) or circumstances have occurred, that warrant a change to the Urban Limit Line; (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 (1) mitigate adverse aviation related environmental or community impacts attributable to Buchanan Field, or (ii) further the County's aviation related needs; or (g) a change is required to conform to applicable California or Federal law. Any such change shall be subject to referendum as provided by law. Changes to the Urban Limit Line under any other circumstance shall require a vote of the people." To put the effectiveness of these criteria into perspective, the prior section which summarized the Urban Limit Line shifts or modifications document that only minor or limited changes affecting the Urban Limit Line have been approved to date. It seems that the Urban Limit Line has functioned as it was intended to provide some certainty about the location of future urban development. It is 13 instructive to note that no 5 year periodic review of the Urban Limit Line, as allowed for in 7(e) above, was initiated upon the five year anniversary of its enactment. This General Plan Amendment study, as initiated by the Board of Supervisors, would serve as the first "5 year" review of the Urban Limit Line. Section 7(e) references another portion of the ordinance for the criteria to be considered in the five year review. It reads as follows: "(3) Urban Limit Line To ensure the enforcement of the 65135 standard set forth in (13)(1) above, an Urban Limit Line shall be established, in approximately the location depicted on the illustrative 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Map attached as Exhibit A. The Urban Limit Line shall be incorporated into the County's Open Space Conservation Plan. The Urban Limit Line shall limit potential urban development in the County to 35'% of the land in the County and shall prohibit the County from designating any land located outside the Urban Limit Line for an urban land use. The criteria and factors for determining whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line should include (a) land which qualifies for rating as Class I and Class 11 in the Soil Conservation Service Land Use Capability Classification, (b) open space, parks and other recreation areas, lands with slopes in excess of 26 percent, (d) wetlands, and (e) other areas not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development, unstable geological conditions, inadequate water availability, the lack of appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing development, likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat, and other similar factors." 14 The proposed modifications to the Urban Limit Line discussed in this report have been reviewed and evaluated according to the five criteria referenced under this section of the Measure C-1990 ordinance. A complete copy of the Measure C-1990 ordinance text is provided in Exhibit "B" to this report. V. STAFF ANALYSIS AND INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. CROCKETT AREA Proposal Concept: A minor modification or adjustment to the Urban Limit Line. This change would apply on two sites which total approximately 39 acres in an unincorporated land area, adjacent to the community of Crockett, south of the town along Crockett Boulevard and east of Interstate 80. The line would modified to place the two sites outside the Urban Limit Line under this proposed boundary modification. The two sites are portions of acreage from the former C&H Property, acquired by East Bay Regional Park for parkland purposes, that are presently located inside the Urban Limit Line. See Figure 1, which is a map depicting the location of the proposed Urban Limit Line modification for the Crockett area (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The topography is predominantly comprised of rolling hills of grasslands with scattered oak woodlands. Some portions of the sites are comprised of steep slopes, many in excess of 26%. (Source: Map of Slope Areas in Excess of 26 '!0, Fig. 10-7, page 10-42, Safety Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-2010); USGS Topographic Map (7.5 Minute Series), Benicia Quadrangle; and, Contra Costa County Community Development Department Overlay Maps). The land area in question was once part of a ranching operation used primarily for rangeland purposes. The two sites are still open space and provide habitat for wildlife and plant species. County General Plan Designation: Parks/Recreation (PR) County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural Zoning Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the two sites: • [Sec.4, B. (3)(b)] "open space, parks, and other recreation areas"; • [Sec.4,13.(3)(c)] 'lands with slope in excess of 26 percent"; • [Sec.4,13.(3)(e)] "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development....likelihood of substantial 15 environmental damage or substantial damage to wildlife or their habitat" Policy Options: • Retain existing Urban Limit Line boundary • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary in the Crockett area as defined and depicted in map form. Recommendation: The two sites are now in parkland/open space use under public ownership, and would not be suitable for consideration to redesignate for urban uses. Staff recommends the proposed Urban Limit Line boundary modification. As discussed above, the conditions for each of the proposed boundary modification match the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support the boundary modifications as defined. 16 3 HE 3 J� �F F' I V7i w 3 A,. t y `port so RoobnaWwaft i I Y , , , �rrn.rrw 1 SYrov+aNna �,, Y , , Legend -..••-- Contra Costa County line 1 q �+�•• City limps -��— Chit sphere of influence line(S01) .w Parks Existing urban limit line(ULL) masse= Proposed dsutge to ULL Area Inside existing ULL Area inside wMV ULL,to be removed under proposal Area outside a dng ULL 0 4000 n(approidmete) Savrces:Mundie&Associates,Clement Designs,Contra Costa County Figure 1 Potential ULL Modifications Crockett Area N s � ort Co rt i awwwasew t„ t t , 4 .. L� ^t wIrdw ■mr Aimm* 4 Work Sh Legend �--•-� Contra Costa County line r1�InAhpr►rr � +* City limits ------ City sphere of Infkwm line (Sol) Parks Erdsting urban limit time(ULL) m isis m Proposed change to ULL Area Inskie existing ULL < , Area inside sWOV ULL, to be removed uruier proposal ``•.� Area outskie existing ULL 0 5000 It(approximate) Sources:Mundie&Associates,Clement Designs,Contra Costa County Figure 2 Potential ULL Modifications Martinez Area � 0 2.1. MARTINEZ RIDGE Proposal Concept: A modification to the Urban Limit Line boundary on the Martinez (Franklin Hills) ridgeline and western slope located mainly within the City of Martinez. The line would be moved inward placing approximately 364 acres of land area, which either been acquired or dedicated for parkland/opens space use, outside the Urban Limit Line. See Figure 2, which is a map depicting the locations for the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications in the Martinez area, including the Martinez Ridge (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The main topographic features are the ridgeline and western slope covered by grasslands, scattered clusters of oak woodlands, and other thick vegetation. The ridgeline and western slope is located just west of the urbanized area of Martinez and runs in a north to south direction for approximately 3-4 miles between State Route and the Carquinez Strait shoreline. A substantial portion of the area contains slopes in excess of 26 percent. (Source: Map of Slope Areas in Excess of 26%, Fig. 10-7, page 10-42, Safety Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-2010); USGS Topographic Map (7.5 Minute Series), Benicia Quadrangle; and, Contra Costa County Community Development Department Overlay Maps). This land area is identified in the Open Space Element to the Martinez General Plan as the Franklin Canyon Conservation Zone, which states "that it should remain essentially devoted to open space land use". County General Plan Designation: Parks/Recreation (PR); Open Space (OS); and Agricultural (AL). Note. City of Martinez General Plan designates most of this area as Public Permanent Open Space". County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural Zoning, in the unincorporated area. Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modiflcations to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the Martinez Ridge area: • [Sec.4, B. (3)(b)] "open space, parks, and other recreation areas"; • [Sec.4,13.(3)(c)] "lands with slope in excess of 26 percent"; • [Sec.4,13.(3)(e)] "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical' unsuitability for development....likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial damage to wildlife or their habitat" 19 Policy Options: • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Martinez Ridge area as defined and depicted in map form. Recommendation: The Martinez Ridge would not be suitable for urban uses. As discussed above, the conditions for each of the proposed boundary modifications match the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support the boundary modification as defined. Staff notes that the proposed boundary modification would appear to be consistent or complimentary to the Land Use and Open Space policies contained in the Martinez General Plan. 2.2. JOHN MUIR HISTORIC SITE Proposal Concept: A modification to the Urban Limit Line boundary to place the 9 acre John Muir Historic Site outside the Urban Limit Line. See Figure 2, which is a map depicting the locations for the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications in the Martinez area, including the John Muir Historic Site (excerpted from the Graft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The John Muir Historic Site is located at 4202 Alhambra Avenue in the City of Martinez. The site is the former residence of John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club and an early advocate of National Parks. The site is now designated as a national historic site and is operated by the National Park Service. County General Plan Designation: Parks and Recreation (PR) County Zoning Designation: Not applicable in the City of Martinez. Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the John Muir Historic Site: « [Sec.4, B. (3)(b)) "open space, parks, and other recreation areas„ 20 Policy Options: • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the John Muir Historic Site as defined and depicted in map form. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Urban Limit Line boundary modification as proposed to reflect that the John Muir Historic Site as parkland area under public ownership that would not be suitable for urban development. As discussed above, the conditions for the proposed boundary modification match the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support the boundary modifications as defined. 2.3. SHELL (McNABNEY) MARSH Proposal Concept: A modification to the Urban Limit Line boundary for the area generally described as Shell Marsh, which would place approximately 368 acres outside the Urban Limit Line. See Figure 2, which is a map depicting the locations for the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications in the Martinez area, including the Shell Marsh (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The area is located in an unincorporated area of Martinez east of Interstate 680 and south of Martinez-Benicia Bridge and is accessed from Waterfront Road. The land area is predominantly wetlands or tidal marsh lands which provides an important wildlife habitat. The eastern portion of the site is a hilly grassland area now used for cattle grazing. A large portion of the site is now part of the Waterbird Regional Preserve (approx. 198 acres) operated by the East Bay Regional Park District. The park district has prepared a Land Use Plan for the 198 acres portion they control that will retain 99% of the marsh area in its natural condition. County General Plan Designation: Parks/Recreation (PR); Open Space (OS); and Public/Semi-Public (PS) County Zoning Designation: Heavy Industry (HI) Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the Shell Marsh: • [Sec.4, B. (3)(b)) 'open space, parks, and other recreation areas"; 21 • [Sec.4,13.(3)(e)] "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development....likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial damage to wildlife or their habitat" Policy Options: • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Shell Marsh as defined and depicted in map form. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Urban Limit Line boundary modification as proposed to reflect that the Shell Marsh as parkland/open space area and/or sensitive wildlife habitat, predominantly under public ownership, which would not be suitable for urban development. As discussed above, the conditions for each of the proposed boundary modifications match the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support either of the boundary modifications as defined. 22 F t y Mount MAW State Pk F F w^{jf �ewnwwJ { {(Y v f yw•w w r++wwr.n«w...r w.w...w.......wua.w.+.n...w v w rwmuw.w n wrwv w«...w�..r u.w t Rd V' ,L a, Legend -- Contra Costs County line e wren City ilmb My sphere of influence line(SOI) Parks CARV Palft ' Existing urban limit Una(LILL) Reserve farm maw= Proposed dwo fru LIL Tiah"Aras r i ,.✓" * ,R wcw Area inside existing LILL �( <3 Area Inside&xftV ULL,to be ,.` removed under proposal �y t Area oulaide exlsting ULL ip1Y� w.wrwwwrnv{`..r i......wnw`. .✓^^w„+. f��j'�\ [[J o 8=ft(apprardmats) Figure 3A Potential ULL Modifications—Proposal Tassalara Area(Watershed Option) MOM Diablo State Pk I »M......,.w 1 i ryW.,...waw...w«...................,i..v...+..e..............a............y..+v........w......,w........ i Y s Rd Fid Legend —�-� Contra Crrsta County line ►�+ City Itmite _----- City Wm of iniluenoe line(SCH) ._ Parks Camp Parks Existing urban limit line(ULL) Reserve Forces rn m m Proposed&angs to ULL 71ahMngArea ,,•+�' TassorsCk �,,•• r Area In"existing ULL r♦+•'rr' ',,Pk Area imide existing ULL,to be removed under alternate proposal �Y y Area outside existing ULL .•'s 0 8000 It(approArnate) So==Mun&e&Am=mm Clment Dadpa,Come Costa County Figure 3B Potential ULL Modifications—Alternate Tassa{ara Area(SOI Option) 3. TASSAJARA AREA Proposal Concept: In authorizing the General Plan Amendment Study in January 1999, the Board of Supervisors identified two distinct options for modifying the Urban Limit Line boundary in the Tassajara area. Under an option labeled as the "Proposal", the Urban Limit Line would be moved inward from its present location to a location generally aligned along a ridgeline that functions as natural watershed between Alamo Creek and Tassajara Creek (also known as the "Watershed" boundary modification). This boundary modification would shift approximately 3,927 acres outside the Urban Limit Line. Under an option labeled as the "Alternative", the Urban Limit Line would be moved inward to be coterminus with the Sphere of Influence boundary for the Town of Danville and City of San Ramon (also known as the Sphere of Influence boundary modification). This boundary modification would shift approximately 4,413 acres outside the Urban Limit Line. See Figures 3A and 3B which are maps depicting the locations for the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications in the Tassajara area, including the Proposal - "Watershed" boundary and Alternate - "Sphere of Influence" boundary (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The site area is essentially the Tassajara Valley located in an unincorporated area of south-central Contra Costa County. The area is comprised of a series of rolling hills and ridges that are cut by the Tassajara Valley, which runs in a north-south direction. A substantial portion of the area contains slopes in excess of 26 percent. (Source: Map of Slope Areas in Excess of 26%, Fig. 10-7, page 10-42, Safety Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-2010); USGS Topographic Map (7.5 Minute Series), Tassajara Quadrangle; and, Contra Costa County Community Development Department Overlay Maps). The valley floor is principally in agricultural use, which includes spring pastures and livestock grazing, orchards, and equestrian facilities. About 4,500 acres within this area was the subject of a General Plan Amendment study in the 1990's that investigated the feasibility of an urban development plan proposed by the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association (TVPOA). The TVPOA plan proposed a General Plan amendment to convert agricultural land for urban development that included 5,950 dwelling units, 300,000 square feet of commercial/office space, and a set aside of 2,676 acres for parks and open space. This proposal was the subject of an extensive and lengthy environmental review process that analyzed the potential impacts such a large development plan would have on area resources and infrastructure. 25 A Draft Environmental Impact Report in two volumes was released for public review and comment in March 1997, and after extensive public hearings a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was released in April 1998, and is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR documented major limitations with providing public infrastructure and significant negative impacts associated with urban development in the Tassajara Valley. The most significant public infrastructure concerns related to the project's traffic impacts and limited roadway system capacity, the inability to secure an adequate water supply and delivery system, and the ability to transport and treat wastewater. Additionally, the document highlighted concerns with the project's ability to address biotic and wildlife impacts. Ultimately, the project proponents decided to withdraw their application. The EIR documented that the County would not be able to approve their development proposal without making findings of overriding consideration with regard to the project's impacts. To do so, the County would have violated General Plan growth management standards, other General Plan policies, and the settlement agreement with Town of Danville related to litigation concerning the plan to develop the Dougherty Valley. At present time, the Tassajara Valley is generally remote from the existing of urban development (anywhere from 1-2 miles from an urbanized area) and, just as significantly, it is located some distance from the regional highway system. Tassajara Valley is not served by a water delivery system or a system to treat and export wastewater. Additionally, Camino Tassajara which functions as the primary arterial for the Tassajara Valley is projected to see significant traffic increases that far exceed the roadway's carrying capacity. Based on studies recently documented in the draft Year 2000 Update: Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan, prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and is incorporated herein by reference. This report also concludes that significant capacity increases to relieve these strained conditions will not constructed before the year 2010. County General Plan Designation: Agricultural Land County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural Zoning, A-3: Heavy Agricultural Zoning, and A-20, A-40, and A-80: Exclusive Agricultural Zoning. Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the Tassajara Valley: • [Sec.4,13.(3)(c)] "lands with slopes in excess of 26 percent"; 26 • [Sec.4,13.(3)(e)] "other areas not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development, .... inadequate water availability,.... lack of appropriate infrastructure, ....likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial damage to wildlife or their habitat" Policy Options: • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Tassajara area as defined under the "Proposal" or"Watershed" boundary option and depicted in map form. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Tassajara area as defined under the "Alternate" or "Sphere of Influence " boundary option and depicted in map form. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission consider an inward movement of the Urban Limit Line for the Tassajara Area. As discussed above, the conditions for each of the proposed boundary modifications match the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support either of the boundary modifications as defined. Staff offers the Planning Commission the following considerations as it formulates a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the boundary modification options for the Tassajara Valley: • The "Sphere of Influence" boundary modification would affect a General Plan Amendment Study, authorized by the Board of Supervisors in April 1999, which is now in progress. The Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment Study is investigating the potential for two residential subdivisions, located east of Lawrence Road and south of Camino Tassajara, named the Intervening Properties/Remaining Intervening Properties and Alamo Creek, respectively. Taken together the two development projects could yield up to 1,245 new residential units. The proposed Alamo Creek project with the potential of 803 units would be directly impacted by the "Sphere of Influence" boundary modification, as the line would be moved to the eastern boundary of an already approved 332 unit residential subdivision on the Wendt Ranch site. This modification would place about 80-90% of the Alamo Creek site area outside the Urban Limit Line. (See Figure 3B) • Staff advises that should the Commission recommend the "Sphere of Influence" boundary modification, only the Intervening Properties/Remaining Intervening Properties and the Wendt Ranch portion of the Alamo Creek GPA could proceed under the Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment Study. 27 • The "Watershed" boundary modification would establish a line based on the natural landform or prominent topographic features as a means to distinguish the land area to the west of the watershed, which is predominantly now urbanized, from the land area to the east of the watershed, which is comprised of the agricultural/open space uses in the Tassajara Valley. • Staff advises that should the Commission recommend the "Watershed" boundary modification, this would in no way imply support or endorsement to approve the proposed Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment, but only that the study would continue for the entire proposal (all of the land area under the Alamo Creek GPA proposal could proceed to a decision by the Board of Supervisors). 28 ¢ F IL omm VIARFU bN'1Y`pY,anw TN!{ w w 1 R y Y f . . C wwW 81.4 . r' Diamond 8 mnNte ww ww «� w t 1 i F y wwe,w.. i f{t t iwr.wwr w«r+wr1wru� f Legend —oar----- r _ �lw�� ' F VYFitra f3osta Cow*N110 t rw.w w«wrw w r arw,.wv C w ._w awsr s masse oty limb f « wP ____®— My sphere of Influence line(S01) N Diablostate ` Perks Peds ` Existing urban limit line(ULL) +� ®e■w n Proposed to ULL(NA—Clayton Ranch to be removed from exisffng ULL) Area inside existing ULL w Area inside existing ULL,to be removed L t under piDposal t Area outaide existing ULL it(approximate) Sour=:Mun&e&Amodatm C1=wtDewM Cm=CostaCounty Figure 4 Potential ULL Modifications Clayton Area 4. CLAYTON AREA Proposal Concept: A modification to eliminate the "island" of land area within or inside the Urban Limit Line comprised of the 1,030 acre Clayton Ranch site. See Figure 4, which is a map depicting the location of the proposed Urban Limit Line modification for the Clayton area (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The Clayton Ranch site fronts Marsh Creek Road immediately north of the intersection with Morgan Territory Road, approximately 4-5 miles east of the City of Clayton. The topography of the site is predominantly comprised of rolling hills of grasslands with scattered oak woodlands. It is part of the eastern slope of the 'Diablo Range. A substantial portion of the site is comprised of steep slopes, many in excess of 26% (Source: Map of Slope Areas in Excess of 26%, Fig. 10-7, page 10-42, Safety Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-2010); USGS Topographic Map (7.5 Minute Series), Clayton Quadrangle; and, Contra Costa County Community Development Department Overlay Maps). The land area in question was once used as rangeland and provides habitat for wildlife and plant species. In the late 1960`s there was a development proposal for the site. The "island" of land inside the Urban Limit Line was created as for the purpose of allowing the then project proponent to proceed with a study process for a General Plan Amendment to allow urban development on the site. The proponent never formally initiated the process and subsequently decided to sell the site to the East Bay Regional Park District. The park district is now in the process of completing acquisition of the site for parkland/open space purposes. The Clayton Ranch is remote from existing development (approximately 4-5 miles from the City of Clayton) and significantly it is not served by a water delivery system or a system to treat and export wastewater. It is also remote from the primary roadway network and regional highway system. County General Plan Designation: Agricultural Land (AL) County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural Zoning Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the site: + [Sec.4, B. (3)(b)] "open space, parks, and other recreation areas"; • [Sec.4,13.(3)(c)] 'lands with slope in excess of 26 percent"; 30 • [Sec.4,B.(3)(e)] "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development....likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial damage to wildlife or their habitat, . inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure, and distance from existing development" Policy Options: • Retain existing Urban Limit Line boundary • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Clayton Ranch site as defined and depicted in map form. Recommendation. The Clayton Ranch site will soon be set aside for parkland/open space use once acquired by the East Bay Regional Park District. Staff recommends the proposed boundary modification to eliminate the "island" land area within the Urban Limit Line to reflect its pending status as parkland/open space use. As discussed above, the conditions for the proposed boundary modification match the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support either of the boundary modifications as defined. 31. M .:., •, ; u;key ¢ C ¢ ait is land v��'��D�x� r�t £� a ,.'i.�x ¢a,¢�� v� •m,„ _ Z* wlilE@i i;tY Island �� r r 3 '� t� $I'OWns, Island r d 910fifl8 r�1IX!�ldldl! t €z �. 4 Legend Contra Caste Courdy line • City limps € �----- City sphere of trdluerm Ina(SOI) j t Parks est y Dismo d 1 Existing urban limit One(ULL) m m wr proposed change to ULL Rog&W Pro"" Area inside aWsdng ULL ---- Area irk aarisdng ULL,to be �. .._.�.,...._...._.....___.._.._.. :�..�, L_: 1removed under proposal Area outside exisdrtg ULL / i ft(approximate) Sources:Mundie&Associates,Clement Designs,Contra Costa County Figure 5A - - Potential ULL Modifications—Proposal Pittsburg Area 4. PITTSBURG AREA Proposal Concept: In its authorizing action in September 1999, the Board of Supervisors identified two distinct options for modifying the Urban Limit Line boundary for East County, including the Pittsburg area. The land area affected by the modification proposals are south of the Pittsburg city limit. Under an option labeled as the "Proposal', the Urban Limit Line would be moved inward from its present location to coincide with the southern boundary of the city limit. Approximately 2,882 acres would be shifted to outside the Urban Limit Line under the "Proposal'. Under an option labeled as the "Alternate", the Urban Limit Line would be moved inward form its present location toward the southern boundary of the city limit but would differ from the "Proposal' by placing a strip of land area along the westside of the Bailey Road and section of land south of Somersville Road. Approximately 2,560 acres would be shifted to outside the Urban Limit Line under the "Alternate". See Figures 5A and 513, which are maps depicting the location of the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications for the Pittsburg area (excerpted from the Graft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: This unincorporated area south of Pittsburg is hilly with vegetation consisting of open grassland, oak woodland, and, in riparian areas, seasonal wetland/grassland. The Lawler Ravine is the major drainage in this area, several smaller tributaries, including Kirker Creek. The predominant land use pattern consists of open space, cattle grazing, and the Keller Canyon landfill and its buffer zone. The main topographic feature in this area is the eastern slope of the Diablo Range. It is comprised of numerous saddle ridgelines connected by rolling hills. A substantial portion of the area has steep sloping land in excess of 26 percent (Source: Map of Slope Areas in Excess of 26%, Fig. 10-7, page 10- 42, Safety Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-2010); USES Topographic Map (7.5 Minute Series), Clayton and Antioch — South Quadrangle; and, Contra Costa County Community Development Department Overlay Maps). Much of the unincorporated area south of Pittsburg is not only remote from existing development but also from the primary roadway network and regional highway system. ]n fact, as recently documented in the draft Year 2000 Update: Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan, prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and which is incorporated herein by 33 reference, the traffic increases in this area of East County are projected to far exceed the carrying capacity of the roadway network and regional highway system. This report also concludes that significant capacity increases to relieve these strained conditions will not be constructed before the year 2010. At present the unincorporated area south of Pittsburg is not served by water delivery system nor is it connected to a sewer system. County General Plan Designation: Agricultural Land (AL) and Landfill (LF) County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural Zoning and A-4: Agricultural Preserve Zoning Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the Pittsburg area proposals: • [Sec.4,13.(3)(c)] 'lands with slope in excess of 26 percent'; • [Sec.4,13.(3)(e)] "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development....Iikelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial damage to wildlife or their habitat, ... inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure, and distance from existing development " Policy Options: • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Pittsburg area as defined under the "Proposal" boundary option and depicted in map form. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Pittsburg area as defined under the "Alternate" boundary option and depicted in map form. • Consider Urban Limit Line boundary modification based on the combined elements of the "Proposal" and "Alternate" options. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission consider an inward movement of the Urban Limit Line for the Pittsburg Area. As discussed above, the conditions for each of the proposed boundary modifications (including a combination of elements) match the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support either of the boundary modifications as defined. 34 s ....:::::..:.:::r :r:: »:<n,:w . :.::.: .....,.........,:::,:::. .w.,. - rit?S+:m:x•;rrr:rnvrr ::::. ::.: y,.,::vn.. .::v.:., :::... - ..... ...... �� F'F�•� ,'µ# I { Y'tiN S4`:cA4� ��;L WPI �N: .� `. 3K q S >5` i Chipps Wand + 3WIN- FIf k 'i y�� pjIsland y.£0", m'�L 5. 5 `urN Ai, wVwFR��ly�,9��d�ImFO�IDIIv �' � b •f WiO ;4'. n'V i 4 Legend .•..•— Contra Costs County One wwo«mom CRY lhnits � ..�— City sphere of Wk enoe Ins(901) wMa F Paft i ✓ aA Existing urban limit Ins(ULL) _ w MMM Proposed change to ULL F Area inside eAdN ULL -- « Area Inside wdsfing ULL,tobe removed rattler proposel f Area outside existing ULL 808000 ft(approximate) Sources:Mundie&Associates,Clement Desips,Contra Costa County Figure 5A Potential ULL Modifications—Proposal Pittsburg Area Cw"',bland b4�ei .� 'Winter'+v 11 a 3., s ��s i _ � a Wand ""1 a a � a Browne IWnd Reylaxri eiw 4 I I illl ,' !I Legend --- Contra Costa County line � » am 0 won City limb ------ City sphere of Nuance We(W) f W Parks Bee Mmond Existing urban limft line(ULL) _ t ■11 Nil m Proposed change to ULL R.sra P Preserve Area Inside existing ULL Area Insids exie ft ULL,to be removed under attemate proposal Area outside&*dng ULL 0 6000}it(approximate) VINFAIIIIIIIIIII I Sources:Muncie&Associates,Clement Deigns,Contra Costa County ligate 5B Potential ULL Modifications—Alternate Pittsburg Area b 5. ANTIOCH AREA Proposal Concept: In its authorizing action in September 1959, the Board of Supervisors identified two distinct options for modifying the Urban Limit Line boundary for East County, including the Antioch area. The land area affected by the modification proposals are south of the Antioch city limit. Under an option labeled as the "Proposal", the Urban Limit Line would be moved inward from its present location to coincide with the southern boundary of the city limit. Approximately 1,922 acres would be shifted to outside the Urban Limit Line under the "Proposal". Under an option labeled as the "Alternate", the Urban Limit Line would be moved inward form its present location toward the southern boundary of the city limit but would differ from the "Proposal" by locating the line along 300 foot contour line of the ridge dividing Deer Valley and Horse Valley. Approximately 660 acres would be shifted to outside the Urban Limit Line under the "Alternate". See Figures 6A and 613, which are maps depicting the location of the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications for the Antioch area (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The land area under consideration for Urban Limit Line boundary modification south of Antioch consists of upland areas and valleys. The upland areas and valleys that separate them trend in a northwest to southwest direction. Historic land use in the area has been limited largely to grazing. The main topographic feature in this area is the eastern slope of the Diablo Range. It is comprised of numerous saddle ridgelines connected by rolling hills. A substantial portion of the area has steep sloping land in excess of 26 percent. (Source: Map of Slope Areas in Excess of 26%, Fig. 10-7, page 10- 42, Safety Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-2010); USGS Topographic Map (7.5 Minute Series), Antioch South Quadrangle; and, Contra Costa County Community Development Department Overlay Maps). Most of the area south of Antioch under consideration for the Urban Limit Line boundary modification is the remote not only from existing development but also from the roadway network and regional highway system. In fact, as recently documented in the draft Year 2000 update: Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan, prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, the traffic increases in East County area and in this area south of Antioch are projected to far exceed the carrying capacity of the local roadway network and regional highway system, and significant capacity 37 increases to relieve these strained conditions will not be constructed before the year 2010. At present the unincorporated area south of Antioch is not served by a water delivery system nor is it connected to a sewer system. County General Pian Designation: Agricultural Land (AL) County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural Zoning and A-4: Agricultural Preserve Zoning Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the Antioch area proposals: • [Sec.4,13.(3)(c)] "lands with slope in excess of 26 percent"; • Sec.4,13.(3)(e)] "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development....likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial damage to wildlife or their habitat, ... inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure, and distance from existing development rr Policy Options: • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Antioch area as defined under the "Proposal" boundary option and depicted in map form. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Antioch area as defined under the "Alternate" boundary option and depicted in map form. • Consider Urban Limit Line boundary modification for the Antioch area that combines elements of the "Proposal" and "Alternate" options. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission consider an inward movement of the Urban Limit Line for the Antioch Area. As discussed above, the conditions for each of the proposed boundary modifications (including a combination of elements) match the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support either of the boundary modifications as defined. 38 st^ $3 p 4 4 + Contra LOW R**W Peet :OapCcuw 0 Dwrow r Y A&M Legend --® Contra Costa County One ; -K- City limits , ------ Cly sphere of Influence One(801) Parks Existing urban limit One(ULL) I weProposed change to ULL t ggF ! Area Inside existing ULL Area In wider r ULL,to be removet'osal 001t(approximate) Area outside existing ULL SoumaL Mundie& Ck-omDedp,,ConrraC m County Figure 6A Potential ULL Modifications---Proposal Antioch Area ,3 t s, � K00 All 4 r i y Lam TW S Cwft LMN ftkntl Park i(�OailGt N r i t i 1 J ✓&Wed ♦...n...v w w rearm......�.....J A&W RogbW P Legend Contra Costa County line ; City limits r --�� City sphere of Influence Ire(SOI) 3 Parks 1 Existing urban limit line(ULL) ws r salt Proposed change to ULL Area inside existing ULL Area inside e*ft ULL,to be removed under alternate proposal 0 8000 It(approximate) Area outside exising ULL 4 {. South:Mundle&A omatm,Clement Dedg^Contra Cmu County Figure 6B PotentialULL Modifications—Allemate Antioch Area �0 6. BRENTWOOD AREA(South) Proposal Concept: In its authorizing action in September 1999, the Board of Supervisors identified two distinct options for modifying the Urban Limit Line boundary for East County, including the area south of Brentwood. The land area affected by the modification proposals are south of the Brentwood city limit. Under an option labeled as the "Proposal', the Urban Limit Line would be moved inward shifting the Urban Limit Line from its present location to be generally coterminus with the city limits on the west, south, and east, except that an area along the southern boundary of Brentwood would remain inside the Urban Limit Line. Under this option, Approximately 3,933 acres would be shifted to outside the Urban Limit Line under the "Proposal'. Under an option labeled as the "Alternate", the Urban Limit Line would be moved inward form its present location. It differs from the "Proposal` in that the boundary on the west side of Brentwood south of Balfour Road would be shifted to approximately a 300 foot contour line for the ridge separating Deer Valley from Horse Valley to include most of the land (the lower elevations and flatter areas) that currently lies within the Urban Limit Line. Along the southern boundary of Brentwood the "Alternate" shares the same boundary shift as the "Proposal". Also under the "Alternate" the unincorporated area northeast of Brentwood would remain unchanged. See Figures 6A and 613, which are maps depicting the location of the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications for the Brentwood area - south (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Subsequent to issuance of Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for this General Plan Amendment Study, the legal counsel for the Cowell Foundation submitted on their behalf an alternative boundary modification to the Urban Limit Line. The Cowell Ranch Alternative, which was included in the Draft EIR, proposes to trade the location of the area to be located within Urban Limit Line under"Proposal' and "Alternate" options for the boundary modification in the area south of Brentwood. It would provide for a 345 acre portion of the Cowell Ranch to be located within the Urban Limit Line which is flatter and runs in north-south longitude parallel to the alignment of the State Route 4 Bypass. See Figure 10, which is map depicting the location of Cowell Ranch Alternative (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). 41 Setting and Site Characteristics: The land area under consideration for Urban Limit Line boundary modification south of Brentwood consist of upland areas and valleys. The upland areas and valleys that separate them trend in a northwest to southwest direction. Historic land use in the area has been limited largely to grazing. The main topographic feature in this area is the eastern slope of the Diablo Range. It is comprised of numerous saddle ridgelines connected by rolling hills. A substantial portion of the area has steep sloping land in excess of 26 percent. (Source: Map of Slope Areas in Excess of 26%, Fig. 10-7, page 10- 42, Safety Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-2010); USGS Topographic Map (7.5 Minute Series), Antioch South and Brentwood Quadrangles; and, Contra Costa County Community Development Department Overlay Maps). Most of the area south of Brentwood under consideration for Urban Limit Line boundary modification is remote from the local roadway and regional highway system. In fact, as recently documented in the draft Year 2000 IJ adate: Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan, prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, the traffic increases in East County area and this area south of Brentwood are projected to far exceed the carrying capacity of the local roadway and regional highway system, and significant capacity increases to relieve these strained conditions will not be constructed before the year 2010. At present the unincorporated area south of Brentwood is not served by a water delivery system nor is it connected to a sewer system. County General Plan Designation: Agricultural Land (AL) County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural Zoning and A-4: Agricultural Preserve Zoning Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the Brentwood (South) area proposals: • [Sec.4,13.(3)(c)] "lands with slope in excess of 26 percent'; • Sec.4,13.(3)(e)] "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development....likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial damage to wildlife or their habitat, ... inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure, and distance from existing development " 42 ...:�k. ::::.......N ..<,,, .:..... ... k.. ... w ..... .,s t. N.... ...vn>,, N ...... .... NwN<. Policy Options: • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Brentwood (South) area as defined under the "Proposal" option. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Brentwood (South) area as defined under the "Alternate" option. • Consider Urban Limit Line boundary modification for the Brentwood (South) area that combines elements of the "Proposal" and "Alternate" options. • Consider the alternative Urban Limit Line boundary modification for the Brentwood (South) area as proposed by the Cowell Foundation. Recommendation: Staff recommends the commission consider an inward movement of the Urban Limit Line for the Brentwood (South) area. As discussed above, the conditions for each of the proposed boundary modifications (including a combination of elements) match the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support any of the boundary modifications as defined. Should the Commission recommend the "Cowell Ranch Alternative" boundary modification this would provide for potential urban development on the 345 acre area to be located within the Urban Limit Line. Staff notes that the Cowell Foundation has recently made a public announcement regarding the sale of the Cowell Ranch site, which includes a contingent sale for this 345 acre piece, with the balance of the project area being acquired by a non- profit Land Trust. The 345 acre parcel would presumably be proposed for a General Plan Amendment to urban uses. 43 y jf F f 1 9 NOW F W¢ - p o � n :` , s a i 1 i f 4 4 Legend Atarah Beek itd ••••-_-- Contra Costa county line ..."® ■ Clty limits i ------ City of Influence line(Sol) Parks Existing urban limit line(ULL) m art m Proposed changes to LILL 10ono plabio by EMMarsh Area melds existing ULL rj m Area IrWde existing ULL,to be _ removed under alternsfe proposal t 6 Area outside existing ULL / 0 6000 ft(appro)dmate) Sam=M,mdie&Amodftc Clemens Dame,Cm&a Coats Coomy Figure 7B Potential ULL Modifications—Alternate Brentwood Area % - sg, ¢ u m ' �t IN � YZ F v 4 4 f F +n 4 �yy � H k � T t ! : . is If a>> • + 7. BRENTWOOD (North) Proposal Concept: In its authorizing action in September 1999, the Board of Supervisors identified two distinct options for modifying the Urban Limit Line boundary for East County, including the Brentwood area. Although the boundary modification labeled the "Proposal" for the Brentwood area mainly affects an unincorporated land area to the south of the city limits, it also includes a proposal to shift the boundary line for an unincorporated land area located north and east of Brentwood city limit. This covers approximately 100 acres of land area bounded by Delta Road on the north, a sewage treatment plant on the south, the Brentwood city limit line on the west, and Marsh Creek to the east. See Figure 7A a map which depicts the location of the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications for the Brentwood area (excerptedfrom the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The land area under 'consideration for Urban Limit Line boundary modification north of Brentwood is agricultural land. It is level land sharing the typical landform features that make up the Central Valley floor. Although the land area was recently placed within the Brentwood Sphere of Influence, it is not presently served by a water delivery system or a sewer system. Much of the unincorporated Brentwood (north) area is not only remote from existing development but also from the primary roadway network and regional highway system. In fact, as recently documented in the draft Year 2000 Update: Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan, prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and which is incorporated herein by reference, the traffic increases in this area of East County are projected to far exceed the carrying capacity of the roadway network and regional highway system. This report also concludes that significant capacity increases to relieve these strained conditions will not be constructed before the year 2010. County General Plan Designation: Agricultural Land (AL) County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural Zoning and A-3: Heavy Agricultural Zoning 47 Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the Brentwood north area proposals: • [Sec.4,B.(3)(e)] "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development....inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing development" Policy Options: • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Brentwood (North) area as defined under the "Proposal" boundary option and depicted in map form. Recommendation: Staff recommends the commission consider an inward movement of the Urban Limit Line for the Brentwood Area (north) as defined under the "Proposal" boundary option. The conditions relating to the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.(3). are supported by the inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure to the area, and distance from existing development. 48 8. OAKLEY AREA Proposal Concept: In its authorizing action in September 1999, the Board of Supervisors identified two distinct options for modifying the 'Urban Limit Line boundary for East County, including the Oakley area. The "Alternate" proposal involves a shift of the Urban Limit Line boundary affecting approximately 322 acres in the unincorporated area east of Oakley city limits along Cypress Road. See Figure 8A and 813, which are maps depicting the location of the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications for the Oakley area (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The land area under consideration for Urban Limit Line boundary modification east of Oakley agricultural land presently used for row crops and hay or alfalfa production. It is level land sharing the typical landform features that make up the Central Valley floor. The unincorporated area east of Oakley is not presently served by water or sewer service systems. Most of the area east of Oakley under consideration for the Urban Limit Line boundary modification is remote from the regional highway system. In fact, as recently documented in the draft Year 20001 Uirdate: Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Flan, prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, the traffic increases in East County area and this area east of Oakley are projected to far exceed the carrying capacity of the local roadway and regional highway system, and significant capacity increases to relieve these strained conditions will not be constructed before the year 2010. County General Plan Designation: Agricultural Land (AL) County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural Zoning Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the Oakley area proposals: • [Sec.4,13.(3)(e)j "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development....inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing development" 49 Policy Options: • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Oakley Area as defined under the "Alternate" boundary option and depicted in map form. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission consider an inward movement of the Urban Limit Line for the Oakley Area as defined under the "Alternate" boundary option. The conditions relating to the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.(3). are supported by the area's inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure to the area, and distance from existing development. so 5s A11 011 Y�P Jersey Island 4 Knighfaen Legend 4 .•— Contra Costa County One City Omits City sphere of h>ikonoo Ina(901) �_. Barks Existing urban Omit line(ULL) w M W Proposed dianges to ULL Area In"existing ULL IArea Inside existing ULL,to be removed under proposal = Area outshie existing ULL Sources:Mundie& ,Clement Desips,Contra Costa County L.��'"""L.I� {apploxlrnate�) � Figum 8A Potential'ULL Modificailans—Proposal Oakley Area 5-1 KI T 5 3 a P ll �q+4�°'� �vr .• �, � QI't,. F �'. 4A�,�a )cry � t rm �0 V�� am Pam Ing Eon ckoxvs to ULL tow 0,0*sAsim 600v klotool*ta) 98 ciolot r ,c pote�r'�a111��'�d 9. VEALE TRACT AREA Proposal Concept: In its original action on January 26 1999, the Board of Supervisors authorized study of a boundary modification that would shift the line for the Veale Tract area in the Delta region. The proposed boundary modification would place approximately 1,040 acres outside the Urban Limit Line. See Figure 9, which depicts the location of the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications for the Veale Tract area (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The Veale Tract is an area set aside for agricultural production that is within the Delta region of Contra Costa County. This area is within the 100 year flood plain as definedby the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Located in the extreme eastern end of the County, Veale Tract forms an easterly appendage from the main Urban Limit Line boundary. It is connected to the Urban Limit Line at its northwesterly corner. At the time the Urban Limit Line was being developed the then landowner advised the Board of Supervisors that a development concept for the property had been developed and that it would only be a matter of time before an application would be submitted. Due to its location within the 100 year flood plain, the property's inclusion into the Urban Limit Line was controversial with the then constituted General Dian Congress and the Board of Supervisors. However, the landowner was able to convince the Board that Veale Tract be included within the Urban Limit Line to provide an opportunity to study and evaluate the relative merits of the development proposal. That was over a decade ago, and no proposal has been offered (the ownership of land has since changed). Veale Tract is remote from existing development (approximately 4-5 miles from Knightsen the nearest community) and significantly it is not served by a water delivery system or a system to treat and export wastewater. It is also remote from the primary roadway network and regional highway system. County General Plan Designation: Delta Recreation and Resources (DR) County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural Zoning 53 Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the Veale Tract area proposal: • [Sec.4,B.(3)(e)] "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development....inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing development" Policy Options: • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Veale Tract Area as defined and depicted in map form. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission consider the boundary modification for Veale Tract as defined in the Board's study authorization whereby this land area is placed outside the Urban Limit Line. The conditions relating to the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.(3). are supported by the area's inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure to the area, and distance from existing development. 10. COWELL RANCH ALTERNATIVE See discussion of the alternative Urban Limit Line boundary modification for the Cowell Ranch site, as proposed by the landowner, under item #7 BRENTWOOD AREA(South). 54 Holand Tract Rd Xmightund iiiiiiiiiiiiiiism l7alta Rd �` Legend .—•• Contra Costa County line r.M* City limps -----� City sphere of influence One(SCI) rW Parks Existing urban limit line(ULL) ww ww ww Proposed dwVm to ULL Area inside existing ULL Grestrut Area Inside existing ULL,to be removed under proposal Area outside exwv ULL Marsh Owk Rd ..jw ft(appro)dmate) 4 Souroes:Mundie&Associates,Clement Designs,Contra Costa County Figure 9 Potenfial ULL Modifications Veale Trod EXHIBIT 'W' 65135 LAND PRESERVATION STANDARD INVENTORY 56 Methods and Results for the 55/35 Land Preservation Standard inventory June 2000 Overview: In 1990, the voters of Contra Costa County approved Measure C (often referred to as Measure C (1990) to distinguish it from an earlier measure of the same name), the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan. Measure C(1990)requires, among other things,that not less than 65% of the land in the County is preserved for parks, open space, agriculture, wetlands, and other non-urban uses. Staff conducted a land use inventory in 1990 as a part of the General Plan process to assess the County's status relative to the 65/35 standard. That analysis measured the developed or urban area of the County at 25.4%of the County and the undeveloped or non-urban portion at 74.6%. An updated land inventory is needed now to support the review process for proposed changes to the Urban Limit Line and to inform land use decisions on pending projects. Community Development staff conducted a detailed 65/35 land use inventory over the winter and spring of 2000. The inventory was based on two primary sources: 1) current General Plan information from the city and County General Plans; 2)up-to-date information on actual public park lands, dedicated open space lands, and on other public and semi-public lands. Information from these sources was mapped over the County's parcel base and entered in the Department's new computer mapping/Geographic Information System (GIS) software. Staff used these computerized mapping tools to perform electronic area measurements on the completed map data, replacing the past practice of performing measurements by hand. Staff also chose the computer approach because the GIS software provides an adaptable repository for the mapping work, enabling the Department to begin to build a digital version of the county-wide General Plan map (as well as GIS data on public lands and facilities)while performing the 65/35 inventory. The results of the year 2000 65/35 inventory process may be summarized as follows (Table 1 presents the results of this inventory in more detail): 69.6% of the County has a non-urban use and is planned for a non-urban use 30.4% of the County has an urban use or is planned for an urban use This report outlines the process by which the above figures were developed.It is organized according to the following main subject areas: 1)background on key requirements of the 65/35 ordinance;2) the general approach chosen to complete the inventory; 3) steps in the inventory process; 4) discussion of results; and 5)an overview of alternative inventory approaches which were considered. 1) Background On Key Requirements Of The 65/35 Ordinance Provided below are two excerpts from the text of the Measure C (1990)ordinance which outline the 1 65/35 requirement and describe the basic guidelines for measuring compliance with standard. From Section 4 of the ordinance: B. 65135 Land Preservation Plan The policies contained in this chapter shah be reflected in the New General Plan,as ultimately adopted by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State Planning Law. 1. 65/35 Land Preservation Standard Urban development in the County shall be limited to no more than 35% of the land in the County. At least 65% of all land in the County shall be preserved for agriculture,open space,wetlands, parks and other non-urban uses. 2. Changes to the 65/35 Land Preservation Pian No change shall be made in the New General Pian after its adoption that would result in greater than 35%of the land in the County being permitted for urban development. This limitation shall not prevent any increase in agriculture,open space,parks,wetlands or other non-urban uses to greater than 65%of the land in the County. Also from Section 4 of the ordinance: F. Definitions 1. As used in this chapter,the phrase"land within the County"shall mean all of the acreage within the boundaries of Contra Costa County except the water area of the County west of Stake Point. 2. As used in this chapter, the term "non-urban uses" shall mean rural residential and agricultural structures allowed by applicable zoning and facilities for public purposes, whether privately or publicly funded or operated,which are necessary or desirable for the public health, safety or welfare or by state or federal law. 2) General Approach Chosen to Complete the Inventory As is clear from reading the above excerpts, the 65/35 ordinance provides a standard to be met, it does not specify the precise methodology by which this measurement should occur. Staff considered a range of alternative approaches for completing the analysis and evaluated them based on a several of factors, including accuracy,repeatability, consistency with the ordinance requirements, amount of work required, and ability to relate the measurement to an enforcement mechanism (see section 5 for a detailed discussion of the alternatives considered). The approach chosen was to rely on city and County General Plans for information on the extent and 2 Table 1: Summary Results of 65/35 Land Preservation Standard Inventory for June 2000 Area of the County': 481,430 acres Area outside the Urban Limit Line (ULL)2 265,240 acres 55.1% of County Total area of non-urban uses inside the ULL: 69,870 acres 14.5 % of County Total area of nonurban uses In County: 335,110 acres 69.6% of County Total area of urban uses In County: 146,320 acres 30.4% of County Breakdown of nonurban uses Inside the ULL: Category of non-urban use Acres Percentage of County Area Park& Recreation areas inside the ULL 11,890 2.5% Dedicated/restricted open space inside the ULL 12,820 2.7% General Plan Open Space inside the ULL 7,420 1.5% Water inside the ULL 990 0.2% A ricultural Land inside the ULL 22,310 4.6% Canals &flood control channels inside the ULL 1,760 0.37% Airports inside the ULL(excluding areas under 830 0.17% conservation easement) Major Sanitary District Properties inside the ULL 440 0.09% Cemeteries inside the ULL 160 0.033% School & college facilities inside the ULL 3,110 0.65% Public watershed lands inside the ULL 1000 0.21% Landfill inside the ULL (includes Keller areas not 1,940 0.40% under conservation easement&Acme) Off-Island Bonus Area inside ULL, not including 320 1,940 0.40% acres approved for urban in Cypress Lakes Delta Recreation inside the ULL 2,470 0.51% Industrial buffer inside the ULL 790 0.16% Total nonurban Inside the ULL 69,870 14.5% Breakdown of Public/Semi-Public uses Inside the ULL which were categorized as urban: Freeways & Highways inside the ULL 4,660 0.97% Railroad inside the ULL 1,510 0.31% BART inside the ULL 300 0.062% Other urban-type public/semi-public facilities inside 3,290 0.68% the ULL (government offices, community centers, hospitals, public corporation yards, etc.) Total urban Public/Sernl-Public Inside ULL 8,760 2.0% 1 Excluding water areas west of Stake Paint--see text for explanation. 2 Excluding 3 small areas of pre-existing"urban"use outside ULL—see text for explanation. location of urban and non-urban uses,but to augment this plan information with up-to-date,parcel- specific information on public parks, dedicated open space, and other public and semi-public uses. General Plan designations from city General Plans were converted to the closest equivalent designations from the County General Plan, and this converted information from the city plans was used to map non-urban uses in all incorporated areas over a parcel base. The County General Plan was used to map non-urban uses in the unincorporated areas over the same parcel base. Detailed information on current, actual locations of parks, open space, and other public lands--often missing from General Plan maps which tend to omit some fine details and are updated over a relatively long time scale—was used to fill in information gaps and override General Plan data. It should be noted that this approach classifies areas planned for development as urban even if that development has yet to take place. Some reasons staff selected the above-described approach are: • General Plans are the best available surrogate for actual land use in alreadydeveloped areas; • Relating the 65/35 inventory to General Plan policy provides a clear and direct link to strategies for enforcing compliance with the standard; • By measuring planned or allowable uses rather than only actual uses,we consider a"worst case" scenario and assure that the inventory reflects approved policy; • Collecting parcel-specific information on parks, open space, and other public lands can account for the lack of detail in some General Plans and assure that such areas, which have essentially no chance of being converted to an urban use despite their land use designation, are counted as non-urban. 3) Steps in the Inventory process Step 1--Digiti2ing the Urban Limit Line: Since lands outside the ULL are virtually all non-urban, staff chose to begin the inventory by mapping the urban limit line in a computer over the parcel base. This way, areas outside the ULL could be omitted from subsequent inventory steps. There are,however,three small areas within the County which have urban-type designations but are located outside the ULL. In each case, the land use existed well in advance of the ULL. ULL "islands"were not created around these areas so that requests for intensification of use in these areas would trigger a ULL review. These areas are: • An industrial facility with a Light Industrial land use designation on Bollinger Canyon Road(24 acres); • A residential area along the northern segment of Morgan Territory Road which is designated Single Family Residential Very Low Density on the General Plan(185 acres). • Residential land east of Byron which is designated Single Family Residential Very Low Density (27 acres). For the purposes of the 65/35 inventory,these areas were classified as urban and subtracted from the area outside the ULL. 3 Step 2, Mapping and Digitizing Non-Urban Land Use Designations from Current City and County General Plans: As summarized above,updated General Plan information from the cities was translated into County terminology,mapped over a parcel base, and entered into the computer. City General Plan information was used only for incorporated areas, not for areas within a city's sphere of influence as such areas are within the County's jurisdiction until such time as they are annexed. The current County General Plan was used for all unincorporated areas and was mapped and digitized by the same method used for the cities. The first task in this process was the creation of a consistent city and County General Plan map. This had been done before during the 1986-1987 comprehensive Countywide General Plan program and for the 1990 County General Plan. Since that time, most of the cities within the County have updated or substantially modified their general plans. To make use of this general plan approach it became necessary to collect the revised city General Plan information. As a general rule,these city General Plan revisions have added more detailed and site specific information and are more consistent with the level of detail found in the County General Plan for the unincorporated area. The same approach to translating city general plans to that of the County was utilized for the 1986-7 effort as for this update. The city General Plan categories were translated to the nearest County equivalent category. Conversions were guided more by the uses allowed under specific designations than by the actual names applied to designations. For example, some areas designated as "Open Space" in some city General Plans were translated to "Agricultural Lands"because the allowable uses more closely resembled that County designation. Also, in a few instances, city General Plans designate areas within their jurisdiction as areas for future development,but don't specify the actual location or mix of future uses, some of which could be non-urban. Where possible,more specific plans were collected from the cities for these areas and used for the analysis. This was done for the two largest examples of this scenario, Antioch's Future Urbanization Areas 1 and 2. Distinguishing urban from non-urban land use designations: The 65/35 ordinance provides relatively clear guidance on how such distinctions should be drawn (see excerpts above). The County General Plan also provides guidance in this excerpt from the Land Use Element: PUBLIC, SEMI-PUBLIC, LANDFILL AND OPEN SPACE USES A total of eight land use designations have been defined for these uses. These include open space, agricultural and recreational uses,as well as public/semi-public uses such as schools; public offices; highways and major flood control rights-of-way; and railroads. These use designations generally comprise non-urban uses under the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. Based on these adopted policies, staff categorized each land use designation as either urban or non- urban for purposes of the 65/35 analysis. These classifications are presented in Table 2. Some of the less straight-forward classifications are explained below. Public and semi-public designations were classified differently depending on the actual use. These categorizations are explained in Step 3 where the parcel-specific inventory process is described. Off-Island Bonus Density Area: The Off-Island Bonus Density Area is a County General Plan designation for a large area south of Bethel Island(adjacent to Sandmound Slough). The 4 ...:�at�xtt.... n w.....�.H. . <. .. r:.:.:..::..::::::::.::::::::::.n:,_ ::.... ::...::x: kw K.....: Table 2: Classification of General Plan Land Use Designations According to Requirements of Measure C (1994), the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan ABBREVIATION LAND USE DESIGNATION CLASSIFICATION FOR ON LAND USE PURPOSES OF 65/35 MAP INVENTORY Single-Family Residential SV Very Low urban SL Low urban SM Medium urban SH High urban Multiple-Family Residential ML Low urban MM Medium urban MH High urban MV Very High urban MS Very High-Special urban CC Congregate Care-Senior Housing urban MO Mobile Home urban Commerciallindustrial RC Regional Commercial urban CO Commercial urban ACC Airport Commercial urban OF Office urban BP Business Park urban LI Light Industry urban HI Heavy Industry urban CR Commercial Recreation urban M1, etc. Mixed Use (M1, M2, M3, etc.) urban LC Local Commercial urban MC Marina Commercial urban * classification explained in staff report Table 2 (continued) Other PS Public and Semi-Public mixed* LF Landfill non-urban* PA Off-Island Bonus Area non-urban* Open Space PR Parks and Recreation non-urban OS Open Space non-urban AL Agricultural Lands non-urban AC Agricultural Core non-urban DR Delta Recreation non-urban WA Water non-urban WS Watershed non-urban * classification explained in staff report underlying General Plan designation for this area is Agricultural Lands,but it has an overlay which allows density increases if certain criteria are met. Within the overlay area, covering approximately one-quarter of the bonus areas, a 686-acre project called Cypress Lakes,was approved by the Board of Supervisors but has not yet been built. Approximately 320 acres will be for homes, with the remainder being set aside for a golf course, parks, levees, and public and semi-public uses. The levee requirements from the Federal Emergency Management Agency may make development in this area extremely expensive, if not prohibitively so. For this reason, and because the base Agricultural Lands designation perhaps best defines future uses in this area for the foreseeable future,the Off-Island Bonus Area was categorized and tabulated as non-urban, with the exception of the urban portion (320 acres) of the Cypress Lakes project. Landfill: The definition of non-urban uses provided in the above excerpts from the 65/35 ordinance and the General Plan, as well as the description of the Landfill designation on page 3-38 of the General Plan which indicates that Landfill should be considered non-under Measure C(1990),make clear that lands with this designation are to be considered non-urban in the 65/35 inventory. For purposes of the 65/35 inventory, the nearly-closed Acme landfill and the closed IT waste facility near Martinez were classified as Landfill. They were created before the County General Plan had a landfill category and are actually designated as Leavy Industrial. The West County Landfill has an open space General Plan designation and was counted that way. Step 3—Mapping and Digitizing Parcel-Specific Information on Parks,Open Space,and other Public lands: To add detail to the General Plan-based inventory, and to account for actual non- urban uses which might be missed if relying solely on the General Plan, current information on parks, dedicated open space, and other public/semi-public land uses was gathered and mapped on a parcel-specific basis. This parcel-specific precising is summarized below: Updating of Public Park and Watershed Land Acquisitions: County staff initiated a program of gathering land acquisition information from the major park and watershed management agencies which serve the County, e.g. EBRPD, EBMUD and CCWD. While most of these acquisitions occurred outside the ULL, there was a substantial amount of parkland acquisition within the ULL. Other public agencies have also acquired substantial acreages, e.g. the Ironhouse Sanitary Districts acquisition of lands for treated water disposal on Jersey Island(though this example is outside the ULL). County and city parks were also included in the inventory. This information was mapped on County parcel base maps, digitized, and reflected in the analysis even when in conflict with General Plan'designations. Inventory of Deed Restricted and/or Dedicated Open Space areas: County staff cooperated with other agencies in trying to identify areas which had permanent restrictions limiting development either through actual easements, deeds of development rights, or restrictions imposed as part of final subdivision maps. Project specific development decisions quite commonly restrict development within areas which may be shown for development on an adopted general plan(it is common for cities and the County to designate these areas as open space on their general plans after the fact;but this may not occur until many years later). The 5 inventory included lands where deeded development rights have been granted to the County, a city, EBRPD or private conservation organizations as well as lands restricted by notations on the final subdivision maps. Areas where wildlife easements have been granted to State or Federal regulatory or administrative agencies are also included. Very small open space areas, roughly 5 acres or less, were omitted. Likewise, open space areas which run through condominium and townhouse developments were mapped but omitted from the analysis even though such areas may have a relative significant total area. The reason for this was that such areas usually take the shape of very narrow ribbons of land and are perhaps more akin to yards than community open space. In addition to these intentional omissions, there are, no doubt, additional areas of restricted open space lands which were not identified in this effort but would have been suitable for the analysis had they been found. However, the dedicated open space which was captured by the inventory was substantial (almost 13,000 acres) and likely represents the vast majority of all such dedications. Inventory of Public and Semi-Public Lands and Categorization of these Lands as Urban and Non-Urban: As with the other parcel-specific inventories,public facilities and private lands serving public purposes (these are referred to as "semi-public' in the General Plan and include facilities like private schools,hospitals, cemeteries, etc.)were inventoried, mapped on the parcel base, and entered in the computer. However, unlike parks and open space, not all public and semi-public uses are intuitively non-urban. For instance, freeways and government office buildings can only be contemplated as non-urban uses because of the specific definition of"non-urban"provided in the 65/35 ordinance(... "and facilities for public purposes,whether privately or publicly funded or operated,which are necessary or desirable for the public health, safety or welfare or by state or federal law"). By any other standard, freeways and office buildings are clearly urban features. Faced with this incongruity, County staff elected to categorize public and semi-public uses differently depending on the type of use. Two considerations drove this decision, as well as the decisions on how particular uses should be categorized: 1) The 65/35 ordinance does not indicate that all public facilities should be considered non-urban, only those"necessary or desirable for the public health, safety, or welfare..."(likewise,the General Plan states that Public/Semi-Public and other related land use designations"...generally comprise non-urban uses..." (emphasis added)). 2) The 65/35 inventory should reflect a reasonable, common sense interpretation of what types of uses are urban and what types are non-urban. Based on these criteria, the following public and semi-public uses inside the ULL were categorized as non-urban for purposes of the 65/35 inventory: Schools and colleges 6 • Landfills • Major sanitation facilities (most such properties contain significant wetland and undisturbed areas) • Cemeteries • Canals and flood control channels The following Public and Semi-Public uses inside the ULL were categorized as urban for purposes of the 65135 inventory: • Freeways and highways • Railroads • BART property • Other miscellaneous public and semi-public uses (government offices, community centers,public corporation yards,hospitals,etc.--separately mapping and tabulating each of these additional uses was beyond the scope and timeline of this inventory effort) Inventory of Industrial Buffers: The final parcel-specific precising of the 65/35 inventory related to the concept of industrial buffers—areas adjacent to industrial complexes which are acquired and maintained primarily as a buffer to avoid potential future land use conflicts. Traditionally,industrial property owners have had their entire land holdings designated for industrial uses unless the land was constrained by, for example,wetlands, which might be designated for an open space category. Such plan limitations are more the exception than the rule. A consequence is that more land is generally designated industrial than is actually used and the amount of open lands within this designation is often very high. In recognition of these factors and of the fact that the use of industrial land-use categories may not reflect non-urban uses,it was decided that several industrially designated large areas would receive the additional categorization of"Industrial Buffer" to reflect their open-space character. It was decided to only do this for the areas covered by the County General Plan where County staff had more information available than for other city areas,e.g.the Chevron refinery in Richmond. In city areas, the city plan categories were used. The areas which received such treatment were: • Tosco lands east of 1-80 which are almost totally undeveloped. This includes 358 acres. • Tosco lands north of the Highway 4 freeway expansion project. Some of this area will likely have conservation easements placed on it to protect special-status species as a condition of the freeway project. The rest of this area has not been proposed for any industrial use to date. This covers 121 acres. • Shell Oil lands within the unincorporated area which are wetlands. This area is adjacent to Carquinez Strait. Regional, state, and federal regulatory agencies aggressively protect the wetland resources in this area. The wetlands area 7 identified in the "Atlas of Tidal and Formerly Tidal Wetlands in Contra Costa County, California" have been designated as industrial buffer and include 50 acres. • The large buffer zone around the DuPont chemical plant in the Oakley area is the final case. The northern part of the buffer is wetlands or potentially reclaimable wetlands and there is a large area of previously Dupont-owned land that was sold to Oxfoot Associates for agricultural use, much of which is in vineyard use. The land is restricted to agricultural use by contract. These areas including 258 acres are included as industrial buffer. Step 4—Tabulation Methodology: Once the ULL, the non-urban General Plan designations, and the parcel-specific inventory of parks and other non-urban features had been mapped and entered in the computer,the GIS software was used to query the data and measure areas. After measuring the area of the County(excluding the water areas of the County west of Stake Point near the community of Bay Point, as specified by the 65/35 Ordinance) and the area outside the ULL, areas of the various non-urban data layers inside the Urban Limit Line were measured. The total area of these non urban uses inside the ULL plus the area outside the ULL divided by the County area provide the percentage measurement presrcibed by the 655/35 ordinance. These figures are presented in Table 1. Because the 65/35 inventory process was conducted with an eye toward developing a GIS database on land use and public ownership, data was mapped in layers and areas of overlap were ignored during the mapping phase. For example, the Keller landfill area is mapped in its entirety as a Landfill designation even though the ULL bisects it and there is also a conservation easement over the eastern area. When the acreage measurements were performed, staff accounted for the overlap issue by prioritizing the data levels and ensuring that only the highest priority data level in an area of overlap was counted. The ULL had the highest priority, followed by the parcel specific data, and finally the General Plan data. In the case of the Keller Landfill, the portion outside the ULL was measured as area outside the ULL. The portion with an easement was measured as dedicated open space. The remainder was tabulated as Landfill. 4) Discussion of Results A few basic points should be made here regarding the interpretation of the inventory results: • The computer measures areas very accurately,but staff's ability to map every feature we intend to map is not as reliable (though substantial work went in to proofreading and making the inventory as accurate as possible). The acreage figures should be viewed with a certain degree of uncertainty. • The inventory method records planned development as urban even if the development has yet to occur, and, conceivably,may never occur. This was done to make the inventory conservative and predictive. 8 • Comparing this inventory with the one conducted in 1990 is not straightforward as the new computer technology enabled staff to use a different, more detailed method. This method identified more non-urban land within the IJLL than was identified in 1990, though most of those uses probably existed in 1990. 5) Overview of Alternative Inventory Approaches Which Were Considered As mentioned previously, the 65/35 ordinance sets a standard but does not prescribe a specific method for measuring compliance with this standard. To provide f irther context on why staff chose the method it did,we have included below a description of some of the alternative approaches which were considered. The ultimate method used was a combination of 3 &4. 1)Build on 1990 inventory by documenting land use changes which have occurred since that time: The General Plan contains information on the outcomes of the land inventory conducted at the time the General Plan was approved in 1990. Rather than re-inventory the entire County, one approach for updating these percentages would be to research all land use or General Plan changes since 1990 and adjust figures accordingly. The attractiveness of this approach is that it builds on what was done before and might require less work. However, it is unclear how much effort would be involved in researching land use changes throughout the County since 1990 and calculating the areas of converted land (it would also be difficult to ensure we had completely documented all such changes). Likewise, with our new computer mapping tools, we could conduct a more detailed inventory now than then and provide clearer documentation of how the inventory was conducted. These potential problems would persist if we needed to update the inventory again in several years. 2) Conduct inventory using a method of calculated estimation. The 65/35 land inventory could be efficiently conducted by estimating the extent of urban and non-urban uses in certain difficult-to- measure areas of the County. For instance,rather than measuring the area of each small park,ball field, golf course, and open space area within a city, we could rely on AF3AG statistics concerning the typical percentages of lands within a city dedicated to parks and open space. Alternatively,we could perform detailed measurements for one city in the County which we believe to be prototypical, and use these figures to make estimates for other cities. The County General Plan could be used as the basis for inventorying areas of the County that are relatively easier to measure or not suitable for estimation. The primary advantage of this approach is that it could require substantially less time than other methods. It may also be repeatable and verifiable,depending upon how clearly we define estimation procedures and the types of areas which should be included in the estimation process. Finally, one might be able to make the case that this less rigid approach is appropriate considering that the overall 65/35 analysis is very difficult and any approach will have significant uncertainty. However, one could also make the opposite case that,just because the ordinance doesn't specify how the 65/35 inventory is to be conducted, it is nonetheless important to make a precise measurement. The 9 .............................................................. primary disadvantage of the estimation approach is that it cannot provide such a precise inventory. It might be difficult to develop a 65/35 enforcement process around an estimated inventory when other, more precise, inventory methods exist. 3)Base inventory on city and county general plan land use designations: This approach would involve categorizing each type of city and county land use designation as an urban or non-urban use. In instances where a land use designation cannot be universally classified as urban or non-urban, the determination may be made on a case by case basis. To add greater detail to the method and to make it current, cases where current land use differs from the land use designation could be documented and factored into the inventory. For instance, land with an urban-type land use designation that has yet to be developed could be considered as non-urban rather than urban. Closely linking the inventory to general plans has several advantages. First, general plans present the best available geographical interpretation of actual land uses (not only allowable land uses),and it makes sense to use these designations as a surrogate for measuring land use on the ground. Second, this method is verifiable and could be accurately replicated in several years (should an updated inventory be necessary)as the procedure could be quite precisely defined. Third, general plans are cities' and the county's primary tool for regulating land use and development, so relating the 65/35 preservation standard to general plans implicitly suggests a mechanism for enforcing the standard (i.e., requiring a finding of compliance with the 65/35 standard before approving an amendment to the County's General Plan--though this enforcement mechanism doesn't address the actions of the cities). Fourth,by measuring permitted uses rather than actual land uses even in those areas where anticipated development has not yet occurred, we can assure that the 65/35 inventory reflects approved policy. By adopting such a conservative approach, compliance with the 65/35 standard could managed at the Advanced Planning level rather than at the Current Planning level. When consistent with the General Plan,minor-subdivisions, land use permits, and building permits could be issued without making a finding of compliance with the 65/35 standard. Should a more detailed inventory be desired to account for areas with an urban-type land use designation that are currently being used in a non-urban manner,refinements should focus on projects which have yet to receive full entitlements in the development review process. The disadvantages of relying on general plans include the following: actual land use may not be consistent with general plans in some instances; the general plans may present an oversimplified picture of land use (e.g., areas designated for heavy industrial use, for instance, may include substantial open space buffers, etc.); and this approach may not entirely match the process used in 1990. 4) Conduct inventory on a parcel-by-parcel basis: The 65/35 land inventory could be conducted on parcel-specific basis by designating each parcel in the County as either urban or non-urban. The Public Works Department parcel database or the band Use Information System could be employed to determine which parcels are urban and which are non-urban, based on present use as well as zoning and General Plan land use designations. Some parcels might require more than one designation(i.e., and industrial facility with a large buffer). The advantages of this approach are: a)depending upon how it was conducted,this approach could be considered a precising of the General Plan methodology(0),b)it is repeatable, and c)the focus on parcels might help relate the inventory to actual uses on the ground and make the inventory 10 current rather than a forecast, should this be desired . The primary disadvantage of this approach is that it would be labor-intensive and might provide unnecessary detail. Also, if the parcel-based inventory was based on current use, it might be difficult to integrate the inventory with the development review process (i.e. Current Planning participation would likely be required in any 65/35 compliance program to ensure that development applications on parcels already designated for an urban use do not violate the 65/35 standard). 5) Interpret a satellite photo of the County: This approach would involve development of protocols for distinguishing urban from non-urban land in a satellite photo. For instance, such protocols might define non-urban areas as those with densities below I structure per 5 acres, and could also define as non-urban those patches of undeveloped land within developed areas that are larger than 1 acre, etc. This approach would provide a very direct measurement of urban and non- urban land. However, the measurement would not be tied to any land use regulations. Likewise, it is possible that discriminating between urban and non-urban land in a satellite photo could be difficult in some instances, especially since the 65/35 ordinance considers certain public facilities to be non-urban. Should an additional inventory be needed several years from now,it would be hard to assure that this somewhat subjective method would be employed in exactly the same manner as before. Stafffrom the Public Works Department provided substantial assistance with the computer mapping and area calculations. Their contributions are appreciated, EXHIBIT ""B" TEXT OF MEASURE C-1990 ORDINANCE 57 1. Introduction MEASURE C-1994 THE 65135 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LAND PRESERVATION PLAN TEXT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE The People of the County of Contra Costa hereby ordain as follows: Section 1 Title This ordinance shall be entitled the"65135 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan." Section 2 Summary Through this ordinance the people approve the policies contained in the 65135 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan and direct the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to reflect those policies in the new general pian(the"New General Plan") for the County. These"65135 Land Preservation Plan"policies are intended to: o Restrict urban development to 35% of the land in the County and preserve 65% of the land in the County for agriculture,open space,wetlands,parks and other non-urban uses; o Prohibit any changes to the 65135 Land Preservation Plan standard except by a vote of the people; a Create an Urban Limit Line to identify the outer boundaries of urban development in the County; o Protect and promote the economic viability of agricultural land by appropriate standards and policies,including a policy that increases the minimum parcel size for prime productive agricultural land outside the Urban Limit Line to 44 acres; a Protect open hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County from development by zoning and other measures; a Manage growth in the County by allowing new development only when infrastructure and service standards are met; o Advise the Local Agency Formation Commission to honor the County's 65135 Land Preservation standard, Urban Limit Line and growth management standards in annexation and incorporation decisions; o Promote cooperation between the County and cities to preserve agricultural and open space land,wetlands and parks, by requiring the County to pursue preservation agreements with cities where feasible;and 8 Safeguard the County's obligation to provide its fair share of safe,decent and affordable housing. Section 3 Statement of Findings and Poi v The voters of Contra Costa County approve the 65135 Land Preservation Plan based on the following facts and considerations: A. Contra Costa County(the"County")is nearing completion of a major revision of its general plan. The New General Plan will represent a comprehensive,balanced approach for accommodating the diverse variety of needs and interests of the people of the County. To maximize public participation in preparing the New General Plan,the County has held thousands of hours of public meetings and received extensive written comments on the New General Plan. All segments of Contra Costa County society have participated, including ranchers,developers, farmers,environmentalists, labor groups,cities,special districts,business and industrial associations. The proposed New General Plan expresses the variety of conte and hopes stated in this public process. The proposed New General Plan consists of over 400 pages and represents years of research and analysis by the staff of the County Community Development Department and outside consultants. in addition,in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"),the County has prepared and circulated for public review a draft environmental impact report("EIR")to assess the environmental impacts of the New General Plan. The draft EIR, comments and responses to comments have been circulated to agencies and individuals and readily available at County offices, libraries and other public places. B. , During this process of preparing the New General Plan,the voters expressed a number of concerns related to future planning and development of the County. The most important of those concerns were. (1) Growing urbanization of the County is threatening the long term viability of the County's agricultural and open spate land,parks,wetlands,hillsides and ridgelines. Preservation and buffering of agricultural land is critical to maintaining a healthy and competitive agricultural economy and assuring a balance in land uses in the 1-32 Excerpted from the 1996 CCC General Plan ............... I. introduction County. Moreover,preservation and conservation of open space,wetlands,parks,hillsides and ridgelines is imperative to ensure the continued availability of unique habitats for wildlife and plants,to protect the unique scenery in the County and to provide a wide range of recreational opportunities for County residents. (2) Growth is a natural and proper part of the life of the community. However, growth should be managed responsibly to preserve the quality of life for current and future generations. New development should be guided into appropriate locations,and should be allowed only after appropriate infrastructure(transportation, schools,water, fire and police protection)can be assured. (3) There is a critical need to make,decent,safe and affordable housing available to all Contra Costa County residents. Fair housing opportunities should prevail for all economic segments of the County,and housing should be available in reasonable proximity to employment centers. In addition,the County's land use policies should not restrict growth so severely that they preclude these affordable housing opportunities. C. The 65/35 Land Preservation Plan implemented in Section 4 is intended to address these concerns of the voters. The 65/35 Land Preservation Plan is intended to carry out the voters' desire to both preserve agriculture and open space WW.parks,wetlan&,hillsides and ridgelines,manage growth to protect the quality of life,and provide for the County's fair share of decent,safe and affordable housing. D. It is appropriate and reasonable to present to the voters for their approval the key policies that would guide the County's future under the Now General Plan, as those policies are set forth in the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan. With the guidance and confirmation the voters can provide through approval of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan,the County can complete the environmental review and detailed documentation necessary for implementing these principles. E. The approval of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan by the,voters is not intended to be an amendment of the County's existing general plan. Rather,the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan,if approved by the voters, is intended to be reflected in the County's New General Plan and will thereby become the official policy of the County with reaped to the preservation of open space and agricultural lands and the protection of valuable environmental resources such as wildlife,wetlands,hillsides and ridgelines. Section 4 Implementation Qf 65/35 LUd 1!=mation Plan To implement the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan,the following chapter is hereby added to the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code as Chapter 82-1 and numbered appropriately: A. New Central Plan The County shall adopt a new general plan by December 31, 1990(the"New General Plan"). B. Q/35 Land Preservation Plan The policies contained in this chapter shall be reflected in the New General Plan,as ultimately adopted by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State Planning Law. (1) ODS LAnd Preservation Sladard Urban development in the County shall be limited to no more than 35%of the land in the County. At least 65% of all land in the County shall be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks and other non-urban uses. (2) Chan— i the 65t35(_.and Preservation Plan No change shall be made in the New General Plan after its adoption that would result in greater than 35%of the land in the County being permitted for urban development. This limitation shall not prevent any increase in agriculture, open space, parks, wetlands or other nonurban uses to greater than 65% of the land in the County. (3) Urban Limit Lino To ensure the enforcement of the 65/35 standard set forth in(B)(1)above,an Urban Limit Line shall be established, in approximately the location depicted on the illustrative 65135 Contra Costa County Land 1-33 ............. 1. Introduction Preservation Plan Map attached as Exhibit A.The Urban Limit Line shall be incorporated into the County's Open Space Conservation Plan. The Urban Limit Line shall limit potential urban development in the County to 35%of the land in the County and shall prohibit the County from designating any land located outside the Urban Limit Line for an urban land use. The criteria and factors for determining whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line should include(a)land which qualifies for rating as Class I and Class U in the soil Conservation Service Land use Capability Classification,(b)open space,parks and other recreation areas,(c)lands with slopes in excess of 26 percent,(d)wetlands,and(e)other areas not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development, unstable geological conditions, inadequate water availability, the lack of appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing development,likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat,and other similar factors. (4) In accordance with the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program adopted on August 3,1999,the County shall manage growth by allowing new development only when infrastructure and service standards are met for traffic levels of service, water, sanitary sewer, fire protection, public protection,parks and recreation,flood control and drainage and other such services. Land located inside the Urban Limit Line may be considered for changes in designated land uses, subject to County growth management policies and any other applicable requirements. Location of land within the Urban Limit Line shall provide no guarantee that the land may be developed. If land is developed within the Urban Limit Line, a substantial portion of this land shall be retained for open space,parks and recreational uses. (5) Agricultural Protsction Policies:Minimum Parcel Sizes The County shall establish standards and policies designed to protect the economic viability of agricultural land. These standards and policies shall include a minimum parcel size for prime productive agricultural land located outside the Urban Limit Line to 40 acres. These standards and policies may also include,but shall not necessarily be limited to,preservation agreements,conservation easements,clustering,establishment of an agricultural soils trust fund,and agricultural mitigation fees. (6) Hillside Protection Development on open hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County shall be restricted, and hillsides with a grade of 26%or greater,shall be protected through implementing zoning measures and other appropriate actions. (7) Changes to the Ud2an Limit Line There shall be no change to the Urban Limit Line that violates the 65135 standard set forth in B(1)above. After adoption of the New General Plan,as long as there is no violation of the 65/35 standard,the Urban Limit Line can be changed by a 4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors after holding a public hearing and making one or more of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: (a) a natural or man-made disaster or public emergency has occurred which warrants the provision of housing and/or other community needs within land located outside the Urban Limit Line; (b) an objective study has determined that the Urban Limit Line is preventing the County from providing its fair share of affordable housing,or regional housing,as required by state law,and the Board of Supervisors funds that a change to the Urban Limit Line is necessary and the only feasible means to enable the County to meet these requirements of state law; (c) a majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the County have approved a change to the Urban Limit Line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement; (d) a minor change to the Urban Limit Line will more accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal boundaries; (c) a five(5)year periodic review of the Urban Limit Line has determined,based on the criteria and factors for establishing the Urban Limit Line set forth in B(3) above, that new information is 1-34 1. Introduction available(from city or County growth management studies or otherwise)or circumstances have oocurmd,that warrant a change to the Urban Limit Line; (C) 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;or (g) a change is required to conform to applicable California or federal law. Any such change shall be subject to referendum as provided by law. Changes to the Urban Limit Line under any other circumstances shall require a vote of the people. (8) Annexations and I corpgrrations The Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") shall be advised to (a) respect and support the County's*65/35 Preservation Standard,Urban Limit Linc and growth management standards when considering requests for incorporation or annexation to cities or service districts, (b)apply the stricter of the growth management standards of either the County the incorporating city or the annexing city or service district,when considering requests for incorporation or annexations of land to cities or service districts,and (c) require unincorporated land located within the Urban Limit Line that is included in the incorporation of a now city or annexed to a city to provide a fair share of affordable housing when and if such land is developed. (g) Housing As required by the State Planning Act,the County shall periodically review and update the Now General Plan to conform to state housing requirements and to ensure its capacity to accommodate a variety of housing types and prices throughout the County. In accordance with the provisions of B(7)above,the Board of Supervisors may make findings of necessity that the Urban Limit Line should be changed to allow the County to meet its fair share of affordable housing and other state housing requirements. (10) Cg2per&dQn with iti s To the extent feasible,the County shall enter into preservation agreements-with cities in the County designed to preserve certain land in the County for agriculture and open space,wetlands or parks. C. AApy�liga on to Proj=Prior to Adontio_ of N=Ueneral Plan From the effective date of this chapter to adoption of the New General Plan,prior to issuing a permit for any project or adopting any legislation which requires an initial study under the California Environmental Quality Act,and prior to issuing a permit for any demolition,conversion,or change or use,and prior to taking any action which requires a finding of consistency with the general plan,the County shall adopt findings as to whether or not the proposed project or legislation is consistent with the policies established above. D. Duration The provisions of this chapter shall be in effect until December 31,2010,to the extent permitted by law. E. No Vio 'Qn SLL Lw(iy this Ordinr ante (1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed or interpreted in such a manner as to operate to deprive any landowner of substantially all of the market value of his/her property or otherwise constitute an unconstitutional taking without compensation. If application of any of the provisions of this chapter to any specific project or landowner would create an unconstitutional taking, then the Board of Supervisors may allow additional land uses, otherwise adjust permit requirements or take such other actions to the extent necessary to avoid what otherwise might be construed to be a taking. Any such additional land uses or other adjustments shall be designed to carry out the goals and provisions of this section to the maximum extent feasible. (2) Nothing contained in this chapter shall constitute an amendment of the existing general plan. upon approval of this chapter by the voters,the County shall take all necessary and appropriate steps to reflect the policies of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan in the New General Plan for the County,consistent with the requirements 1-35 _.... • 1. Introduction of CEQA and the State Planning Law. Nothing contained herein shall prevent the County from complying with applicable requirements of state law relating to the adoption and amendment of general plans. F. DcfMifiQns As used in this chapter, the phrase "land within the County" shall mean all of the acreage within the boundaries of Contra Costa County except the water area of the County west of Stake Point. (2) As used in this chapter,the term"non-urban uses" shall mean rural residential and agricultural structures allowed by applicable zoning and facilities for public purposes, whether privately or publicly funded or operaW,which are nemsary or desirable for the public health,safety or welfare or by state or federal law. Section 5 Amendment and RCMI This ordinance may be amended or repealed only by a vote of the people,except as expressly provided herein. Section 6 Conflicts ydW QUM Meagu= The following Provisions shall apply in the evert that the voters approve any other initiative or referendum related to the County's general plan contemporaneously with approval of this ordinance: (1) In the event that the voters approve any other initiative or referendum related to the County's general plan,or zoning, planning or land use regulations within the County contemporaneously with approval of this ordinance and this ordinance receives a higher number of votes than such other initiative or referendum,the provisions of this ordinance shall supersede and are hereby doemed to be inconsistent with the provisions of such other initiative or referendum,and no provision of such other initiative or referendum shall be implemented. This provision shall apply regardless of whether all or any part of this ordinance is invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction. (2) In the event that the voters approve any other initiative or referendum related t'o the County's general plan contemporaneously with the approval of this ordinance, and such other initiative or referendum receives a higher number of votes than this ordinance,the provisions of this ordinance shall nevertheless be implemented to the maximum extent legally feasible. Section 7 Severability If any portion of this ordinance is hereafter determined to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,all remaining portions of this ordinance shall rernain in full-force and effect. Each section,subsection,sentence,phrase,part or portion of this ordinance would have been adopted and passed regardless of whether-any one or more sections,subsections,sentences,phrases,parts or portions was declared invalid or unconstitutional. 1. State of California Office of Planning and Research, General An'Quidelinra, Sacramento, June 1987, pages 1418 (paraphrased). 2. Ibid.,page 17. 1-36 CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY COUNTY FILE: OP#990001 COUNTYWIDE Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County July 24, 2000 2:00 P.M. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: JULY 24, 2000 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY (GP#990001) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. OPEN the Public Hearing and receive testimony on the POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY (GP#990001). 2. CERTIFY that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is adequate and complete, has been prepared in compliance with State and County CEQA Guidelines, as recommended by the Zoning Administrator, and that the Board has considered the FEIR prior to making a decision on this project. 3. CLOSE the Public Hearing. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY-CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT } CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Patrick Roche,CDD-Adv. Planning(9251335-1242) ATTESTED cc: CDD PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF CRO SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel Clerk of the Board BY , DEPUTY July 24, 2000 Board of Supervisors File#GP990001 Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) 4. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS: OPTION "A" APPROVE the General Plan Amendment (GP#990001) for boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line, as recommended by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission in their Resolution No. 7-2000, as the second consolidated General Plan Amendment for 2000, ADOPT the findings in County Planning Commission Resolution No. 7-2000 as the basis for the decision, or, DIRECT staff to prepare appropriate findings. OPTION "B" DECLARE the Board of Supervisors intent to adopt a different set of boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line, than those recommended in County Planning Commission Resolution No. 7-2000, and IDENTIFY the Board of Supervisors preferred set of boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line, if any. DIRECT staff to prepare maps depicting the boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line that reflect the Board of Supervisors declared intentions and preferences. DIRECT staff to prepare a proposed Statement of Findings, based on maps depicting the boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line that reflect the Board of Supervisors declared intentions and preferences, to be considered for adoption by the Board of Supervisors, along with the APPROVAL of the General Plan Amendment (GP#990001), at the next meeting on August 1, 2000, as the second consolidated General Plan Amendment for 2000. 5. DIRECT staff to post the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk following the Board of Supervisors approval of the General Plan Amendment. FISCAL IMPACT The costs associated with this General Plan Amendment Study are covered in the budget of the Community Development Department. July 24, 2000 Board of Supervisors File#GP990001 Page 3 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On January 26, 1999, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorized a General Plan Amendment Study for consideration of changes or boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line as contained in the County General Pian. The Urban Limit Line, as referenced in the General Plan's Land Use and Or, Space Elements, establishes the outer limit of the unincorporated area of Contr^ " mty in which urban development may be considered. Several locations for the - ry modifications were identified at that time, including the Tassajara Arp 'eale Tract. The consideration to expand the study to other locati the outcome of a strategic planning process on growth and de% ich was initiated by Supervisor Joe Canciamilla (District V), and Board members who opted to conduct public workshops in the , dstions and ideas from the public on potential modifications to tht The Board of Supet gave final shape to the General Plan Amendment Study on September 14, 1999, when it was agreed that a proposal and an alternate proposal for changes to the Urban Limit Line boundary in East County, as requested by Supervisor Canciamilla, and several proposed boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line near Crockett and Martinez, as requested by Supervisor Gayle Uilkema (District II), would be included in the study. The Board's action to authorize the General Plan Amendment Study set in motion the first comprehensive review of the Urban Limit Line (ULL) in the nearly ten years since it became County policy. The study conducted by Community Development Department staff culminated in the attached Report to the County Planning Commission, dated 6/20/2000. The CEQA review process for this General Plan Amendment Study was initiated on November 14, 1999 with the release of an Initial Study/Notice of Preparation. Subsequently, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and released on April 14, 2000. The 45-day review and comment period on the DEIR was concluded on May 30, 2000. Copies of the DEIR were made available to agencies, interested persons, and the general public. The DEIR was also provided to members of County Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 15025 (c)., Contra Costa County and State CEQA Guidelines, for their review and consideration in developing a recommendation on the project for the Board of Supervisors. The Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing on the EIR's adequacy and completeness on May 15, 2000. In a subsequent meeting on July 13, 2000, after the public hearing was closed, the Zoning Administrator has recommended to the Board of Supervisors certification of the Final EIR as adequate and complete, and prepared in compliance with State and Local CEQA Guidelines. The FEIR document recommended by the Zoning Administrator for Board certification was provided to each member of the Board on July 13, 2000 under separate cover. July 24, 2000 Board of Supervisors File#GP990001 Page 4 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) The County Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY (GP#990001) on June 20, 2000 and thereafter continued the hearing to June 27, 2000. The Commission received a report recommending boundary modifications to the ULL, which was circulated to interested agencies and parties, as required under law (see attached Report to the County Planning Commission, dated 6/20/2000). The attached Report to the County Planning Commission, dated 6/20/2000, provides extensive background information on Measure C-1990 and the ULL, and it includes a detailed staff analysis and recommendation for each of the proposed ULL boundary modifications. The report provides a written description, location map, discussion on setting and site characteristics, and information on General Plan arid Zoning designations for each proposal. There is also an analysis of the relevant Measure C-1990 criteria/factors for modifications to the ULL that apply to each proposal. Additionally, the Report to the County Planning Commission, dated 6/20/2000, includes a report on the results and methodology of an inventory conducted by the Community Development Department for the Measure C-1990 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. The public hearing before the County Planning Commission was closed on June 27, 2000. After considering the DEIR and evaluating the staff report, public testimony and evidence received on this matter, the County Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 7-2000 on June 27, 2000, which forwards a recommended set of boundary modifications for the ULL along with a set of adopted findings as the basis for their decision (see attached CPC Resolution No. 7-2000). Two possible options are offered for the Board of Supervisors consideration for action on this General Plan Amendment Study. As described above under OPTION "A", the Board would approve the boundary modifications to the ULL, as recommended by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission in their Resolution No. 7-2000, and would adopt the findings listed in CPC Resolution No. 7-2000 as the basis for the Board's decision (or adopt modified version of findings listed in CPC Resolution No. 7-2000 as the basis for the Board's decision). As described under OPTION "B" listed above, the Board would declare its intent and preference for a different set of ULL boundary modifications than those recommended under CPC Resolution 7-2000 and direct staff to draft a Statement of Findings to be considered along with final approval of the General Plan Amendment at the next regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, August 1, 2000. July 24, 2000 Board of Supervisors Pile#CP990001 Page 5 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) Also enclosed for the Board's consideration, the preliminary tabulations from the in-progress Countywide Vacant and Underutilized Land Inventory are included as background information for this report at the request of Supervisor DeSaulnier (District IV). Attachments !4) 1. CPC Resolution No. 7-2000 2. Report to the County Planning Commission, dated 6/20/2000 3. Memo to D. Barry from Sup. DeSaulnier, dated 7/14/2000, and Preliminary Tabulations from the Countywide Vacant and Underutilized Land Inventory 4. Notification List Note: Final EIR for Board Certification,as recommended by the Zoning Administrator, was provided to Board members on 711312000 under separate cover. DMB/PR:proch/ULLBoardOrder.doc ATTACHMENT 1 Contra Costa County Planning Commission Resolution 7-2000 SOURCE DOCUMENTS URBAN LIMIT LINE REVIEW STUDY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (G P# 99-0001 / G P#00-0001) SOURCE DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN THE DRAFT EIR TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC STUDIES: 1. BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOC., 1-560/1-205 ORIGIN-DESTINATION STUDY, SEPT. 1966 (EXCERPTS) 2. CALTRANS, 1966 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON CALIFORNIA HIGHWAYS (EXCERPTS) 3. CALTRANS, 1990 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON CALIFORNIA HIGHWAYS (EXCERPTS) 4. CALTRANS, 1994 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON CALIFORNIA HIGHWAYS (EXCERPTS) 5. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, CHANGES IN REGIONAL TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS AND TRAVEL TIME EXPENDITURES IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: 1960-1990 6. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM, 1996-97 OBSERVED TRAFFIC COUNTS, TECHNICAL SUMMARY (EXCERPTS) 7. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM, 1997-96 OBSERVED TRAFFIC COUNTS, TECHNICAL SUMMARY (EXCERPTS) 6. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, PLANNING SECTION, TRAVEL FORECASTS FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, 1990-2020, TRIP GENERATION AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION (REVISED), DATA SUMMARY 9. WILBUR SMITH ASSOC., ROUTE 24/CALDECOTT TUNNEL CORRIDOR STUDY (EXCERPTS) ORIGIN-DESTINATION SURVEY 10.CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, DEPT. OF CITY PLANNING, FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, 456 MONTGOMERY STREET BUILDING, APPENDIX B: "COMMUTING PATTERNS FOR SAN FRANCISCO JOB-HOLDERS" (EXCERPTS) HOUSING/POPULATION STUDIES: 1. CA DEPT. OF FINANCE, DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH UNIT, CITY/COUNTY POPULATION AND HOUSING ESTIMATES, 1991-1999, WITH CENSUS COUNTS (MAY 1999) 2. MUNDIE & ASSOCIATES, UPDATED HOUSING SITE INVENTORY, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, TABLE 6-16 SOURCE DOCUMENTS FROM CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY • LOOKING TO THE FUTURE: CHALLENGES AND ISSUES FOR THE 2000 UPDATE TO THE COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, FEBRUARY 1999 • YEAR 2000 UPDATE: CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT- MAY 2000) SOURCE DOCUMENT FROM CONTRA COSTA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (AFCO) • POLICY STATEMENT ON THE URBAN LIMIT LINE, FEBRUARY 10, 1999 SOURCE DOCUMENTS FROM EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT • EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT MASTER PLAN, 1997 • CARQUINEZ STRAIT REGIONAL SHORELINE LAND USE PLAN, NOV. 16, 1999 • CARQUINEZ STRAIT REGIONAL SHORELINE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, C&H AND FISCHER PROPERTIES, NOV. 2, 1999 • CARQUINEZ STRAIT REGIONAL SHORELINE RESOURCE ANALYSIS, NOV. 17, 1992 • WATERBIRD REGIONAL PRESERVE LAND USE PLAN, OCT. 19, 1999 • INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WATERBIRD REGIONAL PRESERVE LAND USE PLAN, OCT. 1999 SOURCE DOCUMENT FROM CARQUINEZ STRAIT RESOURCES COORDINATING COUNCIL (ALSO STATE LANDS COMMISSION) • CARQUINEZ STRAIT RESOURCE PLAN, 1998 SOURCE DOCUMENTS ON MEASURE C - 1990 • MEASURE C. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 65135 LAND PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, NOVEMBER 1990 • TEXT AND MAP 1N THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN PERTAINING TO MEASURE C-1990 EXCERPTS FROM CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN USED AS EVIDENCE CITED IN BOARD RESOLUTION NOS. 2000/366 AND 2000/451 IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR URBAN LIMIT LINE MODIFICATION BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA • SCENIC RESOURCE AREAS POLICIES/IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES, OPEN SPACE ELEMENT • PARKS AND RECREATION POLICIES/IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES, OPEN SPACE ELEMENT • FLOOD HAZARD AREA POLICIES/IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES, SAFETY ELEMENT • MAP OF SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 26%, SAFETY ELEMENT • ROADWAY AND TRANSIT NETWORK PLANS, DESIGNATIONS AND DESIGN CRITERIA, TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT BACKGROUND MATERIAL FROM PUBLIC WORKSHOPS CONDUCTED ON THE URBAN LIMIT LINE REVIEW STUDY (MAY-AUGUST 1990 • SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT II • SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT IV • SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT V CONTRA COSTA LAFCO EXCERPTS FROM OTHER COUNTY PROJECT EIRS CITED AS EVIDENCE IN BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2000/366 • TASSAJARA PROJECT, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FILE: GP# 930008 AND RZ#943022; SCH# 93043088 SOURCE MATERIAL ON COWELL RANCH CITED IN BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2000/451 • MEMORANDUM OF OPTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE S.H. COWELL FOUNDATION AND TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND, 8/9/2000 SOURCE MATERIAL.ON SAFETY EXPLOSIVES EASEMENTS NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, CONCORD CITED IN BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 20001451 • NAVAL WEAPON STATION, CONCORD, EXPLOSIVE SAFETY EASEMENT-ACQUISITION PROJECT P-089; FOR THE ESTATE OF C.H. KELLER, PARCEL NO. 5 CONTAINING 503 ACRES • MAP OF CONSTRAINTS (NATURAL AND BUILT) INLAND AREA, NAVAL WEAPON STATION, CONCORD, MASTER PLAN (1989) MAPS USED AS SOURCE MATERIAL INITIAL STUDY, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND STAFF REPORTS • UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS (7.5 MINUTE SERIES) • BENICIA QUADRANGLE • VINEHILL QUADRANGLE • CLAYTON QUADRANGLE • ANTIOCH SOUTH QUADRANGLE • TASSAJARA QUADRANGLE • BRENTWOOD QUADRANGLE • WOODWARD ISLAND QUADRANGLE • LAND USE ELEMENT MAP, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN • URBAN LIMIT LINE MAP (AS OF 1998), CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN • URBAN LIMIT LINE MAP (AS OF 2000), CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN • FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM), PANEL 080025-400, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, PREPARED BY FEMA (1987) • CONTRA COSTA IMPORTANT FARMLANDS MAP, CA DEPT. OF CONSERVATION (1998) RESOLUTION NO.7-2000 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA REGARDING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE (GP#990001) WHEREAS, on January 26, 1999 and September 10, 1999, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorized study of an amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan, 1995- 2010, to modify or adjust the boundary of the County's Urban Limit Line at several locations; and, WHEREAS, the Urban Limit Line, as contained in the General Plan's Land Use Element and referenced in the Open Space Element, establishes the outer limit of the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County in which urban development may be considered; and, WHEREAS, the proposed boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line would occur in multiple locations in the County that are eligible for placement outside the Urban Limit Line according the criteria established under Measure C (1990): The 65/35 Contra Costa Land Preservation Plan Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared for POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY (GP#990001) (SCH#99-112094), and the Notice of Completion for the Draft Environmental Impact Report was released on April 14, 2000 and the 45 day comment period concluded on May 30, 2000; and, WHEREAS, staff prepared a report recommending boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line and circulated it to interested agencies and parties, as required by law; and, WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, the project was heard before the County Planning Commission on June 20, 2000 and thereafter continued to June 27, 2000, at which time testimony was taken and evidence received, at the conclusion of which, the hearing was closed; and after having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission: 1) HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED the Draft Environmental Impact Report prior to forwarding a recommendation, pursuant to Section 15025.c, Contra Costa County and State CEQA Guidelines; and, page 1 2) RECOMMENDS TO THE Board of Supervisors the APPROVAL of the General Plan Amendment relating to Urban Limit Line boundary modifications that would place land area outside the Urban Limit Line (ULL)in the following areas: 1. Crockett Area - A proposal for the placement of approximately 39 acres of unincorporated land area on two sites, which are a portion of the former C&H Property adjacent to the community of Crockett, south of the town along Crockett Boulevard and east of Interstate 80, outside the ULL (as described in 6/20/00 Report to County Planning Commission). The two sites in the Crockett area recommended for ULL boundary modification are depicted in the map marked as Exhibit "A" to this resolution. Motion carried: AYE: 6: NO: 0 ABSENT: 1. 2. Martinez Area - There are three proposed locations involving the inward movement of the ULL in the Martinez Area (as described in 6/20/00 Report to County Planning Commission): 1) The Martinez Ridge (also known as Franklin Hills) that includes placement of approximately 364 (+/-) acres of ridgeline and slope area, which are located mainly within the City of Martinez, due west of Alhambra Avenue between State Route 4 and the Carquinez Strait shoreline, outside the ULL. 2) The John Muir National Historic Site, located at 4202 Alhambra Avenue, that includes the placement of approximately 9 (+/-) acres of land area operated as park by the U.S. National Park Service. 3) The Shell Marsh, located east of Interstate 680 and south of the Martinez-Benicia Bridge, that includes placement of approximately 398 (+/-) acres of predominantly wetlands and a portion of hilly grassland outside the ULL. The three locations in the Martinez area recommended for ULL boundary modification are depicted in the map marked as Exhibit "B" to this resolution. Motion carried: AYE: 6: NO: 0 ABSENT: 1. 3. Tassajara Area - The inward movement of the ULL from its present location to the Sphere of Influence boundary for the Town of Danville and City of San Ramon affecting approximately 4,513 (+/-) acres (as described in 6/20/00 Report to County Planning Commission). The recommended location for the Urban Limit Line boundary modification in the Tassajara area is depicted in map marked as Exhibit "C" to this resolution. Motion carried: AYE: 4: NO: 2 ABSENT: 1. 4. Clayton Ranch Area - A proposal to place the Clayton Ranch site outside the ULL, an island of unincorporated land area inside the present Urban Limit Line, totaling approximately 1,030 acres (+/-), immediately north of the Marsh Creek Road and Morgan Territory Road intersection about 4-5 miles east of the City of Clayton (as described in 6/20/00 Report to County Planning Commission). The recommended location for the ULL boundary modification in the Clayton Ranch area is depicted in the map marked as Exhibit "D" to this resolution. Motion carried: AYE: 6: NO: 0 ABSENT: 1. page 2 5. Pittsburg,Area - The proposal identified as the "Alternate" (as described in 6/20/00 Report to County Planning Commission) that involves the inward movement of the ULL from its present location toward the southern boundary of the city limits for the City of Pittsburg, but would retain sections of land area inside the Urban Limit Line at a location along the Westside of Bailey Road and at a location southwest of Somersville Road. This proposal would place approximately 2,560 acres (+/-) of unincorporated land area outside the ULL. The recommended location for the Urban Limit Line boundary modification in the Pittsburg area is depicted in the map marked as Exhibit "E" to this resolution. Motion carried: AYE: 6: NO: 0 ABSENT: 1. 6. Antioch Area - The proposal identified as the "Alternate" (as described in 6/20/00 Report to County Planning Commission), that involves the inward movement of the ULL from its present location toward the southern boundary of the city limits for Antioch and western boundary of the city limits for Brentwood, relocating the Urban Limit Line to approximately the 300 foot elevation contour line, as identified from the United States Geologic Service topographic map (Antioch South Quadrangle), along the north facing slope of the ridge which divides Deer Valley and horse Valley. The recommended location for the ULL boundary modification in the Antioch area is depicted in the map marked as Exhibit "F" to this resolution. Motion carried: AYE: 4 NO: 2 ABSENT: 1. 7. Brentwood Area(South) -A combination of two proposals: a) the proposal identified as the "Alternate" (as described in 6/20/00 Report to County Planning Commission) that involves the inward movement of the Urban Limit Line from its present location toward the southern boundary of the city limits for Antioch and western boundary of the city limits for Brentwood, which relocates the Urban Limit Line from its present location to approximately the 300 foot elevation contour line, as identified from the United States Geologic Service topographic map (Antioch South Quadrangle), along the north facing slope of the ridge that divides Deer Valley and Horse Valley, for the land area east and south of Balfour Road; and b) the proposal identified as the "Cowell Ranch Alternative" (as described in 6/20/00 Report to County Planning Commission) that involves the inward movement of the ULL from its present location to the southern boundary of the city limits for Brentwood with the exception of a 345 acre (+/-) land area to be retained inside the ULL, as proposed by the Cowell Foundation, which runs in a north-south longtitude parallel to the alignment of the State Route 4 Bypass. Page 3 The recommended location for the Urban Limit Line boundary modification in the Brentwood Area (South) is depicted in the map marked as Exhibit "G" to this resolution. Motion carried: AYE: 5 NO: 1 ABSENT: 1. 8. Brentwood Area (North) - A proposal to shift approximately 100 acres outside the ULL (as described in 6/20/00 Report to County Planning Commission) for the unincorporated land area between the existing Urban Limit Line and the northeast boundary of the city limits for the City of Brentwood, bounded by Delta Road on the north, a sewage treatment plant on the south, the Brentwood city limit on the west, and Marsh Creek on the east. The Commission recommends retaining the current Urban Limit Line boundary in the Brentwood area (North) as depicted in the map marked as Exhibit "H" to this resolution. Motion carried: AYE: 4 NO: I ABSTAIN: I ABSENT: 1. 9. Oakley, Area - A proposal to shift approximately 334 acres (+/-) of unincorporated land area to outside the ULL located immediately east of the City of Oakley, south of Cypress Road (as described in 6/20/00 Report to County Planning Commission). The Commission recommends retainin the current Urban Limit Line boundary in the Oakley area as depicted in the map marked as Exhibit "H" to this resolution. Motion carried: AYE: 4 NO: I ABSTAIN: 1 ABSENT: 1. 10. Veale Tract - A proposal to place approximately 1,040 acres (+/-) of unincorporated land area known as Veale Tract, located east of Knightsen at the end of Delta Road, outside the Urban Limit Line (as described in 6/20/00 Report to County Planning Commission). The recommended location for the Urban Limit Line boundary modification in the Veale Tract area is depicted in the map marked as Exhibit "I" to this resolution. Motion carried: AYE: 6: NO: 0 ABSENT: 1; and, 3) ADOPTS FINDINGS as follows: L Recommended boundarymodifications to the Urban Limit Line are consistent with the General Plan: The recommended Urban Limit Line boundary modifications under this General Plan Amendment, as defined in this resolution, are consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Contra Costa County General Plan, 1995-2010. Evidence: Report to County Planning Commission, dated June 20, 2000; testimony provided at Public Hearing, Draft Environmental Impact Report; and, the Contra Costa County General Plan, 1995-2010. page 4 2. Recommended boundary modifications meet the relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modification to the Urban Limit Line: The recommended Urban Limit Line boundary modifications under this General Plan Amendment, as defined in this resolution, meet the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land area should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line under Section 4.B.(3) under Measure C (1990): Contra Costa County 65135 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance. Evidence: Report to County Planning Commission, dated June 20, 2000; testimony provided at Public Hearing; and, Draft Environmental Impact Report. 3. The recommended boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line will not violate 65/35 Land Preservation Standard in Measure C-1990: The recommended Urban Limit Line boundary modifications under this General Plan Amendment, as defined in this resolution, will not cause a violation of the 65135 Land Preservation Standard as set forth under Section 4.B.(1) in Measure C (1990) ): Contra Costa County 65135 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance. Evidence: Report to County Planning Commission, dated June 20, 2000; and, 65/35 Land Preservation Standard Inventory (June 2000). 4. The recommended boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line will not violate the County's Growth Management Standards: The recommended Urban Limit Line boundary modifications under this General Plan Amendment, as defined in this resolution, will not cause a violation of the County's Growth Management Standards adopted for traffic levels of service, water, sanitary sewer,fire protection,public protection, parks and recreation, flood control and drainage, as established under the Growth Management Element in the County General Plan pursuant to Measure C (1988): Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program Ordinance . Evidence: Report to County Planning Commission, dated June 20, 2000; testimony provided at Public Hearing; Contra Costa County General Plan, 1995-2010; and,Draft Environmental Impact Report page 5 The direction of the County Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was approved on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners -R. Clark,Chair,L. Battaglia,J.Hanecak,G. Kimber, M.Terrell,and H.Wong NOES: Commissioners-none ABSENT: Commissioners-C. Gaddis ABSTAIN: Commissioners -none Richard Clark,Chair of the County planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California I, Bennis M. Barry, Secretary of the County planning Commission, hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on June 27, 2000. ATTEST: /� -f4w-Lx Dennis M.Barry,Secretary ofthe County planning Commission, Contra Costa County,State o ifomia Cperesolutionjun272440 page 6 Exhibit 'A' CPC Res. No. 7-2000 iwlw w�0, i °R, s v x.. 5 CAH � , GO r f fCarquinez Strait Cargww So* I Regional Shorellm ReglvrratSharelVw I � 4 Legend * --- Contra Costa County line f 4 -- +� City limits * 4� ------ City sphere of influence line(S01) Parks Existing urban limit line(ULL) r f s Proposed change to ULL Area inside existing ULL Area inside existing ULL,to be removed under proposal y Area outside existing ULL (W) 0 4000 ft(approximate) kAKj Sources:Mundie&Associates,Clement Designs,Contra Costa County Figure 1 (From the 6/20/00 Report to the County Planning Commission) Potential ULL Modifications Crockett Area Exhibit 'B' CPC Res. No. 7-2000 Port Costa x r ! { .:: t IMM� l4?MM►ilt .y _ came:JPar L 1 "v P T 4 } f x IoM Afuir 4 � r tbtwle 3ltr Legend IHa+ne sta) Contra Corte County Ione � Jam AbkNa�anel H&Wk Ste ...... City limits , ----- City sphere of influence line i (Sol) � i` Parks � � f Existing urban limit line(ULL) ;i rw rrr Proposed change to ULL Area inside existing ULL ` " Area inside existing ULL, to be removed under proposal Area outside existing ULL kAIU R(approximate) i sources:Mundie&Associates,Clement Designs,Contra Costa County Figure 2 (From the 6/20/00 Report to the County Planning Commission) Potential ULL Modifications Martinez Area Exhibit 'C' GPC Res. No. 7-2000 1 , Mount Diablo State Pk F , rr i Legend �— �-- Contra Costa County line City limits ------- City sphere of influence line(SOI) Parks •'" Existing urban limit line(ULL) Camp Parks Reserve Forces .r�+-+ Proposed Change to ULL M's Tassajara Ck ,..• Regional Area inside existing ULL Pk Area inside existing ULL,to be removed under Wmate proposal Area outside existing ULL 060W ft(approximate) Sources:Mundie&Associates,Clement Designs,Contra Costa County Figure 3B(From the 6120100 Report to the County Planning Commission) Potential ULL Modifications---Alternate TassaIara Area(501 Option) Exhibit V' GPC Res. No. 7-2000 avow IGolfe . P cotwmw Contra Loma Regional Park —..... i "talk diamond ..— ... �.' _.v t ' kruk,S Region", i Preserve t r i f.., Legend L---------- Contra Costa County line _ —••'.• •. ..w s arr City limits ------ City sphere of influence line(SOI) Mt Diablo ___ -�- Parks State ParkExisting urban limit line(ULL) ,l ■r m on Proposed to ULL(NA—Clayton Ranch to be removed from existing ULL) `t _ Area inside existing ULL Area inside existing ULL,to be removed under proposal j Area outside existing ULL o 6000 ft(apPmAmets) spa:mundie& Ctc,e utxuPs,conft Cosi"Cwncy Figure 4 (From the 6/20/00 Report to the County Planning Commission) Potential ULL Modifications Clayton Area Exhibit 'E' CPC Res. No. 7-2000 Chipps Islands 40, 4Vtnter Island s. f Browns LIsland Brawns Island i w Shoreline 4 t s (f f y Legend `� `0 —i--� Contra Costa County line �4 �—• City limits Q ------ City sphere of in8uenceline(SOD -- -- Parks Existing urban limit line(ULL) Black ! wry W tit Proposed change to ULL J Diamond Mures Area inside existing ULL I —t Regronei — - _ a ; Area inside existing ULL,to be Preserve `g removed under alternate proposal Area outside existing ULL � L6 000 ft(approximate) Sources:Mundie&Associates,Clement Designs,Contra Costa County Figure 5B (From the 6/20/00 Report to the County Planning Commission) Potential ULL Modifications—Alternate Pittsburg Area Exhibit 'F' CPC Res. No. 7-2000 4 4 f + Lare free �Gd1Causa Contra Loma Regk nal Rack black Diamond Agnes Regional preserve Legend --- Contra Costa County line w-a� City limits ------ City sphere of influence(SOI) ---- Parks --■---- Existing urban limit line-(ULL) '! � r ■� Proposed change to ULL Area Inside existing ULL ti Area inside existing ULL,to be removed under alternate proposal 6000 ft(approximate) u Area outside existing ULL Sot=s:Mundie&Assoeisates,Clement Designs,Contra Costa County Figure 6B (From the 6120100 Report to the County Planning Commission) Potential ULL Modifications—Alternate Antioch Area .......................... Exhibit 'G' CPC Res. No. 7-2000 Contra Lona MTVRegional Park A 4, f� m Legend Marsh Creek Rd -�--- Contra Costa County line +■.o. City limits I ------ City sphere of influence line(S01) —- Parks Existing urban limit line(ULL) -i r Proposed changes to ULL 56M Diablo Rd ;o reek Area inside existing ULL Area inside existing ULL,to be removed under altemate proposal Area outside existing ULL f 0 6000 ft approximate) — _— — Cowell Ranch project boundary Sources;Mundie&Associates,Clement Designs,Contra Costa County Figure 6B(7B) and Figure 10 Combined (As modified from the 6120100 Report to the County Planning Commission) Potential ULL Modifications—Alternate Brentwood Area Exhibit 'H' CPC Res. No. 7-2000 t San boa ��+ 7 Knightsen Figure 811(From the 8/20/00 Report to the County Planning Commission) 4 Ptxe"l1LL MOW=—Abn*e Na cbrmp to ULL,per Knightsen Legend Knightsen 4 —•— Contra Costa County line arw s sr® City limits 4 ______ City sphere of influence line(SCI) Figure 7A 8A(Fuxin the 8/20/00 —" Parks Report to the County Planning CortunWslon) PwxoW ModkOn Existing urban limit line(ULL) �etxwocd(Nargt) ■t M M Proposed changes to ULL Area inside existing ULL Area inside existing ULL,to be removed under alternate proposal Area outside existing ULL 0 6000 (approximate) Sources:Mundie&Associates,Clement Designs,Contra Costa County Figure 8A&8B (As modified from the 6/20/00 Report to the County Planning Commission) Potential ULL Modifications Oakley Area and Brentwood(North) ExhIbItT CPC Res. No. 7-2000 �i VieIE�Ii„r, 'a fp I Holland Tract Rd Knightsen . Delta Rd NNW ¢, Legend —•— Contra Costa County line City limits w e a----- City sphere of influence line(SO[) ---- Parks r Existing urban limit line(ULL) tEill ttlrt iii Proposed changes to ULL § Area inside existing ULL Chestn st ' Area inside exists ULL to be removed under prbposaf Area outside existing ULL y 4 Marsh Greek Rd 0 6000 ft(approximate) 4 1 1 Sources:Mundie&Associates,Clement Designs,Contra Costa County Figure 9 (From the 6/20/00 Report to the County Planning Commission) Potential ULL Modifications Veale Tract ATTACHMENT Report to the Contra Costa County Planning Commission June 20, 2000 Agenda Item # 2 Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2000 - 7:00 P.M. POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY (GP#9900011 1. INTRODUCTION The Board of Supervisors has authorized study of an amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan, 1995-2010, to modify or adjust the boundary of the County's Urban Limit Line. The Urban Limit Line, as referenced in the General Plan's Land Use and Open Space Elements, establishes the outer limit of the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County in which urban development may be considered. The boundary modifications would occur in multiple locations in the County that are eligible for placement outside the Urban Limit Line according to the criteria established under Measure C. The 65135 Contra Costa Land Preservation Ordinance ('1990). If approved and implemented, the boundary modifications would place the following areas outside the Urban Limit Line for the duration of the current General Plan: • Crockett Area - A proposal for approximately 39 acres of unincorporated land area which are a portion of the former C&H Property adjacent to the community of Crockett, south of the town along Crockett Boulevard and east of Interstate 80. • Martinez Area - There are three proposed locations in the Martinez Area: 1) The Martinez Ridge (also known as Franklin Hills) that includes approximately 364 acres of ridgeline and slope area located mainly within the City of Martinez due west of Alhambra Avenue between State Route 4 and the Carquinez Strait shoreline. 2) The John Muir National Historic Site, located at 4202 Alhambra Avenue, that includes approximately 9 acres of land area operated as park by the U.S. National Park Service. 3) The Shell Marsh, located east of Interstate 680 and south of the Martinez-Benicia Bridge, that includes approximately 368 acres of predominantly wetlands and a portion of hilly grassland. 1 • Tassaiara Area - There are two different proposals to move the line inward affecting between 3,927 and 4,513 acres of land area essentially made up of the Tassajara Valley, located in an unincorporated area of south-central Contra Costa County, bounded on the northeast by the Town of Danville, on the east by the City of San Ramon, and on the south by the County line border for Contra Costa and Alameda counties. • Clayton Ranch Area - A proposal to remove an "island" of approximately 1,030 acres of land area now inside the Urban Limit Line, located in an unincorporated area immediately north of the Marsh Creek Road and Morgan Territory Road intersection about 4-5 miles east of the City of Clayton. This is land area that is under acquisition by the Bast Bay Regional Park District. • Pittsbura Area - There are two different proposals for the inward movement of the Urban Limit Line that would affect between 2,882 and 2,560 acres (approximate) of unincorporated land area between the existing Urban Limit Line and the southern boundary of the city limits for the City of Pittsburg. • Antioch Area - There are two different proposals for inward movement of the Urban Limit Line that affect between 1,922 and 660 acres (approximate) of unincorporated land area between the existing Urban Limit Line and the southern boundary of the city limits for the City of Antioch. • Brentwood Area (South) - There are two different proposals for the inward movement of the Urban Limit Line that affect up to 3,933 acres (approximate) of unincorporated land area between the existing Urban Limit Line and the southern boundary of the city limits for the City of Brentwood. • Brentwood Area (North) - A proposal to move the Urban Limit Line inward affecting approximately 100 acres of unincorporated land area between the existing Urban Limit Line and the northeast boundary of the city limits for the City of Brentwood, bounded by Delta Road on the north, a sewage treatment plant on the south, the Brentwood city limit on the west, and Marsh Creek on the east. • Oakley Area - A proposal to move the Urban Limit Line inward affecting approximately 322 acres of unincorporated land area located Immediately east of the City of Oakley along Cypress Road. • Veale Tract - A proposal to move the Urban Limit Line to place approximately 1,040 acres of unincorporated land area on Veale Tract, located east of Knightsen at the end of Delta Road, outside the Urban Limit Line. 2 Cowell Ranch - An alternative Urban Limit Line boundary modification proposal for the Cowell Ranch site, which is located in unincorporated area southwest of the City of Brentwood, that has been proposed by the property owner, involving approximately 345 acres of the ranch site that would be located inside the Urban Limit Line. Il. CEQA AND RELATED ACTIONS A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared for POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY (GP#990001). The Notice of Completion for the Draft Environmental Impact Report was released on April 14, 2000 and the 45 day review and comment period concluded on May 30, 2000. The County Zoning Administrator conducted a hearing on May 15, 2000, on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. It is expected that the Zoning Administrator will forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the document's adequacy, completeness, and consistency with the guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act. Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Report were previously provided to members of County Planning Commission under separate cover when the document was released for public review and comment. Pursuant to Section 15025 (c)., Contra Costa County CEQA Guidelines, the County Planning Commission shall review and may consider the EIR in draft or final form when making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. III. BACKGROUND A. General Plan Amendment Study Authorization by the Board of Supervisors On January 26, 1999, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorized a General Plan Amendment Study for consideration of changes or boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line as contained in the County General Plan. Several locations for the proposed boundary modifications were identified at that time, including the Tassajara Area, Clayton Ranch, and Veale Tract. The January 26, 1999 action by the Board authorizing the General Plan Amendment Study also provided for consideration of potential boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line in other locations in the County. The consideration to expand the study to other locations 3 would be made pending the outcome of a strategic planning process on growth and development in East County, which was initiated by Supervisor Joe Canciamilla (District V), and based on suggestions from Board members who opted to conduct public workshops in their District to solicit suggestions and ideas from the public. The Board of Supervisors gave final shape to the General Plan Amendment Study on September 14, 1999, when they agreed to include in the study a proposal and an alternate proposal for changes to the Urban Limit Line boundary in East County, as requested by Supervisor Canciamilla, and several proposed boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line near Crockett and Martinez, as requested by Supervisor Gayle Uilkema. The Board's action to authorize the General Plan Amendment Study has set in motion the first comprehensive review of the Urban Limit Line in the nearly ten years since it became policy. B. History of the Urban Limit Line Development - A Summary In 1988 when the Board of Supervisors initiated a countywide revision to the County General Plan, the Board of Supervisors included direction that the new document should include an Urban Limit Line. As part of that General Plan effort an 88 member citizen committee was created including, city and special district representatives, developers, agriculturalists, environmentalist, and citizen action groups. It was called the Contra Costa County General Plan Congress. The development of an Urban Limit Line was a very contentious issue for the General Plan Congress. It debated the issues over a two year period and ultimately voted to decline such a feature as a part of their proposal to the Board of Supervisors. In 1990, several environmental organizations drafted the Contra Costa County Open Space and Wildlife Conservation Initiative and gathered sufficient signatures to have it considered for the November, 1990 General Election. That initiative would have amended the County General Plan in a manner that would have restricted growth in large areas of the County by placing these areas under an agricultural land use designation that would have limited residential development to one unit per 820 acres. In the Agricultural 4 Core around Brentwood it would have established a maximum building limit of one residential unit per 40 acres. 'While there were other provisions, these were the most controversial. There were many within the County that believed this was an overly stringent initiative. In response, the County Board of Supervisors prepared an alternative ballot measure formally known as the 65135 Contra Costa County Land Use Preservation Plan Ordinance. The proposed ordinance text provided for the following policies: Restrict urban development to 35% of the land in the County and preserve 65% of the land in the County for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks and other non-urban uses; • Prohibit any changes to the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan standard except by a vote of the people; Create an Urban Limit Line to identify the outer boundaries of urban development in the County; • Protect and promote the economic viability of agricultural land by appropriate standards and policies, including a policy that increases the minimum parcel size for prime productive agricultural land outside the urban Limit Line to 40 acres; • Protect open hillsides and significant ridgeiines throughout the County from development by zoning and other measures; • Manage growth in the County by allowing new development only when infrastructure and service standards are met; • Advise the Local Agency Formation Commission to honor the County's 65/35 Land Preservation standard, Urban Limit Line and growth management standards in annexation and incorporation decisions; • Promote cooperation between the County and cities to preserve agricultural and open space land, wetlands and parks, by requiring the County to pursue preservation agreements with cities where feasible; and 5 • Safeguard the County's obligation to provide its fair share of safe, decent and affordable housing. The proposed ordinance was based in part on the prior work done by the General Plan Congress. The proposed ordinance's intent was to provide some certainty to where growth could and could not occur in the County. It also accounted for development within cities, while providing assurances to the public that the County would not approve growth which exceeded the 65/35 standard through year 2010. B. Ordinance Adoption As work progressed in 1990 on the Contra Costa County General Plan update, a countywide debate was underway on which of the two ordinances the voters should approve to guide and direct growth and development in the County. Ultimately both ordinances were placed on the November 1990 County ballot. A process was setup so that whichever ordinance received the most votes (over a majority) would become law and be implemented. Both ordinances received over 50% majority vote in the November 6, 1990 election, but Measure C, 65/35 Contra Costa Land Preservation Plan Ordinance, sponsored by the Board of Supervisors received the higher number of votes and became the effective County ordinance. The ordinance has an expiration date of December 31, 2010. While the ordinance was not an amendment to the County General Plan, it required the County to take all necessary steps to reflect the ordinance in the new General Plan. The then "draft" Contra Costa County General Plan was modified to include the ordinance provisions for an Urban Limit Line and the 65/35 policies and standards, and, in fact, the text of the ordinance was added into the General Plan document, to ensure that its provisions would remain easily accessible to the public over time. The updated Contra Costa County General Plan (1990-2005) was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 29, 1991. The adoption of the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance did not permanently lock in the boundaries of the Urban Limit Line. The ordinance provides a process and criteria for 6 __. __. _. _ making changes to the Urban Limit Line which are described in this report under section IV.B. C. Impact of the Urban Limit Line on the Unincoroorated Area, Incorporated Area. and Other Agencies As a component of the County General Plan, in addition to being an ordinance adopted by the voters of the entire County, the Urban Limit Line is a major factor in the determining the location of future growth within the County. It should be understood that this is a County program and the Urban Limit Line boundaries were established to reflect its use in County analysis and decision making; indirectly it may affect cities and other agencies. The following discussion is an attempt to put this program into overall context. 1. County Land Development Restrictions The County General Plan text on pages 3-13 to 3-15 describes the implication and rationale of the Urban Limit Line on land use decisions in the unincorporated area. The text is states that land area located within or inside the Urban Limit Line can be considered for General Plan amendments which allow for urban development. All lands within or inside the Urban Limit Line that are being considered for urban development are subject to the goals, policies and implementation measures of the General Plan as a whole. The fact that a property is located inside the Urban Limit Line provides no guarantee or implication that it may be developed as an urban use during the lifetime of the General Plan. The land area located outside the Urban Limit Line is precluded from being considered for urban development through a General Plan amendment. Early in the development of the Urban Limit Line it was determined that the line would be countywide in geographic coverage and that it would attempt to differentiate between lands that were either developed or may be appropriate for development, from land area which was already protected for 7 public or open space uses and considered inappropriate for urban development. Consequently, the Urban Limit Line does not directly reflect either City limits or City sphere of influence boundaries, but it does locate major parklands outside of the Urban Limit Line. The Urban Limit Line was drawn with the intention that it be used as a tool for identifying and directing future urban development in the County. 2. Impact on Cities The Urban Limit Line has no direct impar# on any of the planning policies for the 19 cities in Contra Costa County for land area located within incorporated city limits. As a co-equal planning agency, according to State law, the cities are free to differ from County Planning policies and visa versa. The cities and the County are required by State law to adopt and maintain a General Plan, which at a minimum address the subject matter specified by State law. In fact, jurisdictions are encouraged to have General Plan policies which overlap with adjacent jurisdictions, so that if a conflict in planning goals for an area occurs, it can be identified and considered during the public process of considering development applications. For the unincorporated land area within a city Sphere of Influence boundary that is inside the Urban Limit Line, the County regards this area as appropriate for urban development and has potential for annexation to the city. Urban development and its annexation into a city would be subject to the provisions of the city General Plan, the city's growth management obligations, and requirement established by LAFCO. For unincorporated land area outside the Urban Limit Line, the County considers this area as inappropriate for urban development and annexation to a city. A city, of course, is not bound by a County policy or ordinance, and may seek annexation of such an area through LAFCO. 8 3. LAFCO Policies The 65135 Contra Costa Land Preservation Plan included a provision which dealt with LAFCO. It reads: (6) Annexations and Incorporations The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) shall be advised to (a) respect and support the County's 65135 Preservation Standard, Urban Limit Line and growth management standards when considering requests for incorporation or annexation to cities or service districts, (b) apply the stricter of the growth management standards of either the County, the incorporating city or the annexing city or service district, when considering requests for incorporation or annexations of land to cities or service districts, and require unincorporated land located within the Urban Limit Line that is included in the incorporation of a new city or annexed to a city to provide a fair share of affordable housing when and if such land is developed." The key word in this section is "advised". Since LAFCO is a State commission administered at the local level, it is exempt from County mandates. It can give whatever weight it chooses to jurisdictional policies such as the Urban Limit Line. The Contra Costa County LAFCO has deliberated over the countywide election that brought the Urban Limit Line into existence and the Urban Limit Line itself. As a part of the document "A Guide to LAFCO Procedures, Contra Costa LAFCO" there is included a LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT (Adopted February 10, 1999). The relevant section of that policy reads: 9 .............._. . ....... .......... _ .... ...__ ......... "Although not bound by policies of other agencies, it is the general policy of LAFCO to honor the limits placed on urban development by other agencies. Therefore, LAFCO generally has honored the County Urban Limit Line (ULL), discouraging sphere of influence (SOI) amendments and annexations beyond the ULL. A proposal for an SOI change or annexation of territory beyond the ULL generally will be denied unless the proponents present evidence demonstrating that the need for the SUI change or annexation compellingly outweighs the public interest in limiting growth to areas within the ULL." This very carefully drafted policy statement makes it clear that LAFCO intends to respect the Urban Limit Line in terms of future growth areas. LAFCO, however, is not limiting itself in terms of annexations to create better jurisdictional boundaries. For example, annexations including areas of shoreline parks or protected marshes or areas restricted from development that would yield a better jurisdictional boundary are not limited by this LAFCO policy. 4. Other Local Agencies and Special Districts Other local agencies and special districts are not directly impacted by the Urban Limit Line, except if they attempt to annex areas outside the Urban Limit Line. Those will be subject to LAFCO scrutiny based on the above policy and other LAFCO factors of consideration. D. Relationship to the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard The 65/35 Land Preservation Standard was fundamental component of Measure C - 1990. The standard limits urban development in the County through at least the horizon of this General Plan to no more than 35 percent of the land in the County and requires that at least 65 percent of all land in the County shall be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, water areas, parks and other non-urban uses. The Urban Limit Line works to enforce the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard and establish a line beyond which no urban land uses can be designated. The standard ensures that both within and outside 10 the Urban Limit Line, a maximum of not more than 35 percent urban development could occur in the County, irrespective of potential General Plan Amendments in the future. As described above, substantial portions of land to be developed within the Urban Limit Line will be required for the open space, parks, recreation and other non-urban uses. The 65/35 standard operates on a countywide basis and therefore includes urban and non-urban uses within cities as well as unincorporated areas. Concurrent with the study of potential modifications to the Urban Limit Line, the Community Development Department has completed an inventory to determine where the County is in relationship to the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. The results of this inventory indicate that 69.6% of the land area in the county (both incorporated and unincorporated) is under non-urban uses and 30.4% of the county land area is made up of urban uses (as defined in Measure C-1990). A summary of the inventory and description of its methodology is attached as Exhibit "A" to this report for the Commission's consideration. E. Summary of Urban Limit Line Amendment History to Date Over the nearly ten years of the Urban Limit Line policy there have been 5 separate actions by the Board that have resulted in shifts or modification to the line. According to the record, a total of 261 acres have been added inside or within the line and 762 acres have been placed outside the Urban Limit Line. The net result is a 491 acre reduction of land area within or inside the Urban Limit Line. IV. APPROACH TO REVIEWING PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE REVIEW A. Relationship of the Urban Limit Line to the County General Plan The 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan ordinance outlines the procedures for considering boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line. Since the Urban Limit Line is a component part of Land Use Element, and referenced in the Open Space Element of the County General Plan, all prior modifications to the Urban Limit Line have been processed as amendments to the County General Plan. The modifications under consideration for this review of the _.. ......... ...._.. .._... ... -......1.11 . 1111 ......... _ ...... ...... Urban Limit Line are to be considered as an amendment to the County General Plan. B. Criteria for Changes to the Urban Limit Line The 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (Measure C-1990) specifies the findings necessary to change the Urban Limit Line. That section of the ordinance is reproduced in its entirety below: " (7) Changes to the Urban Limit Line There shall be no change to the Urban Limit Line that violates the 65/35 standard set forth in B(1) above. After adoption of the New General Plan, as long as there is no violation of the 65/35 standard, the Urban Limit Line can be changed by a 4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors after holding a public hearing and making one or more of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: (a) a natural or man-made disaster or public emergency has occurred which warrants the provision of housing and/or other community needs within land located outside the Urban Limit Line; (b) an objective study has determined that the Urban Limit Line is preventing the County from providing its fair share of affordable housing, or regional housing, as required by state law, and the Board of Supervisors finds that a change to the Urban Limit Line is necessary and the only feasible means to enable the County to meet these requirements of state law; (c) a majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the County have approved a change to the Urban Limit 12 _ Line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement; (d) a minor change the Urban Limit Line will more accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal boundaries; (e) a five (5) year periodic review of the Urban Limit Line has determined, based on the criteria and factors for establishing the Urban Limit Line set forth in B(3) above, that new information is available (from city or County growth management studies or otherwise) or circumstances have occurred, that warrant a change to the Urban Limit Line; (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 (1) mitigate adverse aviation related environmental or community impacts attributable to Buchanan Field, or (ii) further the County's aviation related needs; or (g) a change is required to conform to applicable California or Federal law. Any such change shall be subject to referendum as provided by law. Changes to the Urban Limit Line under any other circumstance shall require a vote of the people." To put the effectiveness of these criteria into perspective, the prior section which summarized the Urban Limit Line shifts or modifications document that only minor or limited changes affecting the Urban Limit Line have been approved to date. It seems that the Urban Limit Line has functioned as it was intended to provide some certainty about the location of future urban development. It is 13 ___ _.. instructive to note that no 5 year periodic review of the Urban Limit Line, as allowed for in 7(e) above, was initiated upon the five year anniversary of its enactment. This General Plan Amendment study, as initiated by the Board of Supervisors, would serve as the first °5 year" review of the Urban Limit Line. Section 7(e) references another portion of the ordinance for the criteria to be considered in the five year review. It reads as follows: "(3) Urban Limit Line To ensure the enforcement of the 65/35 standard set forth in (13)(1) above, an Urban Limit Line shall be established, in approximately the location depicted on the illustrative 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Map attached as Exhibit A. The Urban Limit Line shall be incorporated into the County's Open Space Conservation Plan. The Urban Limit Line shall limit potential urban development in the County to 35% of the land in the County and shall prohibit the County from designating any land located outside the Urban Limit Line for an urban land use. The criteria and factors for determining whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line should include (a) land which qualifies for rating as Class I and Class 11 in the Soil Conservation Service Land Use Capability Classification, (b) open space, parks and other recreation areas, lands with slopes in excess of 26 percent, (d) wetlands, and (e) other areas not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development, unstable geological conditions, inadequate water availability, the lack of appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing development, likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat, and other similar factors." 14 The proposed modifications to the Urban Limit Line discussed in this report have been reviewed and evaluated according to the five criteria referenced under this section of the Measure C-1990 ordinance. A complete copy of the Measure C-1990 ordinance text is provided in Exhibit "B" to this report. V. STAFF ANALYSIS AND INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. CROCKETT AREA Proposal Concept: A minor modification or adjustment to the Urban Limit Line. This change would apply on two sites which total approximately 39 acres in an unincorporated land area, adjacent to the community of Crockett, south of the town along Crockett Boulevard and east of Interstate 60. The line would modified to place the two sites outside the Urban Limit Line under this proposed boundary modification. The two sites are portions of acreage from the former C&H Property, acquired by East Bay Regional Park for parkland purposes, that are presently located inside the Urban Limit Line. See Figure 1, which is a map depicting the location of the proposed Urban Limit Line modification for the Crockett area (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The topography is predominantly comprised of rolling hills of grasslands with scattered oak woodlands. Some portions of the sites are comprised of steep slopes, many in excess of 26%. (Source: Map of Slope Areas in Excess of 26%, Fig. 10-7, page 10-42, Safety Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-2010); USGS Topographic Map (7.5 Minute Series), Benicia Quadrangle; and, Contra Costa County Community Development Department Overlay Maps). The land area in question was once part of a ranching operation used primarily for rangeland purposes. The two sites are still open space and provide habitat for wildlife and plant species. County General Plan Designation: Parks/Recreation (PR) County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural zoning Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the two sites: • [Sec.4, B. (3)(b)] "open space, parks, and other recreation areas"; • [Sec.4,13.(3)(c)] "lands with slope in excess of 26 percent`; • [Sec.4,6.(3)(e)] "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development....likelihood of substantial 15 environmental damage or substantial damage to wildlife or their habitat" Policy Options: • Retain existing Urban Limit Line boundary • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary in the Crockett area as defined and depicted in map form. Recommendation: The two sites are now in parkland/open space use under public ownership, and would not be suitable for consideration to redesignate for urban uses. Staff recommends the proposed Urban Limit Line boundary modification. As discussed above, the conditions for each of the proposed boundary modification match the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4,13.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support the boundary modifications as defined. 16 u, as Ct K Y Y ! +FfE 'qw 1 Y so y 5 S ! Y �1ICi iJYWI ► { " Re¢onutstoraft ! t ! Legend r �--- Conba Costa County line i .w ..J 4 awns r asrr Clay Imb ------ City sphere of Influence line(SOI) ---- Parks Existing urban Mt lite(ULL) m m w Proposed charge to ULL Am&Inside 9MM LILL Area inside oftV ULL,10 be MVM under proposal Area outside existing ULL 014000�� n(approximate) Sour=:Mundie&Associatrs,CImmt Desips,Conten Coca County Figure 1 Potetfial ULL Modifications trocketf kea _. __ _ __ ' E i r 6 `µ 1 i axwn.M..wrwwy i Z 4 , a, Arthis R �.g 4 �� M Sh Legend (Nm sta) --.�— Contra Costa County line JdvA**Ab*W fIIOIYTK CPO erre• City limb + ---� City sphere of Musnoe line (Sol) Parks Existing urban lknit line(ULL) m rrr Proposed tinge to ULL Area imide existing ULL Area ineide wMN ULL, to be removed under proposal ``• Area outside existing ULL 0 MW ft(approAmate) Sou :Mundio&Assodu tos,Clmww Dmigns,Contra Coft county Figum 2 Potential ULL MoRcations Martinez Area 1 � ... ...... __ ...... .............. _.. ._. . ....... 2.1. MARTINEZ RIDGE Proposal Concept: A modification to the Urban Limit Line boundary on the Martinez (Franklin Hills) ridgeline and western slope located mainly within the City of Martinez. The line would be moved inward placing approximately 364 acres of land area, which have either been acquired or dedicated for parkland/opens space use, outside the Urban Limit Line. See Figure 2, which is a map depicting the locations for the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications in the Martinez area, including the Martinez Ridge (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The main topographic features are the ridgeline and western slope covered by grasslands, scattered clusters of oak woodlands, and other thick vegetation. The ridgeline and western slope is located just west of the urbanized area of Martinez and runs in a north to south direction for approximately 3-4 miles between State Route and the Carquinez Strait shoreline. A substantial portion of the area contains slopes in excess of 26 percent. (Source: Map of Slope Areas in Excess of 26%, Fig. 10-7, page 10-42, Safety Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-2010); USGS Topographic Map (7.5 Minute Series), Benicia Quadrangle; and, Contra Costa County Community Development Department Overlay Maps). This land area is identified in the Open Space Element to the Martinez General Plan as the Franklin Canyon Conservation Zone, which states "that it should remain essentially devoted to open space land use". County General Plan Designation: Parks/Recreation (PR); Open Space (OS); and Agricultural (AL). Note: City of Martinez General Plan designates most of this area as "Public Permanent Open Space". County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural Zoning, in the unincorporated area. Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the Martinez Ridge area: • [Sec.4, B. (3)(b)] "open space, parks, and other recreation areas"; • [Sec.4,13.(3)(c)] "lands with slope in excess of 26 percent"; • [Sec.4,B.(3)(e)] "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development....likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial damage to wildlife or their habitat" 19 _. . .. . _.. .. .............................. ..... ...._. _1.111 _ .......... _.. Policy Options: • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Martinez Ridge area as defined and depicted in map form. Recommendation: The Martinez Ridge would not be suitable for urban uses. As discussed above, the conditions for each of the proposed boundary modifications match the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.13.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support the boundary modification as defined. Staff notes that the proposed boundary modification would appear to be consistent or complimentary to the Land Use and Open Space policies contained in the Martinez General Plan. 2.2. JOHN MUIR HISTORIC SITE Proposal Concept: A modification to the Urban Limit Line boundary to place the 9 acre John Muir Historic Site outside the Urban Limit Line. See Figure 2, which is a map depicting the locations for the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications in the Martinez area, including the John Muir Historic Site (excerpted from the draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The John Muir Historic Site is located at 4202 Alhambra Avenue in the City of Martinez. The site is the former residence of John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club and an early advocate of National Parks. The site is now designated as a national historic site and is operated by the National Park Service. County General Plan Designation: Parks and Recreation (PR) County Zoning Designation: Not applicable in the City of Martinez. Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the John Muir Historic Site: • [Sec.4, B. (3)(b)] "open space, parks, and other recreation areas" 20 Policy Options: • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the John Muir Historic Site as defined and depicted in map form. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Urban Limit Line boundary modification as proposed to reflect that the John Muir Historic Site as parkland area under public ownership that would not be suitable for urban development. As discussed above, the conditions for the proposed boundary modification match the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.13.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support the boundary modifications as defined. 2.3. SHELL (McNABNEY) MARSH Proposal Concept: A modification to the Urban Limit Line boundary for the area generally described as Shell Marsh, which would place approximately 368 acres outside the Urban Limit Line. See Figure 2, which is a map depicting the locations for the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications in the Martinez area, including the Shell Marsh (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The area is located in an unincorporated area of Martinez east of Interstate 680 and south of Martinez-Benicia Bridge and is accessed from Waterfront Road. The land area is predominantly wetlands or tidal marsh lands which provides an important wildlife habitat. The eastern portion of the site is a hilly grassland area now used for cattle grazing. A large portion of the site is now part of the Waterbird Regional Preserve (approx. 198 acres) operated by the East Bay Regional Park District. The park district has prepared a Land Use Plan for the 198 acres portion they control that will retain 99% of the marsh area in its natural condition. County General Plan designation: Parks/Recreation (PR); Open Space (OS); and Public/Semi-Public (PS) County Zoning Designation: Heavy Industry (HI) Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure 0-1990 criteria would apply to the Shell Marsh: • [Sec.4, B. (3)(b)] "open space, parks, and other recreation areas"; 21 • [Sec.4,13.(3)(e)] "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development....likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial damage to wildlife or their habitat" Policy Options: • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Shell Marsh as defined and depicted in map form. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Urban Limit Line boundary modification as proposed to reflect that the Shell Marsh as parkland/open space area and/or sensitive wildlife habitat, predominantly under public ownership, which would not be suitable for urban development. As discussed above, the conditions for each of the proposed boundary modifications match the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.B.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support the boundary modifications as defined. 22 F r.«�u Mount Diablo State Pk yw w...w...�w.ww...w...+.......»++..w�...+u....•......wa.«..w.«............w»........ , fiw Rd Rd Legend —•••••— Conde Costs County One wo.> City Umb --�— City epix�e of lr�uence tete(5C?!) Parlay Cam Perks •""` Exiettng urban Hmk line(ULL) Reserve farts +iw, ArProposed otwo to ULL ✓`""'� ; Gaya Area inside exiethtg ULL Area!Walde ULL,to be renaved under pmpoeW w L Area oudride existing ULL 0 8WO tt(ApproxlmAte) 5ourm:MwxUo& Clem=t X mps,Coats Costa County Figure 3A Potential ULL Modifications--Proposal Twoom Area(Wa"ed Option) C�3 f i 3t Mount Diablo State Pk t € , y1 I f r' FW %Ad Legend -�•-- Contra Costa County line + City limits ------ Ciry sphere of influence line(SCI) Parks carw Poft •� Existing urban limit line(ULL) Reserve Forces Proposed change to ULL TrainingArea ,,./' 7&+*rg Ok �,,y•,,,•• �,,,e ROOMI Area.Inside existing ULL •r M� Area Inside exleft ULL,to be removed under alternate proposal u Area outside existing ULL �,.•'' _ _' © U 6"tt(approximate) Sounx-Mundie Ckmeot De ps,ConuaCoft County Figure 3B Potential ULL Modifications—Alternate Tassaiara Area(501 Option) 3. TASSAdARA AREA Proposal Concept: In authorizing the general Plan Amendment Study in January 1999, the Board of Supervisors identified two distinct options for modifying the Urban Limit Line boundary in the Tassajara area. Under an option labeled as the "Proposal", the Urban Limit Line would be moved inward from its present location to a location generally aligned along a ridgeline that functions as natural watershed between Alamo Creek and Tassajara Creek (also known as the "Watershed" boundary modification). This boundary modification would shift approximately 3,927 acres outside the Urban Limit Line. Under an option labeled as the "Alternative", the Urban Limit Line would be moved inward to be coterminus with the Sphere of Influence boundary for the Town of Danville and City of San Ramon (also known as the Sphere of Influence boundary modification). This boundary modification would shift approximately 4,513 acres outside the Urban Limit Line. See Figures 3A and 3B which are maps depicting the locations for the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications in the Tassajara area, including the Proposal - "Watershed" boundary and Alternate - "Sphere of Influence" boundary (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The site area is essentially the Tassajara Valley located in an unincorporated area of south-central Contra Costa County. The area is comprised of a series of rolling hills and ridges that are cut by the Tassajara Valley, which runs in a north-south direction. A substantial portion of the area contains slopes in excess of 26 percent. (Source: Map of Slope Areas in Excess of 26%, Fig. 10-7, page 10-42, Safety Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-2010); USES Topographic Map (7.5 Minute Series), Tassajara Quadrangle; and, Contra Costa County Community Development Department Overlay Maps). The valley floor is principally in agricultural use, which includes spring pastures and livestock grazing, orchards, and equestrian facilities. About 4,500 acres within this area was the subject of a General Plan Amendment study in the 1990`s that investigated the feasibility of an urban development plan proposed by the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association (TVPOA). The TVPOA plan proposed a General Plan amendment to convert agricultural land for urban development that included 5,950 dwelling units, 300,000 square feet of commercial/office space, and a set aside of 2,676 acres for parks and open space. This proposal was the subject of an extensive and lengthy environmental review process that analyzed the potential impacts such a large development plan would have on area resources and infrastructure. 25 A Draft Environmental Impact Report in two volumes was released for public review and comment in March 1997, and after extensive public hearings a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was released in April 1998, and is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR documented major limitations with providing public infrastructure and significant negative impacts associated with urban development in the Tassajara Valley. The most significant public infrastructure concerns related to the project's traffic impacts and limited roadway system capacity, the inability to secure an adequate water supply and delivery system, and the ability to transport and treat wastewater. Additionally, the document highlighted concerns with the project's ability to address biotic and wildlife impacts. Ultimately, the project proponents decided to withdraw their application. The EIR documented that the County would not be able to approve their development proposal without making findings of overriding consideration with regard to the project's impacts. To do so, the County would have violated General Plan growth management standards, other General Plan policies, and the settlement agreement with Town of Danville related to litigation concerning the plan to develop the Dougherty Valley. At present time, the Tassajara Valley is generally remote from the existing of urban development (anywhere from 1-2 miles from an urbanized area) and, just as significantly, it is located some distance from the regional highway system. Tassajara Valley is not served by a water delivery system or a system to treat and export wastewater. Additionally, Camino Tassajara which functions as the primary arterial for the Tassajara Valley is projected to see significant traffic increases that far exceed the roadway's carrying capacity. Based on studies recently documented in the draft Year 2000 Update: Contra Costa Countyrvide Transportation Plan, prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and is incorporated herein by reference. This report also concludes that significant capacity increases to relieve these strained conditions will not constructed before the year 2010. County General Pian Designation: Agricultural Land County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural Zoning, A-3: Heavy Agricultural Zoning, and A-20, A-40, and A-80: Exclusive Agricultural Zoning. Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the Tassajara Valley: • [Bec.4,13.(3)(c)j "lands with slopes in excess of 26 percent"; 26 +► [Sec.4,13.(3)(e)] "other areas not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development, .... inadequate water availability,.... lack of appropriate infrastructure, ....likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial damage to wildlife or their habitat" Policy Options: • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Tassajara area as defined under the "Proposal" or "Watershed" boundary option and depicted in map form. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Tassajara area as defined under the "Alternate" or "Sphere of Influence " boundary option and depicted in map form. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission consider an inward movement of the Urban Limit Line for the Tassajara Area. As discussed above, the conditions for each of the proposed boundary modifications match the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.B.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support either of the boundary modifications as defined. Staff offers the Planning Commission the following considerations as it formulates a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the boundary modification options for the Tassajara Valley: • The "Sphere of Influence" boundary modification would affect a General Plan Amendment Study, authorized by the Board of Supervisors in April 1999, which is now in progress. The Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment Study is investigating the potential for two residential subdivisions, located east of Lawrence Road and south of Camino Tassajara, named the Intervening Properties/Remaining Intervening Properties and Alamo Creek, respectively. Taken together the two development projects could yield up to 1,245 new residential units. The proposed Alamo Creek project with the potential of 803 units would be directly impacted by the "Sphere of Influence" boundary modification, as the line would be moved to the eastern boundary of an already approved 332 unit residential subdivision on the Wendt Ranch site. This modification would place about 8O90% of the Alamo Creek site area outside the Urban Limit Line. (See Figure 3B) • Staff advises that should the Commission recommend the "Sphere of Influence" boundary modification, only the Intervening Properties/Remaining Intervening Properties and the Wendt Ranch portion of the Alamo Creek GPA could proceed under the Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment Study. 27 • The "Watershed" boundary modification would establish a line based on the natural landform or prominent topographic features as a means to distinguish the land area to the west of the watershed, which is predominantly now urbanized, from the land area to the east of the watershed, which is comprised of the agricultural/open space uses in the Tassajara Valley. • Staff advises that should the Commission recommend the "Watershed" boundary modification, this would in no way imply support or endorsement to approve the proposed Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment, but only that the study would continue for the entire proposal (all of the land area under the Alamo Creek GPA proposal could proceed to a decision by the Board of Supervisors). 28 f �) y I LOW Conn Lw o RegWW Park t�orJCour�� qb 5 X.uxw.x Y Dhw=YMIM ♦waw.x x.w...nw n u u e s t t .. t f a t Legend ----_-_-- ._.-�.. Contra Costa County line """ -- OM CRY limits x ------ City sphere of Influence line(S01) AN Diablo x --�-- Parks State PaikEdsting urban iimft line(ULL) Proposed to ULL(NA—Slayton Ranch to be removed from existing ULL) Area Inside existing ULL Area Inside exietlng ULL,to be removed tt under PrOposal Area outside existing ULL 06000 ft(appro)imate} Sour m lvlundw& ,Clement Y7= n%Cottua Coate Cwtnty l�l� Figure A Potential ULL Modifications Clayton Area 4. CLAYTON AREA Proposal Concept: A modification to eliminate the "island" of land area within or inside the Urban Limit Line comprised of the 1,030 acre Clayton Ranch site. See Figure 4, which is a map depicting the location of the proposed Urban Limit Line modification for the Clayton area (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The Clayton Ranch site fronts Marsh Creek Road immediately north of the intersection with Morgan Territory Road, approximately 4-5 miles east of the City of Clayton. The topography of the site is predominantly comprised of rolling hills of grasslands with scattered oak woodlands. It is part of the eastern slope of the Diablo Range. A substantial portion of the site is comprised of steep slopes, many in excess of 26% (Source: Map of Slope Areas in Excess of 26%, Fig. 10-7, page 10-42, Safety Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-2010); USGS Topographic Map (7.5 Minute Series), Clayton Quadrangle; and, Contra Costa County Community Development Department Overlay Maps). The Clayton Ranch site was historically used for rangeland purposes. The land area no provides significant biological habitat for animal wildlife and plant species. The East Say Regional Park District is now in the process of acquiring the 1,430 acre site for parkland/ open space purposes. County General Plan Designation: Agricultural Land (AL) County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural Zoning Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the site: • [Sec.4, S. (3)(b)] "open space, parks, and other recreation areas"; • [Sec.4,13.(3)(c)] "lands with slope in excess of 26 percent"; • [Sec.4,13.(3)(e)] "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development....likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial damage to wildlife or their habitat, ... inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure, and distance from existing development " 30 Policy Options: • Retain existing Urban Limit Line boundary • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Clayton Ranch site as defined and depicted in map form. Recommendation: The Clayton Ranch site will soon be set aside for parkland/open space use once acquired by the Bast Bay Regional Park District. Staff recommends the proposed boundary modification to eliminate the "island" land area within the Urban Limit Line to reflect its pending status as parkland/open space use. As discussed above, the conditions for the proposed boundary modification match the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.B.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support either of the boundary modifications as defined. 31 t #pps Island x a . tel <,��, Hrowne hdurd Reylaul ��4 Y' 4 Lund --�— Contra Costa County line � City IImOx3 ------ City sphere of InNuen oe One(801) t/ F Perks I ` Di9igOfIC Existing urban Omit line(ULL) , was= Proposed change to ULL A"�1d1� `""'"""""'"""'""""""""' ' Preserve Area Inside exdeting ULL i Area inside existing ULL,to be removed under proposal Area outside exlsifng ULL 0 �8�OM ft(approximate) Sources:Mundie&Associates,Clement Designs,Contra Costa County Figure 5A Potential ULL Modifications--Proposal Pittsburg Area 4` PITTSBURG AREA Proposal Concept: In its authorizing action in September 1999, the Board of Supervisors identified two distinct options for modifying the Urban Limit Line boundary for East County, including the Pittsburg area. The land area affected by the modification proposals are south of the Pittsburg city limit. Under an option labeled as the "Proposal", the Urban Limit Line would be moved inward from its present location to coincide with the southern boundary of the city limit. Approximately 2,882 acres would be shifted to outside the Urban Limit Line under the "Proposal". Under an option labeled as the "Alternate", the Urban Limit Line would be moved inward form its present location toward the southern boundary of the city limit but would differ from the "Proposal" by placing a strip of land area along the westside of the Bailey Road and section of land south of Somersville Road. Approximately 2,560 acres would be shifted to outside the Urban Limit Line under the "Alternate". See Figures 5A and 5B, which are maps depicting the location of the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications for the Pittsburg area (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: This unincorporated area south of Pittsburg is hilly with vegetation consisting of open grassland, oak woodland, and, in riparian areas, seasonal wetland/grassland. The Lawler Ravine is the major drainage in this area, several smaller tributaries, including Kirker Creek. The predominant land use pattern consists of open space, cattle grazing, and the Keller Canyon landfill and its buffer zone. The main topographic feature in this area is the eastern slope of the Diablo Range. It is comprised of numerous saddle ridgelines connected by rolling hills. A substantial portion of the area has steep sloping land in excess of 26 percent (Source: Map of Slope Areas in Excess of 26%, Fig. 10-7, page 10- 42, Safety Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-2010); USGS Topographic Map (7.5 Minute Series), Clayton and Antioch — South Quadrangle; and, Contra Costa County Community Development Department Overlay Maps). Much of the unincorporated area south of Pittsburg is not only remote from existing development but also from the primary roadway network and regional highway system. In fact, as recently documented in the draft Year 2000 Update: Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan, prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and which is incorporated herein by 33 reference, the traffic increases in this area of East County are projected to far exceed the carrying capacity of the roadway network and regional highway system. This report also concludes that significant capacity increases to relieve these strained conditions will not be constructed before the year 2010. At present the unincorporated area south of Pittsburg is not served by water delivery system nor is it connected to a sewer system. County General Plan Designation: Agricultural Land (AL) and Landfill (LF) County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural Zoning and A-4: Agricultural Preserve Zoning Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the Pittsburg area proposals: • [Sec.4,13.(3)(c)] "lands with slope in excess of 26 percent"; • [Sec.4,13.(3)(e)] "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development....likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial damage to wildlife or their habitat, ... inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure, and distance from existing development " Policy Options: • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Pittsburg area as defined under the "Proposal" boundary option and depicted in map form. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Pittsburg area as defined under the "Alternate" boundary option and depicted in map form. • Consider Urban Limit Line boundary modification based on the combined elements of the "Proposal" and "Alternate" options. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission consider an inward movement of the Urban Limit Line for the Pittsburg Area. As discussed above, the conditions for each of the proposed boundary modifications (including a combination of elements) match the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.8.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support either of the boundary modifications as defined. 34 41 �# T; �� .y y�3 ISIEnd �6 a e rx .? .,, $rOW116 {(Plano xit s �` BR7M9Y r)lillt�Fl!'�10rldr 4��3�"s: 4 � VI� Legend --.— Contra Costa County line City Iimb , ----- City sphere of itt8uertos line(SOn E w Parks alga y Dlsrnond 1 Existing urban limit Nne(ULL) s wN rrr Proposed change to ULL �� Preterve Area ureide existing ULL Area Inside existing ULL,to be removed under proposal Area outside existing U 0 6000 ft(approximate}LL J � Sources:Mundie&Associates,Clement Designs,Contra Costa County Figure 5A Potential ULL Modifications®Proposal Pittsburg Area A? K. x �� ro �+< '., z *4 4'X sxF �pp B Island � t'V3nteT'3�, Island ftwu island Re$mal '# i Legend W--.— Contra Costa County line ■ City Umlts vow ------ City sphere of inAuer Iris(SOQ k w parks _ �. c Dfxmand Existing urban limit line(ULL) Mtn _ ' X n mmm proposed change to ULL PAN" Area Inside existing ULL _ Area inside ung ULL,to be removed wrier alternate proposal Area outside existing ULL 6000Ott(approximate) Sources:Mundie&Associates,Clement Designs,Contra Costa County Figure 5$ Potential ULL Modifications—Alternate Pittsburg Area 5. ANTIOCH AREA Proposal Concept: In its authorizing action in September 1999, the Board of Supervisors identified two distinct options for modifying the Urban Limit Line boundary for East County, including the Antioch area. The land area affected by the modification proposals are south of the Antioch city limit. Under an option labeled as the "Proposal", the Urban Limit Line would be moved inward from its present location to coincide with the southern boundary of the city limit. Approximately 1,922 acres would be shifted to outside the Urban Limit Line under the "Proposal". Under an option labeled as the "Alternate", the Urban Limit Line would be moved inward form its present location toward the southern boundary of the city limit but would differ from the "Proposal" by locating the line along 300 foot contour line of the ridge dividing Deer Valley and Horse Valley. Approximately 660 acres would be shifted to outside the Urban Limit Line under the "Alternate". See Figures 6A and 6B, which are maps depicting the location of the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications for the Antioch area (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The land area under consideration for Urban Limit Line boundary modification south of Antioch consists of upland areas and valleys. The upland areas and valleys that separate them trend in a northwest to southwest direction. Historic land use in the area has been limited largely to grazing. The main topographic feature in this area is the eastern slope of the Diablo Range. It is comprised of numerous saddle ridgelines connected by rolling hills. A substantial portion of the area has steep sloping land in excess of 26 percent. (Source: Map of Slope Areas in Excess of 26%, Fig. 10-7, page 10- 42, Safety Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-2010); USGS Topographic Map (7.5 Minute Series), Antioch South Quadrangle; and, Contra Costa County Community Development Department Overlay Maps). Most of the area south of Antioch under consideration for the Urban Limit Line boundary modification is the remote not only from existing development but also from the roadway network and regional highway system. In fact, as recently documented in the draft Year 2000_ Update. Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan, prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, the traffic increases in East County area and in this area south of Antioch are projected to far exceed the carrying capacity of the local roadway network and regional highway system, and significant capacity 37 increases to relieve these strained conditions will not be constructed before the year 2010. At present the unincorporated area south of Antioch is not served by a water delivery system nor is it connected to a sewer system. County General Pian Designation: Agricultural Land (AL) County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural Zoning and A-4: Agricultural Preserve Zoning Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the Antioch area proposals: • (Sec.4,13.(3)(c)] "lands with slope in excess of 26 percent"; • Sec.4,13.(3)(e)] "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development....likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial damage to wildlife or their habitat, ... inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure, and distance from existing development Policy Options: • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Antioch area as defined under the "Proposal" boundary option and depicted in map form. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Antioch area as defined under the "Alternate" boundary option and depicted in map form. • Consider Urban Limit Line boundary modification for the Antioch area that combines elements of the "Proposal" and "Alternate" options. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission consider an inward movement of the Urban Limit Line for the Antioch Area. As discussed above, the conditions for each of the proposed boundary modifications (including a combination of elements) match the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.8.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support either of the boundary modifications as defined. 38 u�}��4rr6fi�FpA td P� Tt;y}}f B i4B rBFlr 4 ` ix 4:: i 3 �h*t"� i sa wldo Lone 1pe wft tame Ravaui Perk CiaNt�exe Dkmond Alkee Pnaatiw Legend ---- Contra Costa County line „- e waso City limits ------ City sphere of Nuance line(SCI) Perks Existing urban limit line(ULL) ir!9f!r Proposed change to ULL Area inside exisMV ULL a Area aside existing ULL,to be k removed under proposal j 0 8000 ft(approximate) Area otatside exietlng ULL 4l L ! 0. srnuues:Mun&a&Associates,ClernmtDesigns,Cbwm r-oeta County Figure bA Potential ULL Modifications—Proposal Antioch Area a s l.aFe 7AeY� CxM j; r'011rra lfNtltl frO9kv ar Pat* ' € �sv DAMOnd i t � Regknw MhM Legend —.� Contra Costa County line ; City limits ------ City sphere of influsnos line(S01) ' W Parks Existing urban limit line(ULL) m m m Proposed change to ULL Area inside existing ULL Area inside existing ULL,to be removed under aiteemate proposal 0 6000 tt(approximate) Area outside exisling ULL z Sourm:Munft Cement Designs,Camra Costa County Bigum 6B Potential ULL Modifications—Alternate Antioch Area 6. BRENTWOOD AREA (South) Proposal Concept: In its authorizing action in September 1999, the Board of Supervisors identified two distinct options for modifying the Urban Limit Line boundary for East County, including the area south of Brentwood. The land area affected by the modification proposals are south of the Brentwood city limit. Under an option labeled as the "Proposal", the Urban Limit Line would be moved inward shifting the Urban Limit Line from its present location to be generally coterminus with the city limits on the west, south, and east, except that an area along the southern boundary of Brentwood would remain inside the Urban Limit Line. Under this option, Approximately 3,933 acres would be shifted to outside the Urban Limit Line under the "Proposal'. Under an option labeled as the "Alternate", the Urban Limit Line would be moved inward form its present location. It differs from the "Proposal" in that the boundary on the west side of Brentwood south of Balfour Road would be shifted to approximately a 300 foot contour line for the ridge separating Deer Valley from Horse Valley to include most of the land (the lower elevations and flatter areas) that currently lies within the Urban Limit Line. Along the southern boundary of Brentwood the "Alternate" shares the same boundary shift as the "Proposal'. Also under the "Alternate" the unincorporated area northeast of Brentwood would remain unchanged. See Figures 7A and 7B, which are maps depicting the location of the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications for the Brentwood area - south (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Subsequent to issuance of Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for this General Plan Amendment Study, the legal counsel for the Cowell Foundation submitted on their behalf an alternative boundary modification to the Urban Limit Line. The Cowell Ranch Alternative, which was included in the Draft EIR, proposes to trade the location of the area to be located within Urban Limit Line under "Proposal' and "Alternate" options for the boundary modification in the area south of Brentwood. It would provide for a 345 acre portion of the Cowell Ranch to be located within the Urban Limit Line which is flatter and runs in north-south longitude parallel to the alignment of the State Route 4 Bypass. See Figure 10, which is map depicting the location of Cowell Ranch Alternative (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). 41 Setting and Site Characteristics: The land area under consideration for Urban Limit Line boundary modification south of Brentwood consist of upland areas and valleys. The upland areas and valleys that separate them trend in a northwest to southwest direction. Historic land use in the area has been limited largely to grazing. The main topographic feature in this area is the eastern slope of the Diablo Range. It is comprised of numerous saddle ridgelines connected by rolling hills. A substantial portion of the area has steep sloping land in excess of 26 percent. (Source: Map of Slope Areas in Excess of 26%, Fig. 10-7, page 10- 42, Safety Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-2010); USGS Topographic Map (7.5 Minute Series), Antioch South and Brentwood Quadrangles; and, Contra Costa County Community Development Department Overlay Maps). Most of the area south of Brentwood under consideration for Urban Limit Line boundary modification is remote from the local roadway and regional highway system. In fact, as recently documented in the draft Year 2000 Update: Contra Costs Countywide.TranL;gortaffon Plan, prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, the traffic increases in East County area and this area south of Brentwood are projected to far exceed the carrying capacity of the local roadway and regional highway system, and significant capacity increases to relieve these strained conditions will not be constructed before the year 2010. At present the unincorporated area south of Brentwood is not served by a water delivery system nor is it connected to a sewer system. County General Plan Designation: Agricultural Land (AL) County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural Zoning and A-4: Agricultural Preserve Zoning Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the Brentwood (South) area proposals: • [Sec.4,13.(3)(c)] "lands with slope in excess of 26 percent"; • Sec.4,13.(3)(e)] "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development....likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial damage to wildlife or their habitat, ... inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure, and distance from existing development 42 Policy Captions: • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Brentwood (South) area as defined under the "Proposal' option. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Brentwood (South) area as defined under the "Alternate" option. • Consider Urban Limit Line boundary modification for the Brentwood (South) area that combines elements of the "Proposal" and "Alternate" options. • Consider the alternative Urban Limit Line boundary modification for the Brentwood (South) area as proposed by the Cowell Foundation. Recommendation: Staff recommends the commission consider an inward movement of the Urban Limit Line for the Brentwood (South) area. As discussed above, the conditions for each of the proposed boundary modifications (including a combination of elements) match the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.B.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support any of the boundary modifications as defined. Should the Commission recommend the "Cowell Ranch Alternative" boundary modification this would provide for potential urban development on the 345 acre area to be located within the Urban Limit Line. Staff notes that the Cowell Foundation has recently made a public announcement regarding the sale of the Cowell Ranch site, which includes a contingent sale for this 345 acre piece, with the balance of the project area being acquired by a non- profit Land Trust. The 345 acre parcel would presumably be proposed for a General Plan Amendment to urban uses. 43 4 � > h J 111 IS I Lend � �rirs .� ®rte, CAS Ad COY to" r�y►� pte�° COY owo NOW kpW sod�tv�to LL Igoe 00 NTOS 00,; w.: A �dov }��dr �et► ry�`Asea E� 4 4 L$Wd Uafm(rook Rd -.•.�..� Contra Costa County llne — ----^-- ■ tatty limas ------ city sphere of I*Wfoe line(Sol) _- Parks Existing urban pmts line(ULL) n rm m P to ULL ��ao�� Area Inside existing ULL Marsh .krj Area Inside existing ULL,to be ' removed under alternate proposal Area outside exiting ULL 0 WW tt(approximate) k Somvw:MuaWe&Axsomw%CkmanDemps,ContmComCmmiy Figure'7B Potential ULL Modifications—Alternate Brentwood Area awaIS NVt in 7 $ 'lx 110 -Al kl 4v 2� i Y . oo _ � h 7. BRENTWOOD (North) Proposal Concept: In its authorizing action in September 1999, the Board of Supervisors identified two distinct options for modifying the Urban Limit Line boundary for East County, including the Brentwood area. Although the boundary modification labeled the "Proposal" for the Brentwood area mainly affects an unincorporated land area to the south of the city limits, it also includes a proposal to shift the boundary line for an unincorporated land area located north and east of Brentwood city limit. This covers approximately 100 acres of land area bounded by Delta Road on the north, a sewage treatment plant on the south, the Brentwood city limit line on the west, and Marsh Creek to the east. See Figure 7A a map which depicts the location of the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications for the Brentwood area (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The land area under consideration for Urban Limit Line boundary modification north of Brentwood is agricultural land. It is level land sharing the typical landform features that make up the Central Valley floor. Although the land area was recently placed within the Brentwood Sphere of Influence, it is not presently served by a water delivery system or a sewer system. Much of the unincorporated Brentwood (north) area is not only remote from existing development but also from the primary roadway network and regional highway system. In fact, as recently documented in the draft Year 2000 Update• Contra Costa Countywide Transportaffan flan, prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and which is incorporated herein by reference, the traffic increases in this area of East County are projected to far exceed the carrying capacity of the roadway network and regional highway system. This report also concludes that significant capacity increases to relieve these strained conditions will not be constructed before the year 2010. County General Plan Designation: Agricultural Land (AL) County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural Zoning and A-3: Heavy Agricultural Zoning 47 Relevant Measure C-1950 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure 0-1990 criteria would apply to the Brentwood north area proposals: • [Sec.4,B.(3)(e)] "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development....inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing development" Policy Options: • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Brentwood (North) area as defined under the "Proposal" boundary option and depicted in map form. Recommendation: Staff recommends the commission consider an inward movement of the Urban Limit Line for the Brentwood Area (north) as defined under the "Proposal" boundary option. The conditions relating to the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.B.(3). are supported by the inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure to the area, and distance from existing development. 48 8. OAKLEY AREA Proposal Concept: In its authorizing action in September 1999, the Board of Supervisors identified two distinct options for modifying the Urban Limit Line boundary for East County, including the Oakley area. The "Alternate" proposal involves a shift of the Urban Limit Line boundary affecting approximately 822 acres in the unincorporated area east of Oakley city limits along Cypress Road. See Figure BA and 813, which are maps depicting the location of the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications for the Oakley area (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The land area under consideration for Urban Limit Line boundary modification east of Oakley agricultural land presently used for row crops and hay or alfalfa production. It is level land sharing the typical landform features that make up the Central Valley floor. The unincorporated area east of Oakley is not presently served by water or sewer service systems. Most of the area east of Oakley under consideration for the Urban Limit Line boundary modification is remote from the regional highway system. In fact, as recently documented in the draft Year 2000 Update: Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan, prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, the traffic increases in East County area and this area east of Oakley are projected to far exceed the carrying capacity of the local roadway and regional highway system, and significant capacity increases to relieve these strained conditions will not be constructed before the year 2010. County General Plan Designation: Agricultural Land (AL) County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural Zoning Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the Oakley area proposals: [Sec.4,13.(3)(e)] "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development....inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing development" 49 Policy Options: • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Oakley Area as defined under the "Alternate" boundary option and depicted in map form. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission consider an inward movement of the Urban Limit Line for the Oakley Area as defined under the "Alternate" boundary option. The conditions relating to the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.8.(3). are supported by the area's inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure to the area, and distance from existing development. 50 pjf i� �an oa usn. c g� � i i e Jeseey Island M 4 Knightsen i Legend 4 --- Contra Costa County line City limits ---�_ City sphere of krOuenoe One(SOI) - ----- Parke ExlsUng urban Omit line(ULL) m m w Proposed changes to ULL Area inside existing ULL Area Inside existing ULL,to be removed under proposal Area outside exiting ULL �wr YrirrrJ (approEmate) •' 1 Sours :Mundie&Associafts,Clement Aeaws,Contra Costa County Figure 8A Potenflal ULL Modifititions—Proposal Oakley Area t 7 i R 1 Lg�_el COW fl\N CM pl,o ksol • o� i1 CLAY Idwe poo _»mod to AWL pTovosll pses elm SO colill,� c ' 4otent�a��LLM°�ifi�tio� p�k��C�� 9. VEALE TRACT AREA Proposal Concept: In its original action on January 26 1999, the Board of Supervisors authorized study of a boundary modification that would shift the line for the Veale Tract area in the Delta region. The proposed boundary modification would place approximately 1,040 acres outside the Urban Limit Line. See Figure 9, which depicts the location of the proposed Urban Limit Line modifications for the Veale Tract area (excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Report). Setting and Site Characteristics: The Veale Tract is an area set aside for agricultural production that is within the Delta region of Contra Costa County. This area is within the 100 year flood plain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Located in the extreme eastern end of the County, Veale Tract forms an easterly appendage from the main Urban Limit Line boundary. It is connected to the Urban Limit Line at its northwesterly corner. At the time the Urban Limit Line was being developed the then landowner advised the Board of Supervisors that a development concept for the property had been developed and that it would only be a matter of time before an application would be submitted. Due to its location within the 100 year flood plain, the property's inclusion into the Urban Limit Line was controversial with the then constituted General Plan Congress and the Board of Supervisors. However, the landowner was able to convince the Board that Veale Tract be included within the Urban Limit Line to provide an opportunity to study and evaluate the relative merits of the development proposal. That was over a decade ago, and no proposal has been offered (the ownership of land has since changed). Veale Tract is remote from existing development (approximately 4-5 miles from Knightsen the nearest community) and significantly it is not served by a water delivery system or a system to treat and export wastewater. It is also remote from the primary roadway network and regional highway system. County General Plan Designation: Delta Recreation and Resources (DR) County Zoning Designation: A-2: General Agricultural Zoning 53 Relevant Measure C-1990 Criteria/Factors for Modifications to the Urban Limit Line: The following Measure C-1990 criteria would apply to the Veale Tract area proposal: • [Sec.4,B.(3)(e)] "other area not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development....inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing development" Policy Options. • No change. Retain the existing Urban Limit Line boundary. • Modify Urban Limit Line boundary for the Veale Tract Area as defined and depicted in map form. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission consider the boundary modification for Veale Tract as defined in the Board's study authorization whereby this land area is placed outside the Urban Limit Line. The conditions relating to the relevant criteria and factors for considering whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to ordinance Section 4.B.(3). are supported by the area's inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure to the area, and distance from existing development. 10. COWELL RANCH ALTERNATIVE See discussion of the alternative Urban Limit Line boundary modification for the Cowell Ranch site, as proposed by the landowner, under item #7 BRENTWOOD AREA (South). 54 _{ i 9g '4 III w 3„ HbllarxiTrad Rd Dalla Rd i Legend —•r... Contra Costa County line sae City Kinks F. _...--.. City sphere of Influence One(SOI) Parks ExWQ urban limit line(ULL) m wws n Proposed changes to ULL Area Inside existing ULL Cha$awd st Area Inside existing ULL,to be removed under proposal t { Area outside existing ULL .....,.. q ...�....�.. Miush C"Rd SOW 4t(approximate) 4 Sources:Mundie&Associates,Clet Bent Daigm Contra costa County Figure 9 Potential ULL Modifications Veale Traci EXHIBIT "'W' 55/35 LAND PRESERVATION STANDARD INVENTORY 56 Methods and Results for the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard Inventory June 2000 Overviews: In 1990, the voters of Contra Costa County approved Measure C (often referred to as Measure C (1990) to distinguish it from an earlier measure of the same name), the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan. Measure C(1990)requires, among other things,that not less than 6510 of the land in the County is preserved for parks, open space, agriculture, wetlands, and other non-urban uses. Staff conducted a land use inventory in 1990 as a part of the General Plan process to assess the County's status relative to the 65/35 standard. That analysis measured the developed or urban area of the County at 25.4% of the County and the undeveloped or non-urban portion at 74.6%. An updated land inventory is needed now to support the review process for proposed changes to the Urban Limit Line and to inform land use decisions on pending projects. Community Development staff conducted a detailed 65/35 land use inventory over the winter and spring of 2000. The inventory was based on two primary sources: 1) current General Plan information from the city and County General Plans, 2)up-to-date information on actual public park lands, dedicated open space lands, and on other public and semi-public lands. Information from these sources was mapped over the County's parcel base and entered in the Department's new computer mapping/Geographic Information System(GIS) software. Staff used these computerized mapping tools to perform electronic area measurements on the completed map data, replacing the past practice of performing measurements by hand. Staff also chose the computer approach because the GIS software provides an adaptable repository for the mapping work, enabling the Department to begin to build a digital version of the county-wide General Plan map (as well as GIS data on public lands and facilities)while performing the 65/35 inventory. The results of the year 2000 65/35 inventory process may be summarized as follows (Table 1 presents the results of this inventory in more detail): 69.6% of the County has a non-urban use and is planned for a non-urban use 30.4% of the County has an urban use or is planned for an urban use This report outlines the process by which the above figures were developed. It is organized according to the following main subject areas: 1)background on key requirements of the 65/35 ordinance;2) the general approach chosen to complete the inventory; 3) steps in the inventory process; 4) discussion of results; and 5)an overview of alternative inventory approaches which were considered. 1) Background On Key Requirements Of The 65/35 Ordinance Provided below are two excerpts from the text of the Measure C (1990)ordinance which outline the 1 65/35 requirement and describe the basic guidelines for measuring compliance with standard. From Section 4 of the ordinance. B. 65/35 Land Preservation Plan The policies contained in this chapter shall be reflected in the New General Plan,as ultimately adopted by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State Planning Law. 1. 65/35 Land Preservation Standard Urban development in the County shall be limited to no more than 35% of the land in the County. At least 65% of all land in the County shall be preserved for agriculture,open space,wetlands, parks and other non-urban uses. 2. Changes to the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan No change shall be made in the New General Pian after its adoption that would result in greater than 35% of the land in the County being permitted for urban development. This limitation shall not prevent any increase in agriculture,open space, parks,wetlands or other non-urban uses to greater than 65%of the land in the County. Also from Section 4 of the ordinance: P. Definitions 1. As used in this chapter,the phrase"land within the County"shall mean all of the acreage within the boundaries of Contra Costa County except the water area of the County west of Stake Point. 2. As used in this chapter, the term "non-urban uses" shall mean rural residential and agricultural structures allowed by applicable zoning and facilities for public purposes, whether privately or publicly funded or operated,which are necessary or desirable for the public health, safety or welfare or by state or federal law. 2) General Approach Chosen to Complete the Inventory As is clear from reading the above excerpts, the 65/35 ordinance provides a standard to be met, it does not specify the precise methodology by which this measurement should occur. Staff considered a range of alternative approaches for completing the analysis and evaluated them based on a several of factors, including accuracy,repeatability, consistency with the ordinance requirements, amount of work required, and ability to relate the measurement to an enforcement mechanism(see section 5 for a detailed discussion of the alternatives considered). The approach chosen was to rely on city and County General Plans for information on the extent and 2 Table 1: Summary Results of 65/35 Land Preservation Standard Inventory for June 2000 Area of the County': 481,430 acres Area outside the Urban Limit Line (ULL)2 265,240 acres 55.1010 of County Total area of non-urban uses inside the ULL: 69,870 acres 14.5 % of County Total area of non-urban uses in County: 335,110 acres 69.6% of County Total area of urban uses In County: 146,320 acres 30.4% of County Breakdown of non-urban uses Inside the ULL: Category of non-urban use Acres Percentage of County Area Park& Recreation areas inside the ULL 11,890 2.5% Dedicated/restricted open space inside the ULL 12,820 2.7% General Plan Open Space inside the ULL 7,420 1.5% Water inside the ULL 990 0.2% A ncultural Land inside the ULL 22,310 4.6% Canals &flood control channels inside the ULL 1,760 0.37% Airports inside the ULL(excluding areas under 830 0.17% conservation easement) Major Sanitary District Properties inside the ULL 440 0.09% Cemeteries inside the ULL 160 0.033% School & college facilities inside the ULL 3,110 0.65% Public watershed lands inside the ULL 1000 0.21% Landfill inside the ULL (includes Keller areas not 1,940 0.40% under conservation easement&Acme) Off-Island Bonus Area inside ULL, not including 320 1,540 0.40% acres approved for urban in Cypress Lakes delta Recreation inside the ULL 2,470 0.51% Industrial buffer inside the ULL 790 0.16% Total non-urban Inside the ULL 1 89,870 14.5% Breakdown of Public/Semi-Pu bile uses inside the ULL which were cat" orized as urban: -Freeways & Highways inside the ULL 4,660 0.97% Railroad inside the ULL 1,510 0.31% BART inside the ULL 300 0.062% Other urban-type public/semi-public facilities inside 3,290 0.68% the ULL (government offices, community centers, hospitals, public corporation_yards, etc.) Total urban Public/Semi-Public inside ULL 9,MF 2.0°l0 i Excluding water areas rarest of Stake Point--see text for explanation. z .Excluding 3 small areas of pre-existing"urban"use outside ULL--see text for explanation. location of urban and non-urban uses,but to augment this plan information with up-to-date,parcel- specific information on public parks, dedicated open space, and other public and semi-public uses. General Plan designations from city General Plans were converted to the closest equivalent designations from the County General Plan, and this converted information from the city plans was used to map non-urban uses in all incorporated areas over a parcel base. The County General Plan was used to map non-urban uses in the unincorporated areas over the same parcel base. Detailed information on current, actual locations of parks,open space,and other public lands--often missing from General Plan maps which tend to omit some fine details and are updated over a relatively long time scale--was used to fill in information gaps and override General Plan data. It should be noted that this approach classifies areas planned for development as urban even if that development has yet to take place. Some reasons staff selected the above-described approach are. • General Plans are the best available surrogate for actual land use in already developed areas; • Relating the 65/35 inventory to General Plan policy provides a clear and direct link to strategies for enforcing compliance with the standard; • By measuring planned or allowable uses rather than only actual uses,we consider a"worst case" scenario and assure that the inventory reflects approved policy; • Collecting parcel-specific information on parks, open space, and other public lands can account for the lack of detail in some General Plans and assure that such areas, which have essentially no chance of being converted to an urban use despite their land use designation, are counted as non-urban. 3) Steps in the Inventory Process Step 1--Digitizing the Urban Limit Line: Since lands outside the ULL are virtually all non-urban, staff chose to begin the inventory by mapping the urban limit line in a computer over the parcel base. This way, areas outside the ULL could be omitted from subsequent inventory steps. There are,however,three small areas within the County which have urban-type designations but are located outside the ULL. In each case, the land use existed well in advance of the ULL. ULL "islands"were not created around these areas so that requests for intensification of use in these areas would trigger a ULL review. These areas are: • An industrial facility with a Light Industrial land use designation on Bollinger Canyon Road(24 acres); • A residential area along the northern segment of Morgan Territory Road which is designated Single Family Residential Very Low Density on the General Plan (185 acres). • Residential land east of Byron which is designated Single Family Residential Very Low Density (27 acres). For the purposes of the 65/35 inventory,these areas were classified as urban and subtracted from the area outside the ULL. 3 Step 2, Mapping and Digitizing Non-Urban Land Use Designations from Current City and County General Plans: As summarized above, updated General Plan information from the cities was translated into County terminology,mapped over a parcel base, and entered into the computer. City General Plan information was used only for incorporated areas, not for areas within a city's sphere of influence as such areas are within the County's jurisdiction until such time as they are annexed. The current County General Plan was used for all unincorporated areas and was mapped and digitized by the same method used for the cities. The first task in this process was the creation of a consistent city and County General Plan map. This had been done before during the 1986-1987 comprehensive Countywide General Plan program and for the 1990 County General Plan. Since that time, most of the cities within the County have updated or substantially modified their general plans. To make use of this general plan approach it became necessary to collect the revised city General Plan information. As a general rule,these city General Plan revisions have added more detailed and site specific information and are more consistent with the level of detail found in the County General Plan for the unincorporated area. The same approach to translating city general plans to that of the County was utilized for the 1986-7 effort as for this update. The city General Plan categories were translated to the nearest County equivalent category. Conversions were guided more by the uses allowed under specific designations than by the actual names applied to designations. For example, some areas designated as "Open Space"in some city General Plans were translated to "Agricultural Lands"because the allowable uses more closely resembled that County designation. Also, in a few instances, city General Plans designate areas within their jurisdiction as areas for future development,but don't specify the actual location or mix of future uses, some of which could be non-urban. Where possible, more specific plans were collected from the cities for these areas and used for the analysis. This was done for the two largest examples of this scenario, Antioch's Future Urbanization Areas 1 and 2. Distinguishing urban from non-urban lana' use designations: The 65/35 ordinance provides relatively clear guidance on how such distinctions should be drawn (see excerpts above). The County General Plan also provides guidance in this excerpt from the Land Use Element: PUBLIC, SEMI-PUBLIC, LANDFILL AND OPEN SPACE USES A total of eight land use designations have been defined for these uses. These include open space,agricultural and recreational uses,as well as public/semi-public uses such as schools, public offices; highways and major flood control rights-of-way; and railroads. These use designations generally comprise non-urban uses under the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. Based on these adopted policies, staff categorized each land use designation as either urban or non- urban for purposes of the 65/35 analysis. These classifications are presented in Table 2. Some of the less straight-forward classifications are explained below. Public and semi-public designations were classified differently depending on the actual use. These categorizations are explained in Step 3 where the parcel-specific inventory process is described. Off-Island Bonus Density Area: The Off-Island Bonus Density Area is a County General Plan designation for a large area south of Bethel Island(adjacent to Sandmound Slough). The 4 Table 2: Classification of General Plan Land Use Designations According to requirements of Measure C (1990), the 65135 Land Preservation Plan ABBREVIATION LAND USE DESIGNATION CLASSIFICATION FOR ON LAND USE PURPOSES OF 65135 MAP INVENTORY Single-Family Residential SV Very Low urban SL Low urban SM Medium urban SH High urban Multiple-Family Residential ML Low urban MM Medium urban MH High urban MV Very High urban M5 Very High-Special urban CC Congregate Care-Senior Housing urban MO Mobile Home urban Commercial/Industrial RC Regional Commercial urban CO Commercial urban ACC Airport Commercial urban OF Office urban BI' Business Park urban Ll Light industry urban HI Heavy Industry urban CR Commercial Recreation urban M1, etc. Mixed Use (M1, M2, M3, etc.) urban LC Local Commercial urban MC Marina Commercial urban * classification explained in staff report Table 2 (continued) Other PS Public and Semi-Public mixed* LF Landfill non-urban* PA Off-Island Bonus Area non-urban* Open Space PR Parks and Recreation non-urban OS Open Space non-urban AL Agricultural Lands non-urban AC Agricultural Care non-urban DR Delta Recreation non-urban WA Water non-urban WS Watershed non-urban * classification explained in staff report underlying General Plan designation for this area is Agricultural Lands,but it has an overlay which allows density increases if certain criteria are met. Within the overlay area, covering approximately one-quarter of the bonus areas, a 686-acre project called Cypress Lakes,was approved by the Board of Supervisors but has not yet been built. Approximately 320 acres will be for homes, with the remainder being set aside for a golf course, parks, levees, and public and semi-public uses. The levee requirements from the Federal Emergency Management Agency may make development in this area extremely expensive, if not prohibitively so. For this reason, and because the base Agricultural Lands designation perhaps best defines future uses in this area for the foreseeable future,the Off Island Bonus Area was categorized and tabulated as non-urban, with the exception of the urban portion (320 acres) of the Cypress Lakes project. Landfill: The definition of non-urban uses provided in the above excerpts from the 65/35 ordinance and the General Plan,as well as the description of the Landfill designation on page 3-38 of the General Plan which indicates that Landfill should be considered non-under Measure C(1990),make clear that lands with this designation are to be considered non-urban in the 65/35 inventory. For purposes of the 65/35 inventory,the nearly-closed Acme landfill and the closed IT waste facility near Martinez were classified as Landfill. They were created before the County General Plan had a landfill category and are actually designated as Leavy Industrial. The West County Landfill has an open space General Plan designation and was counted that way. Step 3—Mapping and Digitizing Parcel-Specific Information on Parks,Open Space, and other Public Lands: To add detail to the General Plan-based inventory, and to account for actual non- urban uses which might be missed if relying solely on the General Plan, current information on parks, dedicated open space, and other public/semi-public land uses was gathered and mapped on a parcel-specific basis. This parcel-specific precising is summarized below: Updating of Public Park and Watershed Land Acquisitions: County staff initiated a program of gathering land acquisition information from the major parr and watershed management agencies which serve the County, e.g. EBRPD, EBMC.TDD and CCWD. While most of these acquisitions occurred outside the ULL, there was a substantial amount of parkland acquisition within the ULL. Other public agencies have also acquired substantial acreages, e.g. the Ironhouse Sanitary Districts acquisition of lands for treated water disposal on Jersey Island(though this example is outside the ULL). County and city parks were also included in the inventory. This information was mapped on County parcel base maps, digitized, and reflected in the analysis even when in conflict with General Plan'designations. Inventory of Deed Restricted and/or Dedicated Open Space areas: County staff cooperated with other agencies in trying to identify areas which had permanent restrictions limiting development either through actual easements, deeds of development rights, or restrictions imposed as part of final subdivision maps. Project specific development decisions quite commonly restrict development within areas which may be shown for development on an adopted general plan(it is common for cities and the County to designate these areas as open space on their general plans after the fact;but this may not occur until many years later). The 5 inventory included lands where deeded development rights have been granted to the County, a city,EBRPD or private conservation organizations as well as lands restricted by notations on the final subdivision maps. Areas where wildlife easements have been granted to State or Federal regulatory or administrative agencies are also included. Very small open space areas, roughly 5 acres or less, were omitted. Likewise, open space areas which run through condominium and townhouse developments were mapped but omitted from the analysis even though such areas may have a relative significant total area. The reason for this was that such areas usually take the shape of very narrow ribbons of land and are perhaps more akin to yards than community open space. In addition to these intentional omissions, there are, no doubt, additional areas of restricted open space lands which were not identified in this effort but would have been suitable for the analysis had they been found. However,the dedicated open space which was captured by the inventory was substantial (almost 13,000 acres) and likely represents the vast majority of all such dedications. Inventory of Public and Semi-Public Lands and Categorization of these Lands as Urban and Non'Urban: As with the other parcel-specific inventories,public facilities and private lands serving public purposes (these are referred to as "semi-public" in the General Plan and include facilities like private schools,hospitals,cemeteries, etc.)were inventoried, mapped on the parcel base, and entered in the computer. However, unlike parrs and open space, not all public and semi-public uses are intuitively non-urban. For instance, freeways and government office buildings can only be contemplated as non-urban uses because of the specific definition of"non-urban"provided in the 65/35 ordinance (... "and facilities for public purposes,whether privately or publicly funded or operated,which are necessary or desirable for the public health, safety or welfare or by state or federal law'). By any other standard, freeways and office buildings are clearly urban features. Faced with this incongruity, County staff elected to categorize public and semi-public uses differently depending on the type of use. Two considerations drove this decision, as well as the decisions on how particular uses should be categorized: 1) The 65/35 ordinance does not indicate that all public facilities should be considered non-urban, only those"necessary or desirable for the public health, safety, or welfare..."(likewise,the General Plan states that Public/Semi-Public and other related land use designations"...generally comprise non-urban uses..." (emphasis added)). 2) The 65/35 inventory should reflect a reasonable, common sense interpretation of what types of uses are urban and what types are non-urban. Based on these criteria, the following public and semi-public uses inside the ULL were categorized as non-urban for purposes of the 65/35 inventory: Schools and colleges 6 • Landfills • Major sanitation facilities (most such properties contain significant wetland and undisturbed areas) • Cemeteries • Canals and flood control channels The following Public and Semi-Public uses inside the ULL were categorized as urban for purposes of the 65/35 inventory: • Freeways and highways • Railroads • BART property • Other miscellaneous public and semi-public uses (government offices, community centers,public corporation yards,hospitals,etc.---separately mapping and tabulating each of these additional uses was beyond the scope and timeline of this inventory effort) Inventory of Industrial Buffers: The final parcel-specific precising of the 55/35 inventory related to the concept of industrial buffers—areas adjacent to industrial complexes which are acquired and maintained primarily as a buffer to avoid potential future land use conflicts. Traditionally, industrial property owners have had their entire land holdings designated for industrial uses unless the land was constrained by, for example, wetlands, which might be designated for an open space category. Such plan limitations are more the exception than the rule. A consequence is that more land is generally designated industrial than is actually used and the amount of open lands within this designation is often very high. In recognition of these factors and of the fact that the use of industrial land-use categories may not reflect non-urban uses,it was decided that several industrially designated large areas would receive the additional categorization of"Industrial Buffer" to reflect their open-space character. It was decided to only do this for the areas covered by the County General Plan where County staff had more information available than for other city areas, e.g. the Chevron refinery in Richmond. In city areas, the city plan categories were used. The areas which received such treatment were: • Tosco lands east of I-80 which are almost totally undeveloped. This includes 358 acres. • Tosco lands north of the Highway 4 freeway expansion project. Some of this area will likely have conservation easements placed on it to protect special-status species as a condition of the freeway project. The rest of this area has not been proposed for any industrial use to date. This covers 121 acres. • Shell Oil lands within the unincorporated area which are wetlands. This area is adjacent to Carquinez Strait. Regional, state, and federal regulatory agencies aggressively protect the wetland resources in this area. The wetlands area 7 identified in the "Atlas of Tidal and Formerly Tidal Wetlands in Contra Costa County, California" have been designated as industrial buffer and include 50 acres. • The large buffer zone around the DuPont chemical plant in the Oakley area is the final case. The northern part of the buffer is wetlands or potentially reclaimable wetlands and there is a large area of previously Dupont-owned land that was sold to Oxfoot Associates for agricultural use,much of which is in vineyard use. The land is restricted to agricultural use by contract. These areas including 258 acres are included as industrial buffer. Step 4—Tabulation Methodology: Once the ULL,the non-urban General Plan designations, and the parcel-specific inventory of parks and other non-urban features had been mapped and entered in the computer, the GIS software was used to query the data and measure areas. After measuring the area of the County(excluding the water areas of the County west of Stake Point near the community of Bay Point, as specified by the 65/35 Ordinance) and the area outside the ULL, areas of the various non-urban data layers inside the Urban Limit Line were measured. The total area of these non urban uses inside the ULL plus the area outside the ULL divided by the County area provide the percentage measurement presrcibed by the 65 5/3 5 ordinance. These figures are presented in Table 1. Because the 65/35 inventory process was conducted with an eye toward developing a GIS database on land use and public ownership, data was mapped in layers and areas of overlap were ignored during the mapping phase. For example, the Keller landfill area is mapped in its entirety as a Landfill designation even though the ULL bisects it and there is also a conservation easement over the eastern area. When the acreage measurements were performed, staff accounted for the overlap issue by prioritizing the data levels and ensuring that only the highest priority data level in an area of overlap was counted. The ULL had the highest priority, followed by the parcel specific data, and finally the General Plan data. In the case of the Keller Landfill, the portion outside the ULL was measured as area outside the ULL. The portion with an easement was measured as dedicated open space. The remainder was tabulated as Landfill. 4) Discussion of Results A few basic points should be made here regarding the interpretation of the inventory results. • The computer measures areas very accurately,but staff s ability to map every feature we intend to map is not as reliable (though substantial work went in to proofreading and making the inventory as accurate as possible). The acreage figures should be viewed with a certain degree of uncertainty. • The inventory method records planned development as urban even if the development has yet to occur,and, conceivably,may never occur. This was done to make the inventory conservative and predictive. 8 « Comparing this inventory with the one conducted in 1990 is not straightforward as the new computer technology enabled staff to use a different, more detailed method. This method identified more non-urban land within the ULL than was identified in 1990, though most of those uses probably existed in 1990. 5) Overview of Alternative Inventory Approaches Which Were Considered As mentioned previously, the 65/35 ordinance sets a standard but does not prescribe a specific method for measuring compliance with this standard. To provide further context on why staff chose the method it did,we have included below a description of some of the alternative approaches which were considered. The ultimate method used was a combination of 3 &4. 1)Build on 1990 inventory by documenting land use changes which have occurred since that time: The General Plan contains information on the outcomes of the land inventory conducted at the time the General Plan was approved in 1990. Rather than re-inventory the entire County, one approach for updating these percentages would be to research all land use or General Plan changes since 1990 and adjust figures accordingly. The attractiveness of this approach is that it builds on what was done before and might require less wont.. However, it is unclear how much effort would be involved in researching land use changes throughout the County since 1990 and calculating the areas of converted land (it would also be difficult to ensure we had completely documented all such changes). Likewise, with our new computer mapping tools, we could conduct a more detailed inventory now than then and provide clearer documentation of how the inventory was conducted. These potential problems would persist if we needed to update the inventory again in several years. 2) Conduct inventory using a method of calculated estimation: The 65/35 land inventory could be efficiently conducted by estimating the extent of urban and non-urban uses in certain difficult-to- measure areas of the County. For instance, rather than measuring the area of each small park,ball field,golf course, and open space area within a city,we could rely on ABAG statistics concerning the typical percentages of lands within a city dedicated to parks and open space. Alternatively,we could perform detailed measurements for one city in the County which we believe to be prototypical, and use these figures to make estimates for other cities. The County General Plan could be used as the basis for inventorying areas of the County that are relatively easier to measure or not suitable for estimation. The primary advantage of this approach is that it could require substantially less time than other methods. It may also be repeatable and verifiable,depending upon how clearly we define estimation procedures and the types of areas which should be included in the estimation process. Finally,one might be able to make the case that this less rigid approach is appropriate considering that the overall 65/35 analysis is very difficult and any approach will have significant uncertainty. However, one could also matte the opposite case that,just because the ordinance doesn't specify how the 65/35 inventory is to be conducted, it is nonetheless important to make a precise measurement. The 9 primary disadvantage of the estimation approach is that it cannot provide such a precise inventory. It might be difficult to develop a 65/35 enforcement process around an estimated inventory when other, more precise, inventory methods exist. 3)Base inventory on city and county general plan land use designations: This approach would involve categorizing each type of city and county land use designation as an urban or non-urban use. In instances where a land use designation cannot be universally classified as urban or non-urban, the determination may be made on a case by case basis. To add greater detail to the method and to make it current, cases where current land use differs from the land use designation could be documented and factored into the inventory. For instance, land with an urban-type land use designation that has yet to be developed could be considered as non-urban rather than urban. Closely linking the inventory to general plans has several advantages. First, general plans present the best available geographical interpretation of actual land uses(not only allowable land uses), and it makes sense to use these designations as a surrogate for measuring land use on the ground. Second, this method is verifiable and could be accurately replicated in several years (should an updated inventory be necessary) as the procedure could be quite precisely defined. Third,general plans are cities' and the county's primary tool for regulating land use and development, so relating the 65/35 preservation standard to general plans implicitly suggests a mechanism for enforcing the standard (i.e., requiring a finding of compliance with the 65/35 standard before approving an amendment to the County's General Plan--though this enforcement mechanism doesn't address the actions of the cities). Fourth,by measuring permitted uses rather than actual land uses even in those areas where anticipated development has not yet occurred, we can assure that the 65/35 inventory reflects approved policy. By adopting such a conservative approach, compliance with the 65/35 standard could managed at the Advanced Planning level rather than at the Current Planning level. When consistent with the General Plan,minor-subdivisions, land use permits, and building permits could be issued without making a finding of compliance with the 65/35 standard. Should a more detailed inventory be desired to account for areas with an urban-type land use designation that are currently being used in a non-urban manner,refinements should focus on projects which have yet to receive full entitlements in the development review process. The disadvantages of relying on general plans include the following: actual land use may not be consistent with general plans in some instances; the general plans may present an oversimplified picture of land use (e.g., areas designated for heavy industrial use, for instance, may include substantial open space buffers, etc.); and this approach may not entirely match the process used in 1990. 4) Conduct inventory on a parcel-by-parcel basis: The 65/35 land inventory could be conducted on parcel-specific basis by designating each parcel in the County as either urban or non-urban. The Public Works Department parcel database or the Land Use Information System could be employed to determine which parcels are urban and which are non-urban, based on present use as well as zoning and General Plan land use designations. Some parcels might require more than one designation(i.e., and industrial facility with a large buffer). The advantages of this approach are: a)depending upon how it was conducted,this approach could be considered a precising of the General Plan methodology(0),b)it is repeatable, and c)the focus on parcels might help relate the inventory to actual uses on the ground and make the inventory 10 current rather than a forecast, should this be desired . The primary disadvantage of this approach is that it would be labor-intensive and might provide unnecessary detail. Also, if the parcel-based inventory was based on current use, it might be difficult to integrate the inventory with the development review process (i.e. Current Planning participation would likely be required in any 65/35 compliance program to ensure that development applications on parcels already designated for an urban use do not violate the 65/35 standard). 5) Interpret a satellite photo of the County: This approach would involve development of protocols for distinguishing urban from non-urban land in a satellite photo. For instance, such protocols might define non-urban areas as those with densities below 1 structure per 5 acres, and could also define as non-urban those patches of undeveloped land within developed areas that are larger than 1 acre, etc. This approach would provide a very direct measurement of urban and non- urban land. however, the measurement would not be tied to any land use regulations. Likewise, it is possible that discriminating between urban and non-urban land in a satellite photo could be difficult in some instances, especially since the 65/35 ordinance considers certain public facilities to be non-urban. Should an additional inventory be needed several years from now,it would be hard to assure that this somewhat subjective method would be employed in exactly the same manner as before. Stay',from the Public Works Department provided substantial assistance with the computer mapping and area calculations, Their contributions are appreciated. it EXHIBIT "S" TEXT OF MEASURE C-1990 ORDINANCE 57 1. Introduction MEASURE C-19" THE 65135 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LAND PRESERVATION PLAN TEXT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE The People of the County of Contra Costa hereby ordain as follows: Section 1 TAJO This ordinance shall be entitled the"65135 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan." Section 2 Summary Through this ordinance the people approve the policies contained in the 65135 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan and direct the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to reflect those policies in the new general plan(the"New General Plan") for the County. These"65/35 Land Preservation Plan"policies.are intended to: o Restrict urban development to 35% of the land in the County and preserve 65% of the land in the County for agriculture,open space,wetlands,parks and other non-urban uses; Prohibit any changes to the 65135 Land Preservation Plan standard except by a vote of the people; Create an Urban Limit Line to identify the outer boundaries of urban development in the County; o Protect and promote the economic viability of agricultural land by appropriate standards and policies,including a policy that increases the minimum parcel size for prime productive agricultural land outside the Urban Limit Line to 40 acres; o Protect open hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County from development by zoning and other measures; a Manage growth in the County by allowing new development only when infrastructure and service standards are met; o Advise the Local Agency Formation Commission to honor the County's 65/35 Land Preservation standard,Urban Limit Line and growth management standards in annexation and incorporation decisions; Promote cooperation between the County and cities to preserve agricultural and open space land,wetlands and parks, by requiring the County to pursue preservation agreements with cities where feasible;and o Safeguard the County's obligation to provide its fair share of safe,decent and affordable housing. Section 3 Statement of Findings An Policy The voters of Contra Costa County approve the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan based on the following facts and considerations: A. Contra Costa County(the"County")is nearing completion of a major revision of its general plan. The New General Plan will represent a comprehensive,balanced approach for accommodating the diverse variety of needs and interests of the people of the County. To maximize public participation in preparing the New General Plan,the County has held thousands of hours of public meetings and received extensive written comments on the New General Plan. Allsegments of Contra Costa County society have participated, including ranchers,developers, farmers,environmentalists,labor groups,cities, special districts,business and industrial associations. The proposed New General Plan expresses the variety of concems and hopes stated in this public process. The proposed New General Plan consists of over 400 pages and represents years of research and analysis by the staff of the County Community Development Department and outside consultants. In addition,in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"),the County has prepared and circulated for public review a draft environmental impact report("E1R")to assess the environmental impacts of the New General Plan. The draft EIR, comments and responses to comments have been circulated to agencies and individuals and readily available at County offices, libraries and other public places. B. During this process of preparing the New General Plan,the voters expressed a number of concerns related to future planning and development of the County. The most important of those concerns were: (1) Growing urbanization of the County is threatening the long terra viability of the County's agricultural and open space land,parks,wetlands,hillsides and ridgelines. Preservation and buffering of agricultural land is critical to maintaining a healthy and competitive agricultural economy and assuring a balance in land uses in the I-32 Excerpted from the 1996 CCC General Plea r 1. Introduction County. Moreover,preservation and conservation of open space,wetlands,parks,hillsides and ridgelines is imperative to ensure the continued availability of unique habitats for wildlife and plants,to protect the unique scenery in the County and to provide a wide range of recreational opportunities for County residents. (2) Growth is a natural and proper part of the life of the community. However, growth should be managed responsibly to preserve the quality of life for current and future generations. New development should be guided into appropriate locations,and should be allowed only after appropriate infrastructure(transportation, schools,water, fire and police protection)can be assured. (3) There is a critical need to make decent,safe and affordable housing available to all Contra Costa County residents. Bair housing opportunities should prevail for all economic segments of the County,and housing should be available in treasonable proximity to employment centers. In addition,the County's land use policies should not restrict growth so severely that they preclude these affordable housing opportunities. C. The 65135 Land Preservation Plan implemented in Section 4 is intended to address these concems of the voters. The 65/35 Land Preservation Plan is intended to carry out the voters'desire to both preserve agriculture and open space land,parks,wetlands,hillsides and ridgelines,manage growth to protect the quality of life,and provide for the County's fair share of decent,safe and affordable housing. D. It is appropriate and reasonable to present to the voters for their approval the key policies that would guide the County's future under the New General Plan, as those policies are set forth in the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan. With the guidance and confirmation the voters can provide through approval of the 65135 Land Preservation Plan,the County can complete the environmental review and detailed documentation necessary for implementing these principles. E. The approval of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan by the voters is not intended to be an amendment of the County's existing general plan. Rather,the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan,if approved by the voters,is intended to be reflected in the County's New General Plan and will thereby become the official policy of the County with respect to the preservation of open space and agricultural lands and the protection of valuable environmental resources such as wildlife,wetlands,hillsides and ridgelines. Section 4 ImIlIgMentation of 65135 Land Pr servation Plan To implement the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan,the following chapter is hereby added to the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code as Chapter 82-1 and numbered appropriately: A. New Gg eral Pkn The County shall adopt a new general plan by December 31, 1490(the"New General Plan"). B. /35 Land. Pr scrvation Plan The policies contained in this chapter shall be reflected in the New General Plan,as ultimately adopted by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State Planning Law_ (1) 65/35 L&nd Preservation Standard Urban development in the County shall be limited to no more than 35%of the land in the County. At least 65% of all land in the County shall be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks and other non-urban uses. (2) Changes thr,61135 end Prese ation plan No change shall be made in the Now General Plan after its adoption that would result in greater than 35% of the land in the County being permitted for urban development. This limitation shall not prevent any increase in agriculture, open space, parks,wetlands or other nonurban uses to greater than 65% of the land in the County. (3) Urban Limit Lime To ensure the enforcement of the 65/35 standard set forth in (B)(1) above,an Urban Limit Line shall be established, in approximately the location depicted on the illustrative 65/35 Contra Costa County Land 1-33 1. Introduction Preservation Plan Map attached as Exhibit A.The Urban Limit Line shall be incorporated into the County's Open Spade Conservation flan. The Urban Limit Line shall limit potential urban development in the County to 35%of the land in the County and shall prohibit the County from designating any land located outside the Urban Limit Line for an urban land use. The criteria and factors for determining whether land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line should include(a)land which qualifies for rating as Class I and Class B in the soil Conservation Service Land use Capability Classification,(b)open space,parks and other recreation areas,(c)lands with slopes in excess of 26 percent, (d)wetlands,and(e)other areas not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development, unstable geological conditions, inadequate water availability, the lack of appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing development,likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat,and other similar factors. (4) Qrowth Managament In accordance with the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program adopted on August 3,1488,the County shall manage growth by allowing new development only when infrastructure and service standards are met for traffic levels of service, water, sanitary sewer, fire protection, public protection,parks and recreation,flood control and drainage and other such services. Land located inside the Urban Limit Line may be considered for changes in designated land uses, subject to County growth management policies and any other applicable requirements. Location of land within the Urban Limit Line shall provide no guarantee that the nand may be developed. If land is developed within the Urban Limit Line, a substantial portion of this land shall be retained for open space,parks and recreational uses. (5) Aeric!1 1 rat t Prounion PoliciaMinimum Parc 1 Sizes The County shall establish standards and policies designed to protect the economic viability of agricultural land. These standards and policies shall include a minimum parcel size for prime productive agricultural land located outside the Urban Limit Line to 40 acres. These standards and policies may also include,but shall not necessarily be limited to,preservation agreements,conservation easements,clustering,establishment of an agricultural soils trust fund,and agricultural mitigation fees. (6) Hillside Protection Development on open hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County shall be restricted, and hillsides with a grade of 26%or greater,shall be protected through implementing zoning measures and other appropriate actions. (/) Chanees IQ the Urban imit Lin There shall be no change to the Urban Limit Line that violates the 65/35 standard set forth in B(I)above. After adoption of the New General Plan,as long as there is no violation of the 65/35 standard,the Urban Limit Line can be changed by a 4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors after holding a public hearing and making one or more of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: (a) a natural or man-made disaster or public emergency has occurred which warrants the provision of housing and/or other community needs within land located outside the Urban Limit Line, (b) an objective study has determined that the Urban Limit Line is preventing the County from providing its fair share of affordable housing,or regional housing,as required by state law,and the Board of Supervisors fords that a change to the Urban Limit Line is necessary and the only feasible means to enable the County to meet these requirements of state law; (c) a majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the County have approval a change to the Urban Limit Line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement; (d) a minor change to the Urban Limit Line will more accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal boundaries; (c) a five(5)year periodic review of the Urban Limit Line has determined,based on the criteria and factors for establishing the Urban Limit Line set forth in B(3) above, that new information is 1-34 1. Introduction available(from city or County growth management studies or otherwise)or circumstances have occurred,that warrant a change to the Urban Limit Line; {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(1)mitigate adverse aviation related environtrrental or community impacts attributable to Buchanan field,or(ii) further the County's aviation related needs;or (g) a change is required to conform to applicable California or federal law. Any such change shall be subject to referendum as provided by law. Changes to the Urban Limit Line under any other circumstances shall require a vote of the people. (8) Annexations and Inco=ratins The Local Agency formation Commission ("LAFCQ") shall be advised to (a) respect and support the County's 65/35 Preservation Standard,Urban Limit Line and growth management standards when considering requests for incorporation or annexation to cities or service districts, (b)apply the stricter of the growth management standards of either the County the incorporating city or the annexing city or service district,when considering requests for incorporation or annexations of land to cities or service districts,and(c) require unincorporated land located within the Urban Limit Line that is included in the incorporation of a new city or annexed to a city to provide a fair share of affordable housing when and if such land is developed. (9) Housing As required by the State Planning Act,the County shall periodically review and update the New General Plan to conform to state housing requirements and to ensure its capacity to accommodate a variety of housing types and prices throughout the County. In accordance with the provisions of B(7)above,the Board of Supervisors may make findings of necessity that the Urban Limit Line should be changed to allow the County to meet its fair share of affordable housing and other state housing requirements. (10) Coops ion with Cities To the extent feasible,the County shall enter into preservation agreements-with cities in the County designed to preserve certain land in the County for agriculture and open space,wetlands or parks. C. Application to Proir&c s Prior to_Ad_option of!'+dew General Plan From the effective date of this chapter to adoption of the New General Plan,prior to issuing a permit for any project or adopting any legislation which requires an initial study under the California Environmental Quality Act,and prior to issuing a permit for any demolition,conversion,or change or use,and prior to taking any action which requires a funding of consistency with the general plan,the County shall adopt fundings as to whether or not the proposed project or legislation is consistent with the policies established above. D. Dumlion The provisions of this chapter shall be in effect until December 31,2010,to the extent permitted by law. E. No Vitola#ion of sry by this Ordinance (1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed or interpreted in such a manner as to operate to deprive any landowner of substantially all of the market value of his/her property or otherwise constitute an unconstitutional taking without compensation. If application of any of the provisions of this chapter to any specific project or landowner would create an unconstitutional taking, then the Board of Supervisors may allow additional land uses, otherwise adjust permit requirements or take such other actions to the extent necessary to avoid what otherwise might be construed to be a taking. Any such additional land uses or other adjustments shall be designed to carry out the goals and provisions of this section to the maximum extent feasible. (2) Nothing contained in this chapter shall constitute an amendment of the existing general plan. Upon approval of this chapter by the voters,the County shall take all necessary and appropriate steps to reflect the policies of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan in the New General Plan for the County,consistent with the requirements 1-35 1. Introduction of CEQA and the State Planning Law. Nothing contained herein shall prevent the County from complying with applicable requirements of state law relating to the adoption and amendment of general plans. F. 12dwitions (1) As used in this chapter, the phrase "land within the County" shall mean all of the acreage within the boundaries of Contra Costa County except the water area of the County west of Stake Point. (2) As used in this chapter,the term "non-urban uses" shall mean rural residential and agricultural structures allowed by applicable zoning and facilities for public purposes, whether privately or publicly funded or operated,which arc necessary or desirable for the public health,safety or welfare or by state or federal law. Section 5 Amendment and Reneal This ordinance may be amended or repealed only by a vote of the people,except as expressly provided herein. Section 6 ConfligUwiith QtbOr.MCAsurcs The following provisions shall apply in the event that the voters approve any other initiative or referendum related to the County's general plan contemporaneously with approval of this ordinance: (1) In the event that the voters approve any other initiative or referendum related to the County's general plan,or zoning, planning or land use regulations within the County contemporaneously with approval of this ordinance and this ordinance receives a higher number of votes than such other initiative or referendum,the provisions of this ordinance shall supersede and are hereby deemed to be inconsistent with the provisions of such other initiative or referendum,and no provision of such other initiative or referendum shall be implemented. This provision shall apply regardless of whether all or any part of this ordinance is invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction. (2) In the event that the voters approve any other initiative or referendum related to the County's general plan contemporaneously with the approval of this ordinance, and such other initiative or'referendum receives a higher number of votes than this ordinance,the provisions of this ordinance shall nevertheless be implemented to the maximum extent legally feasible. Section 7 SSaycra,bilit If any portion of this ordinance is hereafter determined to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,all remaining portions of this ordinance shall remain in full1or+ce and effect. Each section,subsection,sentence,phrase,part or portion of this ordinance would have been adopted and passed regardless of whether-any one or more sections,subsections,sentences,phrases, parts or portions was declared invalid or unconstituti6nal. 1. State of California Office of Planning and Research, Gcnerai Paan'Guidelines, Sacramento, June 1987, pages 14-18 (paraphrased). 2. Ibid.,page 17. I-36 ATTACHMENT 3 Memo to Dennis Barry from Supervisor DeSaulnier, dated July 14, 2000 and Preliminary 'Tabulations from the Countywide Vacant and Underutilized Land Inventory .A--14-2000 17:10 HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 925 646 5767 P.02/02 2425 Sisso Lane,Suite t 10 Contra Costa County Concord,California 94520-4817 Board of Supervisors (925)646-5763 (925)646-5767(FAX) diet4ney hne rn rn"h-A.1nata ra 11 Mark DeSaulriler Supervisor, District N ' Clayton,Clyde,Concord,Pacheco,Pleasant Hill Memo To: Dennis Barry,Director of Community Development From: Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Date: July 14,2000 I would like to request that you provide for our Urban Limit Line Public Hearings any available information you can provide relative to vacant and underutilized land parcels, tabulated by sub regions and county totals. As always I am grateful for your assistnee. TOTAL P.02 s m n m p 0 N 0 M rcc— ro z y, -k r z ro N :z z Ij b 0 Mm a 3 b w0 CL $CA z a r ® O z T zv > (1) v 0 -< v 13 rn r m b N W C OD 00 Nco a gr�v ccn y � co > m m z m z m2m Q, cr, n7 w m y z -P, N) 0) (fit Cb(h Q M °y A CJ t 00 ZA -A6 -4 U t m y m z v m m ,, r n r 0) o o CD « 0 � d m > Cl) h _ m E j rn� m g -A I- 0 rn 0 0, C., -A -o 7r C; "all lop :3 OA o cu o T;1 t9 w a KO G �.G 4 G N► p ok ' cr . (RD La �N cs c5 rr OR C� Z rn LO r� � to o C7 c. O o„ C to �' t- Cy . ' N 'Ca G O 0 ZOO 0 10 �•G 00 .� ;;A nZ r o A �3 N +C7 z al TOO a �` bCD C a CL Cy N s. `3 b rJ y Iz 0K0 rg -:gm 0 C- -i TOO a) d $ a to Z 0 CD 0 0 '"' N a- CD X CL O Z tp < C Z w r m b CL 0m Z � l< M v ® C. z SD _ 0 g to G7 IV co Cit -� N mZ CAm N cr Z v aD m CA r z -4 CD � � ©_ > b -�1 0 ZC CD vVW Cooc'c � V c0 mm z m z 0 � z > m > m > a �rte—„ II n ro j Nm 00 w iv cn 0 V3 C7 i r� 0 a > CD w m fie. 0 rn cr o m C- m 0 a r G 0 o 0 TI � G > r v5 0 ., ern �< N D ' R 1 -4 0 m .� m t CD a n � N 0 m N z p a z v T C7 CL > > Cl) C MZ -4 r0 -� 0 yi 1 CO tJ} "1 m ® Gti w m > r < m >> -4 CD cxi CO m m C7 car, °}u- ccrn m © > CL cta 3 C � 0 Z �. m c 'fl C o > -� M N mm 00 N v m w 0m CD (D -4 m ATTACHMENT 4 Notification List All Corrected Mailing Addresses for Urban Limit Line Notifications Rosemary Corrie Eric and Ann Rossovich Wanda Hildebrandt 1437 Finley Road 5150 Camino Tassajara 5959 Camino Tassajara Pleasanton CA 94588 Danville CA 94506 Pleasanton CA 94588 206 030 028 Tassa-Highland Corp. Joyce Shatswell C/o O'Connell and Glock Jay and Petersen Terry Denniston 249 S.Steams Road 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW 9h Floor 7979 Camino Tassajara Oakdale CA 95361 Washington DC 20036-4114 Pleasanton CA 94588 Stephen Yatsko and Vicki Nelson Mark Tomei Richard and Judy Asbe 5310 Bruce Drive 5555 Bruce Drive 1111 Country Lane Pleasanton CA 94588 Pleasanton CA 94588 Pleasanton CA 94566 Dennis and Vicki Dobbeck Mark Jones Russell and Dorothy Malone 1500 Finley Road 3100 Finley Rd.#3101 259 Joseph Lane Pleasanton CA 94588 Pleasanton CA 94588 Pleasanton CA 94588 Jimmy Rydman and Barbara Finley Violet Fadda&Albert&Violet Fadda Bruce and Monica White 5730 Old School Rd. 5745 Old School Rd 5400 Penny Lane San Ramon CA 94588 Pleasanton CA 94588 Pleasanton CA 94588 370 050 041 David Gale Butler and Lynn Cordell-Butler Stephen&Libby Bode United States of America PO Box 457 RR 2 John Muir Historic Site Brentwood CA 94513-4935 1450 Finley Rd. Superintendent Pleasanton CA 94588 4202 Alhambra Ave Martinez CA 94553 007 120 016 204 010 001 John Marsh Home 159 330 002 Dept of Parks and Recreation Dept of Parks and Recreation State Lands Commission Diablo Sector Headquarters Diablo Sector Headquarters 100 Howe Ave,STE 100-South 96 Mitchell Canyon Rd. 96 Mitchell Canyon Rd. Sacramento CA 95825 Clayton CA 94517 Clayton CA 94517 204 010 002 220 020 004 220 020 005 Dept of Parks and Recreation Dept of Parks and Recreation Dept of Parks and Recreation Diablo Sector Headquarters Diablo Sector Headquarters Diablo Sector Headquarters 96 Mitchell Canyon Rd. 96 Mitchell Canyon Rd. 96 Mitchell Canyon Rd. Clayton CA 94517 Clayton CA 94517 Clayton CA 94517 220 020 006 220 020 007 220 020 011 Dept of Parks and Recreation Dept of Parks and Recreation Dept of Parks and Recreation Diablo Sector Headquarters Diablo Sector Headquarters Diablo Sector Headquarters 96 Mitchell Canyon Rd. 96 Mitchell Canyon Rd. 96 Mitchell Canyon Rd. Clayton CA 94517 Clayton CA 94517 Clayton CA 94517 220 030 002 220 030 003 220 030 004 Dept of Parks and Recreation Dept of Parks and Recreation Dept of Parks and Recreation Diablo Sector Headquarters Diablo Sector Headquarters Diablo Sector Headquarters 96 Mitchell Canyon Rd. 96 Mitchell Canyon Rd. 96 Mitchell Canyon Rd. Clayton CA 94517 Clayton CA 94517 Clayton CA 94517 All Corrected Mailing Addresses for Urban Limit Line Notifications 370 130 004 Meacham Corportation APN 206 030 030 CALTRANS Nolan and Marian Sharp Earl F.Glock,Esq, Dept.of Transportation 4510 Camino Tassajara O'Connell&Glock District 04 Danville CA 94588 1100 Connecticut Avenue N.W. PO Box 23660 Ninth Floor Oakland CA 94623-0660 Washington DC 20036-4114 Meacham Corportation APN 206 030 030 Meacham Corportation APN 206 030 030 Meacham Corportation APN 206 030 030 James W.Black Richard T.Loewke Eugene H.Miller 350 Second Street,Suite 7 55 Oak Trail Court Miller,Starr&Regalia Los Altos CA 94022 Alamo Ca 94507-2502 1331 North California Blvd. Walnut Creek CA 94596 Black Iris Land Corporation APN 206 060 017 Black Iris Land Corporation APN 206 060 017 Black iris Land Corporation APN 206 060 017 Earl F.Glock,Esq. James W.Black Richard T.Loewke O'Connell&Glock 350 Second Street,Suite 7 55 Oak Trail Court 1100 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Los Altos CA 94022 Alamo Ca 94507-2502 Ninth Floor Washington DC 20036-4114 Black Iris Land Corporation APN 206 060 017 Finley-Tassajara Corp.APN 220 100 023 Finley-Tassajara Corp.APN 220 100 023 Eugene H.Miller Earl F.Glock,Esq. James W.Black Miller,Starr&Regalia O'Connell&Glock 350 Second Street,Suite 7 1331 North California Blvd. 1100 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Los Altos CA 94022 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Ninth Floor Waehinvtnn DC:20016-4114 Finley-Tassajara Corp.APN 220 100 023 Finley-Tassajara Corp.APN 220 100 023 Richard T.Loewke Eugene H.Miller Flormont Cal Inc.APN 206 030 023 55 Oak Trail Court Miller,Starr&Regalia Earl F.Glock,Esq. Alamo Ca 94507-2502 1331 North California Blvd. O'Connell&Glock Walnut Creek CA 94596 1100 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Ninth Floor Wachinoton T)C 20036-4114 Flormont Cal Inc.APN 206 030 023 Flormont Cal Inc.APN 206 030 023 Flormont Cal Inc.APN 206 030 023 James W.Black Richard T.Loewke Eugene H.Miller 350 Second Street,Suite 7 55 Oak Trail Court Miller,Starr&Regalia Los Altos CA 94022 Alamo Ca 94507-2502 1331 North California Blvd. Walnut Creek CA 94596 Robert and Hye Ran Hoelsch West Coast Home Builders Donald and Nova Atkinson 590 Bruce Drive 4021 Port Chicago Hwy 7150 Camino Tassajara Pleasanton CA 94588 Concord CA 94520-1122 Pleasanton CA 94588 Dorothy Silva Ed and Wilma Shannon Emiliano and Carmelita Bernardo 173 Dogwood Place 8181 Camino Tassajara 8020 Camino Tassajara Pleasanton CA 94588 Pleasanton CA 94588 Pleasanton CA 94588 Harold and Linda McClellan Larry and Lora Warner 4925 Camino Tassajara 4975 Camino Tassajara Pleasanton CA 94588 Pleasanton CA 94588 4D0915 Jesal 'IGSc�S slagvI ssaippV 4DAH3A`VV2 tarr0 `on 1:5� or"ti C arro �►w 1� . ArO1U 001 204 010 002 204 010 003 A doni` tate Of Califort ` tate Of California State Of 03#3110 400 t#3110 400 R St#5000 mento,CA 95814 cramento,CA 95814 Sacramento,CA 95814 204 040 011 204 040 014 204 040 024 James&Jeanne Egan Arnold Jacobs Fredric&Sara Strange 5353 Old School Rd 5660 Old School Rd 5653 Old School Rd Pleasanton, CA 94588 Pleasanton,CA 94188 Pleasanton.CA 94588 204 040 025 204 040 027 204 040 029 Alan&Melina t le Alan&Melina Vanwinklc Robert Hoffman 5433 Oi ool Rd Robert Hoffman 5505 Old School Rd lrunton,CA 94588 5433 Old School Rd Pleasanton. CA 94588 Pleasanton. CA 94581; 204 040 030 204 040 031 204 040 032 Robert&Janet Zupetz Clarence&Norma Perry Clarence& N Petty 5525 Old School Rd x575 Old School Rd 5;75 O chooi Rd Pleasanton,CA 94588 Pleasanton. CA 94588 P anton. CA 94188 204 040 033 204 040 034 204 040 035 Lawrence Reese Allen Kirk Hutcliisorr D Adam&Velma Youtig Jr. 5500 Old School Rd 5480 Old Sclrool Rd 2351 Woodthrusli Way Pleasanton.CA 94588 Pleasanton. CA 9435,, Pleasanton. CA 94566 204 040 036 204 040 038, Dn a rea&-64 err I'-* Sf 204 040 031) Paul &Michelle Speroni Violet Fa a & Albert &.. Violet F`adda Douglas Lacer&Cindy Sil\-arri-La 245 Joseph Ln 5745 School Rci 5825 t71d Sclrool Rd Pleasanton, CA 94588 R.rrrion. CA 9455. Pie, sanirnr. CA 04588 204 040 040 204 040 041 204 040 043 Richard&Jean Fischer Mariin &Norma Rock-field Jr. Cory Soitau 5250 Old School Rd i370 Old School Rd 240 Joseph Ln Pieasanton,CA 94588 Pleasanton. CA 945188 Pleasanton, CA 94588 204 040 044 204 040 045 204 040 046 6^ 1- S Henry 13orglii Henry Bor Jirnrm, Ry r n cY Barbara ruler 5574 Old School Rd 557 i School Rd 5730 School Rd Pleasanton,CA 94588 casamon. CA 945:�S :anon. CA 94583 204 040 047 204 040 047 r„o 204040049 Kenneth Santos&Patricia Liticd. lrl Kenneth S atricia Liticdahl James& Sandra Hape 5750 Old School Rd 5750 School Rd 5114,8 Old Sclrool Rd Pleasanton, CA 94588 car<rrrtorr. CA 945�� Pleasanitxn.CA 94585 204 040 049 204 040 050 204 040 051 Norman&Sylvia Hale Fredric Strange& Sara Strange William &Donna Kosclr 5901 Old School Rd 5655 Old School Rd 5374 Old School ltd Pleasanton CA 94588 Pleasanton,CA 9 4WR Pleasanton, CA 94588 ..,.,.... .... .......J.....� .....� r.�n� ar. r•w-a• rrryn reir� (DOM Jasel slagej ssaaPPtl eJlU3AV 204 440 052 204 1.150 002 204 050 021 Darrow&Louise Crowe Catherine Foley R Patrick Foley ONvenn Schafer 232 Joseph Ln PO Box 433 6351 Johnston Rd Pleasanton,CA 94588 HayNvard,CA 94543 Pleasanton, CA 94588 204 050 022 204 050 424 204 050 027 Erika Riesz Marshall Anthony&Maureen Lukaszcw-,ki Show Stables Doran PO Box 782 6000 Old School Rd PO Box 2437 Diablo,CA 94328 Pleasanton,CA 94SR9 Danville. CA 94526 204 050 026 204 050 027 204 050 028 Richard&Laura Doran E Greg&Beverly Kent James&Loretta Belliig 5910 Old School Rd PO Box 236 6300 Old School Rd Pleasanton, CA 94588 Alamo,CA 94507 Pleasanton,CA 94588 204 050 0ichool 204 070 001 204 070 003 om James&Lellig Sart Ramon Va re District 17enuis k Vicki heck 1 ;s' 6300 Rd I S0►0 $ ger Can}opt Rd 150 0 srantotn.CA 94588 arnton. CA <3458:� S 04526 204 070 005 204 070 013 204 070 014 Cheryl Williams&Survivor's Ronald K Karen Stewm—d Ronald&FC teward 1430 Finley Rd 1550 Finley Rd 15 i(—) eY Rd Pleasanton,CA 94188 Pleasanton. CA 945~8 easamon. CA 9-153;f; 204 070 015 204 070 016 204070017 Anne&.Vivi Haugland Michael ek Patricia Johnson Ralph Saxton 1530 Finley Rd 1 100 Finley Rd :.i.,lt Terra Ciran.tci<t Dr 42B Pleasanton. CA 945F8 Pleasanton. CA 94510 Wahtut Creek. CA 94505 204 070 021 204 070 022 204 070 023 Ronald&Tracy August Donald&Cecelia Irvine Michael&Phyllis Bleecker 1351 Country Ln PO Box 1527 1251 Counts-v Ln Pleasanton,CA 94588 Danville,CA 94526 Pleasanton, CA 94588 204 070 025 204 070 026 on c orev c#ov% 204 1371.1 1127 Hunt&Patti Bascom Richard K Jud sbc 1,*5+ Roo (": Mum Am,trst 1052 Country Lit I I I I Coq Lu tttt)I Cotim rY Lit Pleasanton, CA 94588 Pleasa mon. CA 04588 204 070 028 204 070 029 204 070 030 Michael Rapposelli Robert &Pegg,Shafer Manuel K Rose Lavratdor 1047 Country Ln 1250 Country Ln H.50 Countn, Ln Pleasanton,CA 94588 Pleasmitori. CA 9451N8 Ptearsartran_CA 94788 204 070 031 204 070 032 204 070 033 Kevin Lynch Michael K Alexis Um-sort Stephen&Catherine Eppler 1050 Country Ln 1046 Country Ln 1420 Finley Rd Pleasanton,CA 94588 Pleasanton. CA Pteasa mon. CA 94588 009TS jasel 'f tot C-� slagvI ssaippV eAU3AV `u 204 130 001 en t r r edt a71 to r1 204 130 001 204 130 002 Mark Jones %-.% Mark Jones %'% S+ John&Gayle Bishop 3100 Fit i Rd#3101 3100 Finle w #310! 2900 Finley Rd Satcnon,CA 94583 Pleasanton,CA 94588 �.�.��.�►�, cit �� 204 130 003 204 130 004 204 130 005 Fred&Margrit Matter Cole&M�nrcia Buxton James&Linda Harrytnan 2700 Finley Rd PO Box 9536 2550 Finley Rd Pleasanton,CA 94588 Incline Village. NV 81452 Pleasanton, CA 94588 204 130 006 204 130 006 204 130007 Robert&Linda Mcderos Robert &Lig cdcros Thomas& Marilyn Fimuyers 2500 Finley Rd 2500 e}°Rd 2651 Finley°Rd Pleasanton,CA 94588 canton, CA 9451AS Pleasanton. CA 94588 00915 .easel slagej ssaippV QA2l3AVO 205 040 002 205 040 004 205 040 005 Gordon&Karen Rasmussen Lawrence Americo Ferry Lawrence&Dorothy Ferry 6000 Highland Rd 6535 Hanover Ct Ronald Ferry Pleasanton,CA 94588-9580 Pleasanton,CA 94566-7723 7754 Country Ln Pleasanton,CA 94566-9745 205 040 006 205 040 012 205 040 015 Kristine Clausen Eugene Martin Robert&Vickie Lillis PO Box 400 5620 Highland Rd 5700 Highland Rd Cantua Creek,CA 93608-0400 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9572 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9574. 205 040 016 205 040 017 205 040 018 James Richards Sr. James&Denise Mcmullan Thomas Hall&Sarah Vernlund 5750 Highland Rd 5800 Highland Rd 5900 Highland Rd Pleasanton,CA 94588-9574 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9576 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9578 205 040 019 205 040 020 205 040 021 Kristine Clausen Contra Costa County Jorgen&Kristine Clausen PO Box 400 255 Glacier Dr PO Box 400 Cantua Creek,CA 93608-0400 Martinez,CA 94553-4825 Cantua Creek,CA 93608-0400 205 050 007 205 050 008 205 050 008 Eleanor Herman&Joseph Brown Jr. Joseph&Judith Brown Joseph&Ju v 1624 Ashford Dr 7101 Camino Tassajara 7101 lino Tassajara Roseville,CA 95661-5122 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9565 a-santon,CA 94588-9565 205 050 009 205 050 010 205 0¢0 002 Robert&Chelsea Bonavito Robert&Chels navito Charles Erwin Richey Iii 7303 Camino Tassajara 7303 Ca Tassajara Charlsie Robe Hunter Amador Valley,CA 94566 P nton,CA 94588-9427 6861 Tassajara Rd Pleasanton,CA 94588-9449 205 060 003 205 060 004 205 070 001 Andrew&Carol Schmitz Charles Erwin Riche Charles&Vivienne Holman 251 NW 45Th St Charlsie Robe r 5400 Johnston Rd Gainesville,FL 32607-2232 68�Tara Rd Pleasanton,CA 9458&95$7 PA 94588-9449 205 070 002 205 070 003 205 070 005 Charles&Vivi olman Traian&Alina Micu Annamarie Taylor&Frank Taylt 5400 Jo n Rd 5390 Johnston Rd 5536 Johnston Rd P ton,CA 94588-9587 Pleasanton,CA 9458$-9586 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9506 205 070 006 205 070 007 205 070 009 6n Annamarie&Fra r Jr. Ronald Ferry Wanda H' randt Co r^a.okd 5536 Jj4aslerrRd 5656 Johnston Rd 233 ndAve N:.-&-rnton,CA 94588-9506 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9506 Rafael,CA 94901-2655 205 070 010 205 070 010 205 070 013 Andrew&Alice Giovannini Andrew&Alic ni Charles&V' a olman 3490 20Th St 3490 20 5400 stop Rd San Francisco,CA 94110-2521 S rancisco,CA 94110-2521 as'anton,CA 94588-9587 009TS lase1 slagej ssaippV eAkMAVII 205 070 014 205 074 015 205 080 001 Charles&Vivi man Contra Conte County Rosa Silva 5400 Job 10 d 255 Glacier Dr 6000 Johnston Rd P1 ton,CA 94588-9587 Martinez,CA 94553-4825 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9506 205 080 002 205 080 003 205 090 002 Michael&Nora Mcclelland Paul&Janet Brock. Ernest&Margaret Pearson 5775 Johnston Rd 5785 Johnston Rd 5621 Highland Rd Pleasanton,CA 94588-9510 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9510 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9573 205 090 002 205 090 003 205 090 004 Ernest&Mergers on Kenneth Howland William&Ellen Tauscher 5621 H' d 5631 Highland Rd 5611 Highland Rd ton,CA 94588-9573 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9573 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9573 205 090 005 205 090 006 205 090 007 Edward&Diem Zobrist Frank&Clara Bonde Frank&Clara 5938 Fairham Rd 5707 Highland Rd 5707 H' Y Rd Hamilton,Oil 45011-2037 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9575 P ton,CA 94588-9575 205 090 009 Jorgen&Kristine Clausen PO Box 400 Cantua Creek,CA 93608-0400 09TS aasel 10j; •1a- slagel ssaippd eAU3A%f 206 030 006 206 030 010 206 030 016 Shapell Industries Inc Jerry&Jean Shih Rouzbeh Kordestani 100 Milpitas Boulevard 100 Keiming&Emilie Yen 5265 Blackhawk Dr Milpitas,CA 95035 2590 Sabercat Ct Danville,CA 94506-5809 Fremont,CA 94539-5647 206 030 019 206 030 021 206 030 022 Clarence&Carol Gribbon Guitherme&D Mendonca Michael&Heidi Cowley 3050 Citrus Cir#202 5300 Camino Tassajara 5320 Camino Tassajara Walnut Creek,CA 94598-2662 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9511 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9511 206 030 023 pri, "r a eft o,% 206 030 025 206 030 025 Ftormont Ca c is s# River Island Farms Inc&Carole Corrie River Island s Inc&Carole Corrie 1901egton, lvania Ave NW#1000 7950 Dublin Blvd#111 7950 D m Blvd#111 W DC 20006-3405 Dublin,CA 94568-2936 D ln,CA 94568-2936 206 030 026 On 206 030 027 •r` e 206 030 028 ar` `"•�l ae" "` Nolan&M arp t e♦r a oHor Nolan&M harp Joyce Sha &Joyce Shatswell 4510 ino Tassajara 1 4510 mo Tassajara 47�Ville' ino Tassajara vine,CA 94506-5900 D r11e,CA 94506-5900 CA 206 030 029 0 y) 206 030 030 o^ r r r rrr into r` 206 060 005 Eric&Ann rch t♦rr c.. +r Meacham Co tion Nv 1` Sidney Corr` 5150 o Tassajara Sf 1901 P vania Ave NW#1000 7950 rn Blvd#111 elle,CA 94506-5903 rngton,DC 20006-3405 tn,CA 94568-2936 206 060 007 206 060 009 206 060 010 Sidney Corrie Jr. Donald&Nova Atkinson Carla Slack 7950 Dublin Blvd#111 7150 Camino Tassajara 7170 Camino Tassajara Dublin,CA 94568-2936 Amador Valley,CA 94566 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9564 206 060 013 206 060 016 ar e.w,,svtiON% 206 060 017 ©o% c o ev I..�'�" San Ramon Valley Fire District Tassa- (and Corporation l:s t Black Iris Corporation 1500 Bollinger Canyon Rd 660 amino Tassajara 1901 P Sylvania Ave NW#1000 San Ramon,CA 94583-1756 ville,CA W.WMington,DC 20006-3405 206 070 006 206 070 011 206 070 013 William Newman Tassajara Associates Martin S r. PO Box 1691 3561 Bittern Pt 314 n Horse Ct San Bruno,CA 94066-"7691 Fremont,CA 94555-1307 amo,CA 94507-2655 206 070 014 206 110 006 206 110 007 Martin Sherman Jr. John&Erma Moura Jr. Dorothy Silva 314 Iron Horse Ct 25820 S Macarthur Dr 173 Dogwood PI Alamo,CA 94507-2655 Tracy,CA 95376-8127 San Ramon,CA 94583-3909 206 110 008 206 110 009 206 110 010 Ed&Wilma Shannon Dorothy Si Dorothy SIN 8181 Camino Tassajara 173 ood PI 173 D od Pl Amador Valley,CA 94566 n Ramon,CA 94583-3909 mon,CA 94583-3909 00915 jase, '� 5p� _ ydt� slagaj ssaippV 4DAU3AVO 206 151005 246 151413 246 151414 6 n c f r re.060M Gottlieb&Shirley Ribary Gottlieb&Shirle Jay&Peterse Denniston 1;S4 21010 195Th Ave SE 21010 195 ve SE 7979 o Tassajara Monroe,WA 98272-8815 ,WA 98272-8815 Apalror Valley,CA 206 151015 206 151020 206 151021 Philip Husted&Linda Scott Mark&Jennifer Cardoza Kelly Adamic 8001 Camino Tassajara 8115 Camino Tassajam 2015 Chadbourne Ct Pleasanton,CA 94588-9567 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9567 Danville,CA 94506-6124 206 151022 206 151023 206 152 004 Mechanics Bank Mechanics Bank Frank&Cheri Wipfli 1646 N California Blvd#200 1646 N California Blvd#200 7980 Camino Tassajara Walnut Creek,CA 945964113 Walnut Creek,CA 94596-4113 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9433 206152 004 206 152 006 206 152 007 >Pleas heri Wip De Loit&Carol Hinton Donald&Elaine Mckay li n sajara 8850 Camino Tassajara 7990 Camino Tassajara CA 94588-9433 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9435 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9433 246 152 008 206 152 409 246 152 010 Timothy Bennett&Diane Offitt Dominic&Lourdes Uychaco Emiliano& elita Bernardo 7890 Camino Tassajara 7880 Camino Tassajara 8020 tno Tassajara Pleasanton,CA 94588-9430 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9430 A or Valley,CA 94566 206 152 011 206 180 001 206 184 001 Donald&Duetta Taylor Keith Joseph Freitas Keith Jose ttas 8010 Camino Tassajara 8651 Camino Tassajara 8651 ino Tassajara Pleasanton,CA 94588-9566 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9436 P anton,CA 94588-9436 206 180 004 206 180 005 William&Julianne Rivas Donald&Carolyn Foster 8201 Tassajam Rd 8501 Camino Tassajara Pleasanton,CA 94588-9603 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9570 (1)091S Jas ''�ac3a�aw, -110 slagej ssaipptl eAU3AV SU 220 020 001 220 020 002 220 020 004 Ettore Bertagnolli Ettore Bertagno California a Of��' Creraldin Bertagnolli Geraldin gnolli 650 e Ave t®'"'' ' o PO Box 3 POB S ensat to,CA 95825-47 .1 Clayton,CA 94517-0003 Ckefton,CA 94517-0003 220 020 005 220 020 006 220 020 007 California S f '0 +^ California Of 0 n California Of c o r e r .JM,w �r rt 400 P 10 t O r re, �►� 650 a Ave e. �'� 650 a Ave t:s-t" mento,Syd CA 95814-53451�5'�' ento,CA 95825-4731 cramento,CA 95825-4731 220 020 008 220�Ld e t s+-r..a�tov 220 020 012 State Of California Department Of Par CaliOf \:5"r State Of California Department Of Pa PO Box 942896 F' PO Box 942896 Sacramento,CA 94296-0001 on,CA 94583 Sacramento,CA 94296-0001 220 030 001 220 030 002 220 030 003 Rosa Silva Califo a Of 1,*�,� California a Of D"` 6000 Johnston Rd 400 t#3110 400 #3110 c�'`�% ` *e Pleasanton, CA 94588-9506 cramento,CA 95814-5345 ento,CA 95814-5345 '0.0 220 030 004 6 220 040 002 220 040 008 California a Of c srr+w#se.i Catherine Foley&Patrick Foley Blackhawk Corporation 400 #3110 %.s k PO Box 433 PO Box 807 .OpTcramento, CA 95814-5345 Hayward, CA 94543-0433 Danville,CA 94526-0807 220 100 002 — 220 100 005 220 100 005 Cat�ardCA ctfi"k Foley John&Debbie Pereira John&DebbiUAntfir PO 1501 Finley Rd 1501 ' y Rd H94543-0433 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9403 fon,CA 94588-9403 220 100 005 220 100 006 220 100 007 John&Deb " ereira Adventus Corporation Gloria Hing 1501 ey Rd 2900 Lakeshore Ave 229 Cross Rd ton,CA 94588-9403 Oakland,CA 94610-3614 Alamo,CA 94507-2765 220 100 013 220 100 014 220 100 015 Harold&.Linda Mcclellan Larry&Lora Warner Adventus Corporation 4925 Camino Tassajara 4975 Camino Tassajara 2900 Lakeshore Ave Danville,CA 94506-5905 Danville,CA 94506-"5905 Oakland,CA 94610-3614 220 100 016 220 100 019 220 100 021 Esther Doris Fultz Rosemary Co a Donald Rees 1431 Finley Rd 101 RjjaWw Dr#109 e e ercaril r1 PO Box 2353 Pleasanton, CA 94588-9402ngston,TX 77351 t:��' Olympic Valley,CA 96146-2353 220 100 023 Or% t r wr;- ev-• Finley Tassaj \i b+ 1901 Ple qswYlvania Ave NW#1000 gton,DC 20006-3405 Smooth deed Sheets TM +v A "�(' Use template for 5160@ 206 030 010 206 030 023 206 030 025 Jerry&Jean Shih Flormont Ca O r c 1P r✓A&'r" River Island F nc&Carole Corrie Keiming&Emilie Yen 1901 P ylvania Ave NW#100 `s•t 7950 Polig Blvd#111 2590 Sabercat Ct W gtdn,DC 20006-3405 m,CA 94568-2936 Fremont,CA 945395647 206 030 025 206 030 026 �.rre•t �,� 206 030 028 0 c . River Island Farms Inc&Carole Corrie Nolan&M Sharp .r, Joyce Sha Joyce Shatsweil 7950 Dublin Blvd#111 4510 Wino Tassajara 4700 ino Tassajara Dublin,CA 94568-2936 D le,CA 94506-5900 ville,CA 206 030 030 r r► +r r e ,,i'a+4� Meacham Co n Nv IT5'� 1 1901 Pe vania Ave NW#1000 Wasbhfgton,DC 20006-3405 �11 AAM"'VCR . AdAracc 1 ahalc LaSear 5160( (DOM Jasel -r6Qu%j. slaqej ssaippV OAUSAV%2 204 070 034 204 070 035 204 070 036 Histada&Yoko Imainura Nicholas&Katherine Schurawel Lloyd Szabo&Pat Karleskiud-Szabo 1410 Finley Rd 1350 Country Ln 1.300 Country Lit Pleasanton,CA 94588 Pleasanton.CA 94589 Pleasanton, CA 94588 204 070 037 01% 204070037 204080003 Li od jel)'jen& * y B h Charles Rund& L S Donna Stephen&Li odec*r#-44t40^ Stephen& * v Bode Rr 2 Rr 2 255 Joseph Lit PI .111ton. 9 PI nton,CA 94588 Pi I mon. CA 94591$', Pleasanton, CA 94588 204 080 003 204 090 004 204 090 005 000O 0 e Charles Run S Donna Dieter&Jennifer Norpcben Russell ., orothy u alone %wv 25;5 Jos Ln 254 Joseph Ln 251)J pit Lit PlZton,CA 9458:9 Pleasanton, CA 945M 204 080 006 204 O,M)007 t r ee CkII&I 2(,)4 o90 o0.11 Bruce&Stephanie Costello Robert & HVQ-Rl,I HoclsclIj-j$t Charles& Patricia Daggett 260 Joseph Ln 590 Br1pe5311 Brticc Dr �r Pleasanton. CA 94588 9moifi I Pleasanion. CA 945818 xe'a'so"►it,, c A qill5R2 204 090 004 204 090 005 204 090 006 William&Cynthia Todd Craig& Dana Amack Robert Clicadic 1045 Detroit Ave 5175 Camino Tassa'jara MM Finley Rd Concord. CA 94518 Picasamon, CA 94iR'X Plcas,,m(on. CA 945SS 204 090 007 N14 090 OOX 204090009 William Busby t% C#,eye 0"0^ Robot (�', Diamond Hunter �-Ii3 Bruce Dr 5655 Bruce Dr Mark Dr "*C 4 1*1 5 P -isatiloti, CA 94598 Pleasanton. CA 94511�',�' ic, 204 100004 204 100 005 204 100 006 Duarte&Erlyn Madsen Annette Darnes Kashmir Singh 5401 Johnston Rd 5351 Johnston Rd I i3)(1,H)Penn%,Ln Pleasanton,CA 94588 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Pleasanton. CA 94588 204 100007 of% 204 1000019 204 100 009 Bruce&Motilroweli(C'er'r, Frank Coclho Scott Sishop& Dorolliv Bun 5400 Pet n 234 Smith Rd PO Boy 2286 Alamo. CA 94iO7 Danville. CA 94526 C5"iVK L: KX51 204 100010 204 100 01 1 204 100012 Stephen-YW<0& Vicki Nclsonqe Brucc&Joan Flanagan Milt lmcstmem & Supply r- 53 Plenice Dr i-SOO Bruce Dr 6665 Amador Plaza Rd .oKa'n Ramon, CA 94583 Plcasmiton. CA 94-598 Dublin. CA 94566 204 100013 204 130001 16 0 r% 204 130001 Mark Amy Stiles Jo"s oties Mark Jones 5451 Johnston Rd -3,10(0) Fin #310 f 310£1 Finley-RA-*-)tO 1. Pleasanton,CA 94588 CA 94583 e."dAir,\ Lj+ 9416 't49Is .tasal #L slagvl ssaippy cAUSAVVA 089150 801 089150 005 089150 007 Dallas Ranch Landowners Chevros►Usa Inc Edward&C1 a Biggs 300 H St#D PO Box'285 1757 Acus Ln Antioch,CA 94509-1280 Houston„TX 77001-0285 S City,CA 94585-1303 089 150 007 089 150 010 089150 012 Edward&Charlotte Biggs Coram Bay Area Res Prop Chcma Usa Inc 1757 Grow Acres Ln 1764 San Diego Ave PO Box 285 Suisun City,CA 94585-1303 San Diego,CA 92110-1906 Houston,TX 77001-0285 08, 089150 014 NF Coast Ho uYlders West Chevron Usa Inc 4021 P Chicago Hwy 8 j, r s r w apv n . PO Box 285 Co rc1„CA 94520-1122 iwsA" Houston,TX 77001-0285 .nq,t4 joi midwal asn wi.SlaiaUS POOR MIOOWS a9�s Jasel Arco. slagel ssaippV GAUSA C 354 281006 354 281048 354 282 003 East Bay Municipal Utility Dis East Bay Regional Park Dist East Bay Regional Park Dist PO Box 24055 PO Box 5381 PO Bax 5381 Oakland,CA 94623-1055 Oakland,CA 94605-0381 Oakland,CA 94605-0381 (D091509�5 JOSEI Yr4arw h(Lc- . VvkjLr--rv4v g,++ slagej ssgxPPV �Atl�At/ 370 130 004 t a r r ,� 374 130 007 370 130 009 Calif ornta S Of ,gfi City Of Martinez John&Sharon Funk 110 S T 1�1AM1 or NUMBER 525 Henrietta St 124 Wallin St nez,CA 94553 Martinez,CA 94553-2337 Martinez,CA 94553-3757 370 130 010 370 130 011 372 010 002 East Bay Regional Park Dist John&Shar Fast Bay Regional Park Dist 2950 Peralta Oaks Ct 120. n St PO Box 5381 Oakland,CA 94605-5320 Inez,CA 94553-3757 Oakland,CA 94605-4381 40 372 010 005 372 010 008 372 014 021 East Bay Regional Park Dist Martinez City Of Fast Bay Regional Park Dist 2950 Peralta Oaks Ct 525 Henrietta St PO Box 5381 Oakland,CA 94605-5320 Martinez,CA 94553-2337 Oakland,CA 94605-0381 372 010 022 372 010 023 372 020 004 Martinez City Of East Bay Regional Park Dist East Bay Regional Park Dist 525 Henrietta St 2950 Peralta Oaks Ct PO Box 5381 Martinez,CA 94553-2337 Oakland,CA 94605-5320 Oakland,CA 94605-0381 372 020 005 372 040 003 372 040 004 Roman Catholic Bishop Oakland David Kenneth Saunders Martinez City Of 1100 Estudillo St 500 Bay View Dr 525 Henrietta St Martinez,CA 94553-1707 Martinez,CA 94553-1505 Martinez,CA 94553-2337 372 040 007 372 130 003 372 130 007 Martinez City Of Martinez City Of East Bay Regional Park Dist 525 Henrietta St 525 Henrietta St 2950 Peralta Oaks Ct Martinez,CA 94553-2337 Martinez,CA 94553-2337 Oakland,CA 94605-5320 372 130 008 372 130 009 372 130 010 Virginia Lee Davidson Virginia Lee Davidson David Randall Fischer Dolores Hilgendorf Dolores Hilgendorf PO Box 1997 336 Kirbyson Ct 336 Kirbyson Ct Martinez,CA 94553-0997 Vacaville,CA 95688-2125 Vacaville,CA 95688-2125 �ase-� a 'Z1''r - lMl�e"!ss ,tPR1� �A?a3,AVr �p9t5 . 370 050 04 i United S America F Canypn ��. _ Inez,CA 94553 1 Smooth Feed Sheer awl Use template for 5160 ' 159310005 159310018 159310021 Martinez City Of Terminals Lie Shore Terminals Lie Shore 525 Henrietta St 2550 Middle Rd#603 2550 Middle Rd#603 Martinez,CA 94553-2337 Bettendorf,IA 52722-3291 Bettendorf,IA 52722-3291 159 310 023 159 320 003 159 320 004 Terminals Lie Shore Stauffer Chemical Company Stauffer Chemical Company 2550 Middle Rd#603 1 Corporate Dr 1 Corporate Dr Bettendorf,IA 52722-3291 Shelton,CT 06484-6208 Shelton,CT 06484-6208 159330002 00, 380010015 380010019 California S 'r Bast Bay Regional Park Dist Mt View Sanitary District NO S NAME or NUMBER 2950 Peralta Oaks Ct PO Box 2757 M ez,CA 94553 Oakland,CA 94605-5320 Martinez,CA 94553-7757 380 010 021 380 010 022 Mt View Sanitary District East Bay Regional Park Dist PO Box 2757 2950 Peralta Oaks Ct Martinez,CA 94553-7757 Oakland,CA 94605-5320 "5111aurrvc� 0r�r#rc.cc t ahc$lc Laser 5160' 078 040 002 078 040 008 078 040 009 Regional Parks Foundation Bast Bay Regional Park District Mt Diablo Save PO Box 5381 2950 Peralta Oaks Ct PO Box 5376 Oakland,CA 94605-0381 Oakland,CA 94605-5320 Walnut Creek,CA 94596-1376 078 040 010 078 040 011 078 040 012 East Bay Regional Park Dist Mt Diablo Save Bast Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Ct PO Box 5376 2950 Peralta Oaks Ct Oakland,CA 94605-5320 Walnut Creek,CA 94596-1376 Oakland,CA 94605-5320 078 070 026 078 070 027 Mt Diablo Save Clayton Ranch investors PO Box 5376 1825 Sonoma Blvd Walnut Creek,CA 94596-1376 Vallejo,CA 94590-6050 089 050 013 089 050 041 089 050 042 Calva The City Of Pitteburg Gordan Gravelle 1227 0 St PO Box 1518 300 H St#D Sacramento,CA 95814-5840 Pittsburg,CA 94565-0518 Antioch,CA 94509-1280 089 050 055 089 050 056 089 050 059 Pittsburg City Of William Wayne Thomas Albert D Seeno Construction Co 2020 Railroad Ave 4723 Suzanne Dr PO Box 4113 Pittsburg,CA 94565-3830 Pittsburg,CA 94565-6273 Concord,CA 94524-4113 089 050 060 089 050 701 Albert D Seeno Construction Co United States Of America PO Box 4113 PO Box 727 Concord,CA 94524-4113 San Bruno,CA 94066-0727 Smooth Feed Sheets"' '� wr� " Use template for 51600 094100011 094 100 012 094 360 003 Angelo&Gloria Alaimo William Wayne Exr Thomas Keller Canyon Landfill Co 132 Pelican Loop Ann Gloria Thomas PO Box 42165 Pittsburg,CA 94565 4723 Suzanne Dr Houston,TX 77242 Pittsburg,CA 94565 094 360 004 094 360 005 094 300 006 Keller Canyon Landfill Co Virginia Smith Pittsburg City Of PO Boa 42165 1100'Bailey Rd 2020 Railroad Ave Houston,TX 77242 Pittsburg,CA 94505 Pitts0tirg. CA 94565 094 360 008 094 360 009 094 360 010 Keller Canyon Landfill Co Keller Canyon Landfill Co Keller-Canyon Landfill Co PO Box 42165 - PO Box 42165 PO Box 42165 Houston,TX 77242 Houston,TX 77242 Houston.TX 77242 094 360 011 094 360 012 Seecon Financial &Const Co Kciler Canyon Landfill Co 4021 Port Chicago Htti1 PO Boy; 42165 Concord, CA 94520 Houston. TX 77242 . . � r Smooth Feed SheetSTM Use template for 51600 097 180 001 097 180 002 097 180 004 Seecon Financial&Constr Co Seecon Financial&Constr Co Gerald Eugene Alves 4021 Port Chicago Hwy 4021 Port Chicago Hwy Eugene&Eugen Alves Concord,CA 94520-1122 Concord,CA 94520-1122 PO Box 950 Pittsburg,CA 94565-0950 097 180 006 097 190 001 097 190 002 Seecon Financial&Constr Co Seecon Financial&Const Co Seecon Financial&Constr Co 4021 Port Chicago Hwy 4021 Port Chicago Hwy 4021 Port Chicago Hwy Concord,CA 94520-1122 Concord,CA 94520-1122 Concord,CA 94520-1122 097 200 002 097 200 003 097220 003 Seecon Financial&Constr Co Seecon Financial&Constr Co Warren&Virginia Smith 4021 Port Chicago Hwy 4021 Port Chicago Hwy Smith Concord,CA 94520-1122 Concord,CA 94520-1122 1100 Bailey Rd Bay Point,CA 94565-4309 097 230 003 097 230 004 097 240 002 Bailey Estates Lie Bailey Estates Lie Seecon Financial&Constr Co 2762 Hutchinson Ct 2762 Hutchinson Ct 4021 Port Chicago Hwy Walnut Creek,CA 94598-4456 Walnut Creek,CA 94598-4456 Concord,CA 94520-1122 /I� n•re- rwvr AJ-I-- 00915 .lase- h C slagej ssaipptl eAU3AV12 007 010 006 007 010 007 007 010 012 Jeffery&Sara Tamayo Evergreen Management Group David&Patricia Lowe 325 Towncentre Ter#A 606N 1St St 200 Balfour Rd Brentwood,CA 94513-2212 San Jose,CA 95112-5109 Brentwood,CA 94513-4924 007010013 007010014 007010015 Glen&Miaja Mccauley Rick&Regina Sikes Glen&Mia cauley 300 Balfour Rd Rr 2 300 B r Rd Brentwood,CA 94513-4925 Brentwood,CA 94513-9802 #wood,CA 94513-4925 007 010 025 007 010 027 007 010 029 Jack Roddy Jack Roddy Roddy Ranch Public Financing Authori 5601 Chadbourne Rd 5601 ourne Rd 6495 N Palm Ave#101 Brentwood,CA 94513-4936 twood,CA 94513.4936 Fresno,CA 93704-1063 007 010 030 007 010 031 007 010 032 Mark Jeffery&Gina Harris Hayden&Betty Harris Roddy Ranch Llc Balfour Rd 100 Balfour Rd 1035 Mepham Dr Brentwood,CA 94513 Brentwood,CA 94513-4922 Pittsburg,CA 94565-3771 007 010 033 007 200 001 007 200 002 Roddy Ranch Pub Financing Auth Gesinee Van-Atta Monte&Lucia Albers 6495 N Palm Ave#101 5979 Wallace Dr 9601 Deer Valley Rd Fresno,CA 93704-1063 Clayton,CA 94517-1142 Brentwood,CA 94513-4907 007 200 003 007 200 004 007 200 005 John&Julia Mireles Preston&Pamela Hall George&Susan Morales 3205 G St P©Box 856 9225 Deer Valley Rd Antioch,CA 94509-5926 Brentwood,CA 94513-0856 Brentwood,CA 94513-4906 007 200 006 Suzanne Tol 1459 Golden Meadow Sq San Jose,CA 95117-3615 Smooth Feed SheetSTM M41 o*tj� A i �xt�A , Use template for 51600 057 060 006 057 060 011 057 060 012 Oak Hill Park Company Roddy Ranch Public Financing Authori Roddy Ranch Public Financing Authori 853 E Valley Blvd#200 6495 N Palm Ave#101 6495 N Palm Ave#101 San Gabriel,CA 91776 Fresno,CA 93704 Fresno,CA 93704 057 060 014 057 060 015 057 070 001 Dale Smith Dale Smith Roddy Ranch Public Financing Authori 1520 Discovery Bay Blvd PO Boa 396 6495 N Palm Ave#101 Byron,CA 94514 Stanfield, AZ 85272 Fresno,CA 93704 057 070 002 057 070 OO 057 070 004 Roddy Ranch Public Financing Authori Roddy Ranch Llc Roddy Ranch Llc 6495 N Palm Ave#101 1035 Mepham Dr 1035 Mepham Dr Fresno,CA 93704 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Pittsburg,CA 94565 057 070 005 057 070 006 057 070 007 Roddy Ranch Llc Roddy Ranch Llc Roddy Ranch Llc 1035 Mephatn Dr 1035 Mepham Dr 1035 Mepham Dr Pittsburg, CA 94565 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Pittsburg, CA 94565 057 070 008 Roddy Ranch Public Financing Authori 6495 N Palin Ave#10 1 Fresno,CA 93704 lh A%jr�M%r f5AAr^ee t �h4mIc 1 aepr 51 AND 009T5 Jasel a. = `j Att-o, slagel ssaippv sAUBAMO 032 020 005 032 020 006 032 020 008 Wayne&Margaret West Clyde Cola Jean Thomps esse Rucker 4050 Live Oak Ave 4460 Franklin Ln 4370 F ?m- Ln Oakley,CA 94561-3928 Oakley,CA 94561-3709 O ,CA 94561-3701 032 020 008 032 020 009 032 020 010 Jean Thompson&Jesse Rucker Norman&Tamera Daniels Vincent&Helen Jessie 4370 Franklin Ln 4350 Franklin Ln PO Box 395 Oakley,CA 94561-3701 Oakley,CA 94561-3701 Oakley,CA 94561-0395 032 020 011 032 020 012 032 020 013 aywood Frank&Pamela Haywood Gregory&Karen Palmer Frank&P PO Box 961 4185 Knightsen Ave POB i Oakley,CA 94561-0961 Oakley,CA 94561-3615 ey,CA 94561-0961 032 020 013 032 020 014 032 030 001 Frank&Pame aywood Douglas Pagano Barbara Regier&Deborah Regier PO Box PO Box 396 4210 Knightsen Ave O ,CA 94561-0961 Byron,CA 94514-0396 Oakley,CA 94561-3616 032 030 002 032 030 003 032 030 004 Peter&Lillian Toundjis James&Doletta Mcneley Manuel&Maria Ferreira 5089 Yucatan Way 4180 Knightsen Ave 19560 Skiff Rd San Jose,CA 95118-2354 Oakley,CA 94561-3611 Stockton,CA 95215-9200 032 030 006 032 030 007 032 030 008 Geoffrey Gilbert Mary Riddle&Salvador Rodriguez Geoffrey G' PO Box 1216 3709 Garrow Dr PO 216 Lafayette,CA 94549-1216 Antioch,CA 94509-6103 Wdfayette,CA 94549-1216 032 030 009 032 030 011 032 030 012 George&Josephine Kidwell George&J the Kidwell Essie Sickels&Judith Holm 4100 Knightsen Ave 4100 ightsen Ave 4150 Knightsen Ave Oakley,CA 94561-3611 Oakley,CA 94561-3611 Oakley,CA 94561-3611 032 040 002 032 040 003 032 040 007 Wayne DeruyteWayne De Charles&Arlene Erskine 4300 Knightsen Ave 4300 rghtsen Ave 4340 Knightsen Ave Oakley,CA 94561-3608 ley,CA 94561-3608 Oakley,CA 94561-3608 032 040 008 032 040 009 032 040 010 Joel&Catalina Ee Gutierrez Alonzo&Judith Alvarez Oren Oma Jose Luis Gutierrez 4380 Knightsen Ave 4400 Knightsen Ave 4356 Knightsen Ave##4358 Oakley,CA 94561-3608 Oakley,CA 94561-3625 Oakley,CA 94561-3608 032 040 011 032 040 012 032 040 014 David&Billie Rios Michael Roy&Sharrol Killian Gary&Sharyn Mullins 4420 Knightsen Ave 4440 Knightsen Ave 1571 E Cypress Rd Oakley,CA 94561-3625 Oakley,CA 94561-3625 Oakley,CA 94561-3619 Q)091S Jas " t" w..... slaqe-1 ssaippV .�' 032 040 015 032 040 016 032 040 017 Gary&Sharyn Mullins Santiago Reyes Ruben&Maria Paez E Cypress Rd PO Box 925 201 E Cypress Rd Oakley,CA Brentwood,CA 94513-0925 Oakley,CA 94561-3715 032 040 018 032 040 019 032 040 020 George Broussard Obert&Kaye Einevoll Lawrence Leckband 51 Broadway Ln Steven Huelsmann 71 Broadway Ln Oakley,CA 94561-3626 4592 El Monte Ct Oakley,CA 945613626 Oakley,CA 94561-4106 032 040 021 032 040 022 032 040 023 Gelasia Velez Miguel&Suan Aguirre Miguel&S utrre 81 Broadway Ln 91 Broadway Ln 91 Brag ay Ln Oakley,CA 94561-3626 Oakley,CA 94561-3626 ley,CA 94561-3626 032 040 024 032 040 025 032 040 026 Mabel Broussard J&Alicia Rivera Louis&Sarah Hernandez 90 Broadway Ln 502 5Th St PO Box 1405 Oakley,CA 94561-3631 Oakley,CA 94561-2179 Bethel Island,CA 94511-2405 032 040 027 032 040 028 032 040 029 Timothy&Sheree Day Felix&Margarita Fregoso Michael&Dena Walko 60 Broadway Ln 50 Broadway Ln 40 Broadway Ln Oakley,CA 94561-3631 Oakley,CA 94561-3631 Oakley,CA 94 56 1-3 63 1 032 040 031 032 040 032 032 040 037 Victor Nicole Olan Clyde Melvin&Apryle Wooten Leo&Cay lodges 20 Broadway Ln 3143 Clayton ltd 20 herman Island Rd Oakley,CA 94561-3631 Concord,CA 94519-2732 io Vista,CA 94571 032 040 039 032 040 043 032 040 045 Leo&Carolyn Hodges Stuart Erskine Gloria Ury&Kathryn Wrobel 20020 Sherman Island Rd PO Box 55 365 Patten St Rio Vista,CA 94571 Knightsen,CA 94548-0055 Sonoma,CA 95476-6741 032 040 046 032 040 047 032 040 047 Ida Jean Prindle&Lars&Chris Delin Stuart&Virginia Erskine Stuart&Vir aiu i* ine 4649 Humphrey Park Crest PO Box 55 PO B� Portland,OR 97222 Knightsen,CA 94548-0055 ghtsen,CA 94548-0055 032 040 048 032 050 00 t 032 050 001 Abdul&Kalsoom Ghafoor Our Country Club Our Country Club 1541 E Cypress Rd 90 Charter Oak Ave 90 Charter Oak Ave Oakley,CA 94561-3619 San Francisco,CA 94124-1907 San Francisca,CA 94124-1907 rw�aha..- n^t-s a etntrir*r 018240001 018 240 008 018 240 009 Richard&Josie Chaps Sr. Bradley&Lynn Scalise Ronald&Martha Lineker 2143 Pheasant Dr 330 E Sims Rd Rr 2 Box 133A Hercules,CA 94547-1626 Oakley,CA 94561-3822 Oakley,CA 94561-9802 018 240 011 018 240 012 018 290 001 Lawrence&Linda Norton Alvin Morris&Laura Capuder Jose&Viol Guzman PO Box 1176 8522 Lone Tree Way 283 Delta Rd Brentwood,CA 94513-3176 Brentwood,CA 94513-2125 Oakley,CA 94561-2834 018 290 001 018 290 002 018 290 005 Jose&viol.Sowllan Robert&Diane Nussbaumer Lawrence Mori&Donna Mori Burcio 283 D d PO Box 59588 3913 Cinnabar St O ey,CA 94561-2834 San Jose,CA 95159-0588 Antioch,CA 94509-6246 018 290 006 018 290 007 018 290 008 Lawrence Mori&Donna Mori Burcio Lawrence Donna Mori Burcio Lawrence Mo ' Mori Burcio 3913 Cinnabar St 3913 bar St 3913 C' ar St Antioch,CA 94509-6246 och,CA 94509-6246 ch,CA 94509-6246 018 290 009 018 300 001 018 300 002 Lawrence Mori&Rdfina Mori Burcio Joseph&Patricia Marinucci Eddie&Marcia Simmons 3913 t 491 Delta Rd PO Box 96 Ant. , A 94509-6246 Oakley,CA 94561-2849 Knightsen,CA 94548-0096 018 300 003 018 300 004 018 300 005 Manuel&Devonna Nunes Amy Simmons Freddie Simmons 471 Delta Rd PO Boas 4 PO Box 1132 Oakley,CA 94561-2849 Knightsen, CA 94548-0004 Oakley,CA 94561-1132 018 300 006 018 300 007 018.300 008 Joe&Gloria Alanes Margaret Souza&Ramona Manzo King&Cathy Clements 3017 Windsor Dr 612 4Th St PO Box 11 Antioch,CA 94509-5057 Brentwood,CA 94513-1329 Brentwood,CA 94513-0011 018 300 009 018 300 010 _ 018 300 011 Eddie Simmons Freddie Simmons Manuel&Devonna Nunes PO Box 96 PO Box 1132 PO Box 158 Knightsen,CA 94548-0096 Oakley,CA 94561-1132 Knightsen,CA 945484)158 018 300 012 Ora Norris&NUNES MANUEL&D 471 Delta Rd Oakley,CA 94561-2849 80915 easel O r+r.#W6,1 A04, - d slagej ssaippb eAH3A%f ZU 007 090 005 007 090 007 007 090 012 S H Cowell Foundation S H Cowell Foundation Wilson&Alta Ackerman PO Box 63700 PO Box 63700 PO Box 374 San Francisco,CA 94163-0001 San Francisco,CA 94163-0001 Brentwood,CA 94513-0374 007 090 016 007 090 018 007 090 021 +�+�..}} Roman Catholic Bishop Oakland Mary Jane Wetzel David!3rale &Lynn Co� it& 2900 Lakeshore Ave 2828 Woodhall Way 2901es Valley Rd Oakland,CA 94610-3614 Antioch,CA 94509-4753 twood,CA 94513-4935 007 090 023 007 090 024 007 090 026 Lefty Catchings Lefty Cat Ronald&Valerie Valle 2113 Brampton Ct 21pAhSVton Ct Macy Mohs Walnut Creek,CA 94598-2316 alnut Creek,CA 94598-2316 9701 Deer Valley Rd Brentwood,CA 94513-4947 007 090 027 007 090 028 007 090 031 Gail Webb Billy&Mary Bethea California Sun Brentwood Lic PO Box 1207 9875 Deer Valley Rd 5109 E La Palma Ave#D Brentwood,CA 94513-3207 Brentwood,CA 94513-4908 Anaheim,CA 92807-2066 007 090 032 007 090 033 007 090 034 Berta Lucia Deleon Monte&Lucia Albers Gerald&Wanda Stein Rr 2 Box 175C 9601 Deer Valley Rd 3125 Briones Valley Rd Brentwood,CA 94513-9802 Brentwood,CA 94513-4907 Brentwood, CA 94513-4934 007 090 035 007 090 036 007 090 037 Gerald&Wand Std!"n Gerald&Wan ein Patrick&Kelly Wentz 3125 B ' Valley Rd 3125 B ' Valley Rd 1054 San Antonio Ave ood,CA 94513-4934 Bre ood,CA 94513-4934 Alameda,CA 94501-3961 007 100 003 007 100 003 007100005 - Strickler Family Partnership Strickler Family Partnership Strickler Family Partnerslup 1276 Lincoln Ave -1276 Lincoln Avo--- 1276-Lincoln-Ave San Jose,CA 95125-3008 San Jose,CA 95125-3008 -San Jose, A45-125 3008 007 100 006 007 100 009 007 100 NO—— - California Sun Brentwood Lic California Sun Brentwood Llc Ccc Flood Control District 5109 E La Palma Ave#D 5109 E La Palma Ave#D 255 Glacier Dr Anaheim,CA 92807-2066 Anaheim,CA 92807-2066 Martinez,CA 94553-4825 007 100 O l l 007 100 012 007 100 020 1 S H Cowell Foundation Ccc Flood Control District MisSion PealcHomes Inc PO Box 63700 255 Glacier Dr 245 Sinclair Frontage Rd San Francisco,CA 94163-0001 Martinez,CA 94553-4825 Milpitas,CA 95035-5415 007 100 021 007 100 022 007 100-023 Ccc Flood Control District Strickler Family Partnership Strickler Family Partnership 255 Glacier Dr 1276 Lincoln Ave 1276 Lincoln Ave Martinez,CA 94553-4825 San Jose,CA 95125-3008 San Jose,CA 95125-3008 r1L 009T5 i�s�-� Vt,�.twtb a� fi o slage1 ssaapPb eAxl3NV ��12 007110 009 007 110 011 007 110 013 Sh Cowell Foundation Cc Water District Brentwood Gun Club PO Box 63700 PO Box H2O 356 Granite Cir San Francisco,CA 94163-0001 Concord,CA 94524 Antioch,CA 94509-6214 007 110 014 007 110 015 007 120 007 James&Beryl Bridges Jr. State Route 4 Bypass Authority S H Cowell Foundation 118 Liberty Ln 255 Glacier Dr PO Box 63700 Brentwood,CA 94513-6406 Martinez,CA 94553-4825 San Francisco,CA 94163-0001 007120012 007 120 013 007 120 014 S H Cowell Foundation S H Cowell Foundation Ccc Flood Control District PO Box 63700 PO Box 63700 255 Glacier Dr San Francisco,CA 94163-0001 San Francisco,CA 94163-0001 Martinez,CA 94553-4825 007 120 015 007 120 016 007 120 017 Ccc Flood Control District California ataw<r rrE.si1¢ S H Cowell Foundation 255 Glacier Dr eek Rd �. PO Box 63700 Martinez,CA 94553-4825 ntwood, CA 94513 San Francisco,CA 94163-0001 1 4*0915 jesel •50 VU 411 J,,,J4, slagej ssaippd GAMAAVII 007 090 005 007 090 007 007 090 016 S H Cowell Foundation S H Cowell Foundation Roman Catholic Bishop Oakland P4 Box 6.3j^7�0y0(`4 ,{ �} (�/�(� PO Box 63700('4 y�y''yj� /2`900 Lakeshore AvJe� San Francisco,CA 94163-0001 San Francisco, CA 94163-0001 Oakland,CA 94610-3614 007 090 023 007 090 024 007 090 034 Lefty Catchi ngs Letty Catc ' Gerald&W toin 2113 Brampton Ct 2113 ton Ct 3125 B ' es Valley Rd Walnut Creels,CA 94598-2316 W ut Creek,CA 94598-2316 Br ood,CA 94513-4934 007 090 035 007 090 036 007 090 037 Gerald&Wanda Stein Gerald&W fain Patricki Kelly Wentz 3125 Briones Valley Rd 3125 B ' Valley Rd 1054 San Antonio Ave Brentwood,CA 94513-4934 Br ood,CA 94513-4934 Alameda,CA 94501-3961 007 100 005 007 100 009 007100 010 Strickler Family Partnership California.Sun Brentwood Llc Ccc Flood Control District 1276 Lincoln Ave 5109 E La Palma Ave#D 255 Glacier Dr San Jose,CA 95125-3008 Anaheim,CA 92807-2066 Martinez,CA 94553-4825 007100 011 007 100 012 007 100 023 S H Cowell Foundation Ccc Flood Control District Strickler Family Partnership PO Box 63700 255 Glacier Dr 1276 Lincoln Ave San Francisco,CA 94163-0001 Martinez,CA 94553-4825 San Jose,CA 95125-9008 019 120 002 019 120 007 019 120 008 Peter Eugen&Ja machin Peter Eugen& e Ginochio Peter Eugen a Ginachia Eugene Pet Eugene Eug eter NOS NAME or NUMBER. N ET NAME ar NUMBER STREET NAME or NUMBER ,CA ,CA -nflTC tnt�tierrtt +as tir n .•Y•Y Y..+Y w« efYr.e4Mf.r (g09tS aesel .1� _ sjaq j s aapPy OAU3AW 020160 008 020 160 009 020 160 009 Foundation Beaulieu Coleman.Foley Coleman F Ptd Box 2290 1196 Vineyard Ave 1196 eyard Ave Cannel Valley,CA 93924-2290 Pleasanton,CA 94566-6324 ton,CA 94566-6324 020160 009 020 160 009 020 160 009 Coleman.Fol :111 oleman Fole Coleman Fol 1196 V' Ave 96 V'm d Ave 1196 V and AvePl ton,CA 94566-6324 an,CA 94566-6324 P ton,CA 94566-6324 AnYP IAI °J7riY/�l1Y�Y 'SCPY ULL REGIONAL AGENCY NOTIFICATION ABAG ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY LIST.DOC METRO CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LABELS PO Box 2050 399 ELMHURST ST STE 136 OAKLAND,CA 94604 HAYWARD,CA 94544 BAAQMD EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT CCTA 939 ELLIS STREET PO BOX 5381 PACIFIC PLAZA BUILDING SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94109 OAKLAND,CA 946050381 1340 TREAT BLVD.,STE 150 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 CITY OF DUBLIN MTC SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY PLANNING, 100 CIVIC PLAZA METRO CENTER DEPARTMENT DUBLIN,CA 94568 101 EIGHTH STREET 1810 EAST HAZELTON AVE. ATTN:PLANNING DEPT. OAKLAND,CA 94607-4756 STOCKTON,CA 95205 CITY OF LIVERMORE SOLANO COUNTY SACRAMENTO COUNTY 1052 SOUTH LIVERMORE DEPT.OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANNING&COMMUNITY DEV.DEPT. LIVERMORE,CA 94550 601 TEXAS STREET 827 SEVENTH STREET,ROOM 230 ATTN:PLANNING DEPT. FAIRFIELD,CA 94553 SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 CCWD DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DENNIS PISILLA REGION 3 SACRAMENTO FIELD OFFICE 1331 CONCORD AVE PO BOX 47 DIV.OF ECOLOGICAL SERVICES PO BOX H O YOUNTVILLE CA 945993310 EL CAMINO AVE.,SUITE 130 CONCORD CA 94524 SACRAMENTO CA 95821-6340 ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFO EBMUD SAN FRANCISCO BAY DISTRICT SYSTEM PO BOX 24055,MAIL SLOT#701 211 MAIN STREET BUILDING 33, SSU OAKLAND CA 94623 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 1801 E.COTATI AVE. ROHNERT PARK CA 94928 CENTRAL SAN MIKE MENTINK STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 5019 IMHOFF PLACE SAN RAMON VALLEY FIRE OFFICE OF IN'T'ERGOVERNMENTAL MARTINEZ CA 94553 1500 BOLLINGER CANYON ROAD MANAGEMENT SAN RAMON CA 94583 1400-10TH ST.,ROOM 121 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT MARIN COUNTY CITY OF ALBANY 20 OAK STREET 3501 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE PLANNING DIRECTOR BRENTWOOD CA 94513 3P'FLOOR,RM 308 1000 SAN PABLO AVE SAN RAFAEL CA 94903 ALBANY CA 94706 CITY OF BERKELEY CITY OF OAKLAND PLANNING DIRECTOR PLANNING DIRECTOR 1900 ADDISON STREET ONE CITY HALL PLAZA BERKELEY CA 94704 3RD FLOOR OAKLAND CA 94612 Mike Ramsey, City Manager Jon Elam, City Manager Richard Hill, City Manager City of Antioch City of Brentwood City of Clayton P.O. Box 130 708 Third Street 6000 Heritage Trail Antioch, CA 94509-0504 Brentwood, CA 94513 Clayton, CA 94517 Edward James, City Manager Joe Calabrigo, City Manager Gary Pokorny, City Manager City of Concord Town of Danville City of El Cerrito 1950 Parkside Dr. 510 La Gonda Way 10890 San Pablo Ave. Concord, CA 94519 Danville, CA 94526 El Cerrito, CA 94530 Raj Pankhania Stephen Palk, City Manager Marcia Raines, City Manager Asst to the City Manager City of Lafayette City of Martinez City of Hercules 3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd. #210 525 Henrietta St. 111 Civic Drive Lafayette, CA 94549 Martinez, CA 94553 Hercules, CA 94547 Town Manager William Lindsay, City Manager Town of Moraga Mike Oliver, City Manager City of Orinda P.O. Box 188 City of Oakley 26 Orinda Way Moraga, CA 94556 P.O. Box 6 Orinda, CA 94563 Oakley, CA 94561 Marc Crisham, City Manager Jeffrey C. Kolin, City Manager Joseph Tanner, City Manager City of Pinole City of Pittsburg City of Pleasant Hill 3 2200 Pear St. P.O. Box 1518 100 Gregory Ln. Pinole , CA 94564 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Isiah Turner, City Manager Rory Robinson, City Manager Herb Moniz, City Manager City of Richmond City of San Pablo City of San Ramon 27th & Barrett One Alvarado Square 2222 Camino Ramon Richmond, CA 94804 San Pablo, CA 94806 San Ramon, CA 94583 Donald Blubaugh City Manager City of Walnut Creek 1666 N. Main St. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Ron Ward Mitch Oshinsky Jeremy Graves Community Development Director Community Development Director Community Development Director City of Antioch City of Brentwood City of Clayton P. O.Box 5007 708 -3rd Street 6000 Heritage Trail Antioch, CA 94531-5007 Brentwood,CA 94513 Clayton,CA 94517 Lydia DuBorg Kevin Gailey,Chief of Planning Jill Kiemach Community Development Director Town of Danville Planning Manager City of Concord 510 La Gonda Way City of El Cerrito 1950 Parkside Drive,MIS 50 Danville,CA 94526 10890 San Pablo Avenue Concord,CA 94519 El Cerrito,CA 94530 Matt Tomas. Mike Henn Marsha Raines Planning Manager Planning Services Manager Community Development Director City of Hercules City of Lafayette City of Martinez 111 Civic Drive P.O. Box 1968 525 Henrietta Street Hercules,CA 94547 Lafayette,CA 94549 Martinez,CA 94553 Barry Hand Melanie Hobden Thomas Sullivan,Planning Director Community Development Director Community Development Director Town Maraga City of Oakley City of Orinda P.O.Box 188 P.O. Box 6 26 Orinda Way Moraga,CA 94556 Oakley, CA 94561 Orinda,CA 94563 Randy Jerome Rich Bottarini ;Dave Dowswell,City Planner Planning Manager Community Development Director City of Pinole City of Pittsburg City of Pleasant Hill Pinole, Pear Street P.O. Box 1518 100 Gregory Lane inole,CA 94564 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Pleasant Hill,CA 94523 Dan Shaw,Planning Director Baron McCoy Phil Wong City of Richmond Interim Dev. Svcs. Manager Planning Services Manager P.O. Box 4046 City of San Pablo City of San Ramon Richmond, CA 94804 One Alvarado Square 2222 Camino Ramon San Pablo,CA 94806 San Ramon,CA 94583 Kevin Roberts Community Development Director City of Walnut Creek P.O.Box 8039 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 f i IC. Matt Hicks Alicia Guerra Mariane Foglia Brentwood News 61 Shelterwood Drive Morrison and Forrester 1.185 2nd St., Suite H-2 Danville CA 94506 101 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 450 Brentwood CA 94513 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Michael Mentink Amelia B. Maltez Mike Glazzy SRVFPD Morrison&Foerster LLP Souza Realty&Development 1500 Bollinger Canyon Road PO Box 8130 105 East Tenth Street, Suite 100 San Ramon CA 94583 Walnut Creek CA 94596-8130 Tracy CA 95376 Phylis Shaw, Superintendent Susan Murray John Muir National Historic Site City of Oakley ett &Bhat, 70 Z 4202 Alhambra Ave PO Box 6 70 doe Street,#100 Martinez CA 94553 Oakley CA 94561 San Francisco CA 94107 Marshall Torre Nancy Chinn Braddock&Lown services,LLC Jerry Shih Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce 4155 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, suite 201 1565 Reliance Way 2020 Railroad Ave. Danville CA 94506 Fremont CA 94539 Pittsburg CA 94565 David Evans and Associates Inc. Supervisor Canciamilla Val Alexeeff' 5000 Executive Pkwy, Suite 125 INTEROFFICE INTEROFFICE San Ramon CA 94583 10 copies Charlene Davis McCutchen&Doyle Anderson, Bonnifield&Cottl 734 Yuba St. 1333 N California Blvd., #2 1320 Willow Pass Road,#500 Richmond CA 94805 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Concord CA 94520 Molody Weintraub Patrice Davisonn Morrison&Foerster, LLP 3903 Happy Valley Rd PO Box 3105 101 Ygnacio Valley Road, #4 Lafayette, CA 94549 Truckee CA 96160 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Adams Broadwell Souza Realty Michelle Denise Burt/LSA 651 Gateway Blvd.,#900 105 10th 2215 Fifth Street South San Francisco CA 94080 Tracy CA 95376 Berkeley CA 94710 Contra Costa Council Judith Barrall Henry A. Alker III 877 Ygnacio Valley Rd. 692 Snapdragon P1 155 Montgomery St., Suite 5 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Benicia CA 94510 San Francisca CA 94104 Brent Parker Signature Properties Linda Louise Brown 5500 Highland Rd 4670 Willow Road, Suite 200 2609 Chelsea Dr. Pleasanton CA 94588 Pleasanton CA 94588 Oakland CA 94611 Richard Barton Nat Taylor Kathleen Nimr 4021 Port Chicago Hwy 120 Montgomery Street 2204 Olympic Drive Concord CA 94524 San Francisco CA 94104 Martinez CA 94553 Bailey Estates LLC Pamela Hardy Joan Ryan 2762 Hutchinson Court 6671 Owens Drive 2329 Mark Twain Drive Walnut Creek CA 94598 Pleasanton CA 94566 Antioch CA 94509 Christy Herron Guy Bjerke McGill, Martin, Self, Inc. 2242 San Jose Ave., #1 792 Terrapin Ct. 1500 Newell Ave., Suite 700 Alameda CA 94501 Concord CA 94518 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Mark Caughey Evelyn Stivers Gagen,McCoy and McMahon EBMUD Greenbelt Alliance 279 Front St. Water Distribution and Planning Division 1372 North Main#203 Danville CA 94526 375 11`h,street,Ms 701 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Oakland CA 94607-4240 Tom Hall Maria Alegria Kristie Rolfeson 5900 Highland Road 3781 Brazil Court Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher Pleasanton CA 94588 Pinole CA 94564 1801 N. California Blvd., Suite 103 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Sara Mora DELTA PROTECTION COMMISSION Evo Baldachi CCC Farm Bureau 14215 RIVER ROAD 5554 Clayton Rd. PO BOX 530 Concord CA 94521 WALNUT GROVE CA 95690 Mr. Russell Leavitt Mike Daly Central San 1Joe Miller Sierra Club - SF Bay Chapter 5019 Imhoff Place 155 01 Old Ranch Estate Drive 2530 San Pablo Martinez CA 94553 San Ramon CA 94583 Berkeley, CA 94702 Paul Speroni Signature Properties Margo Lederer 245 Joseph Lane 4670 Willow Road, 200 Alameda County Community Developmen P 399 Elmhurst Pleasanton CA 94588 Pleasanton CA 94588 Hayward CA 94544 Kerry Sullivan Randy Harris San Joaquin County Harris and Harris Community Development Department 1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 110 1810 E.Hazelton Oakland CA 94612 Stockton CA 95205 BOB DORAN Richard Loweke, AICP Arthur F. Coon 4920 Cabrillo Point 55 Oak Trail Court Miller, Starr & Regalia Discovery Bay, CA 94514 Alamo, CA 94507 1331 N Calif Blvd 9' E1 r walnut Creek, CA 94596 Wilson Wendt Ronald Rives Renae Parker Miller, Starr & Regalia Seeno Company 5500 Highland road 1331 N Calif Blvd 9h Elr 4012 Port Chicago Hwy Pleasanton CA 94588 walnut Creek, CA 94596 Concord, CA 94524 Brendt Parker Mira Goetsch GuyB�erke 5500 Highland Road 360 Diablo Road Home .PO Box 5160 AssnerS Pleasanton , CA 94588 Danville CA 94507 San Ramon , CA 94583 Jeff Wiedemann Leonard Silva Judie Brown 6995 Highland Road 4149 wells Street 7101 Camino Tassajara Pleasanton, CA 94588 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Curt Kinney, Mayor Evelyn Stivers Linda Brown City of San Ramon 1601 N Main St Ste 105 CA Alliance for yobs 2222 Camino Ramon walnut Creek, CA 94596 70 Washington St #425 San Ramon , CA 94583 Oakland, CA 94611 Bruce white Clarence L. Gribbon Mark Caughey 5400 Penny Lane 3050 Citrus Cir Ste 202 EBMUD Pleasanton, CA 94588 walnut Creek, CA 94598 375 11 Street Oakland, CA 94607 Gordon Rasmussen 6000 Highland Road Pleasanton, CA 94588 �ty o �nz�r Carr Leslie Stewart Warren Smith toch League of Women Voters 1100 Bailey Road P.O.Box 0!"00" 500 St Mary's Road#14 Pittsburg CA 94565 ' Antioch CA 4553 Lafayette CA 94549 Wi Wendt Paul Corrado Matt Hicks Wendt 1331 Cr California Blvd. 66 SheIttrwood Drive 61 Shelterwood Drive , Walnut CA 94596 Danville CA 94506 Danville CA 94506 Ronald Rives John Montgomery Evelyn Stivers 4021 Port Chicago Hwy PO Box 687 1601 N.Main,Suite 105 Concord CA 94524 Clayton CA 94517 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Mike Daley I dy Jerome Bjerke 729 Everett St, 5 CNc Ave P ox ox 5164 El Cerrito CA 94530 PittsburKA 94565 San n CA 94583 Se Adams s h� Hal Boex Sanford Skaggs Stave ount Diablo 12 1196 B 1 3441 Tice Creek Box V e 196 B levard Way#10 v Walnut t C Walnut Creek CA 94595 Walnut Creek CA 94596 alnut Cra k CA 94595 Michael Gibson Tom Koch i.�en Parker 5 50� Shapell 0� � 70 Sara Lane 55 , and Road 100 N.Milpitas Blvd ghl Alamo CA 94507 Milpitas CA 95035 Ple=asau(7CA 94588 Curt Kinney Roger Smith Marta Self Mayor of San Ramon 85 High Eagle Road 1500 Newell Ave. 7439 Ascension Drive Alamo CA 94507 Walnut Creek CA 94596 San Ramon CA 94583 John C.Stremel Bruce White 2762 Hutchinson Ct, 5400 Penny Lane Walnut Creek CA 94598 Pleasanton CA 94588 -7-00 4k-, lk-e� Millie Greenberg Mayor Town of Danville John Banke Nick Roscha 674 Sheri Lane 8540 Manning Road 1320 Willow Pass Road Danville CA 94526 Livermore CA 94550 Concord Ca 94520 Jim McKeehan Wayne West Marcus O'Connell 4670 Willow Road#200 4050 Live Oak Ave 3206 Esperanza Drive Pleasanton CA 94588 Oakley CA 94561 Concord CA 94519 Kathleen Mimr Winston Rhodes 2204 Olympic Drive 104 Oak Street Martinez CA 94553 Brentwood CA 94513 VICTOR CARN€GLIA QUINTIN L. KIDD, MAYOR JEREMY GRAVES, AICP, DIRECTOR CITY OF ANTIOCH, CDD CITY OF BRENTWOOD CITY OF CLAYTON, CDD PO BOX 5007 708 THIRD STREET 6000 HERITAGE TRAIL ANTIOCH, CA 94531-5007 BRENTWOOD, CA 94153-1396 CLAYTON, CA 94517-4917 KEVIN J. GAILEY, AICP AVAN€NDRA K. GANGAPURANT CURT KINNEY, MAYOR TOWN OF DANVILLE CITY OF PITTSBURG, CDD CITY OF SAN RAMON 510 LA GONDA WAY PO Box 5146 CA 94565 DANVILLE, CA 94526-1740 65 TSMC AVENUE BAN RAMON, CA 94583-1350 PITTSBURG,P KATHY LEIGHTON, CHAIR, SMAC GREGORY GARTRELL MARILYN L. MILLER P.O. Box 268 OOWD EBMUD BYRON, CA 94514 PO Box H2O 375 ELEVENTH STREET CONCORD, CA 94524 OAKLAND, CA 94607-4240 BRAD OLSON DANIEL SMITH TERRY ROBERTS EBRPD 20 OAK STREET OFFICE OF PLANNING & RESEARCH 2950 PERALTA OAKS COURT BRENTWOOD, CA 94513 1400 TENTH STREET OAKLAND, CA 94605-0381 SACRAMENTO, CA 95812-3044 LINDA BROWN .JIM.JAKEL .JOHN VIAND CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR.LOBS CONTRA COSTA COUNCIL CA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 70 WASHINGTON ST STE 425 877 YGNACIO VALLEY RD STE 202 5554 CLAYTON ROAD OAKLAND, CA 94607 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 CONCORD, CA 94521 EVELYN STIVERS PAUL CAMPOS GWEN WATSON, PRESIDENT,LWV GREENBELT ALLIANCE HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION 500 ST. MARY'S ROAD#14 1601 N MAIN STREET STE 105 PO Box 5160 LAFAYETTE, CA 94549 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 SAN RAMON, CA 94583-5160 NANCY CHINN SETH ADAMS RENAE PARKER, PRESIDENT PITTSBURG CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SAVE MOUNT DIABLO TCCPR 2020 RAILROAD AVENUE 1196 BOULEVARD WAY STE 10 5500 HIGHLAND ROAD PITTSBURG, CA 94565 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 BRENT PARKER CRAIG ANDERSON PATRICIA CURTIN TCCPR ANDERSON, BONNFIELD, &CoTTLE GAGEN, MCCOY,MAMAHON&ARMSTRONG 5500 HIGHLAND ROAD 1320 WILLOW PASS RD STE 500 PO BOX 218 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 CONCORD, CA 94520-5244 DANVILLE, CA 94526-0218 MARK ARMSTRONG SANFORD M. SKAGGS RONALD P. RIVES GAGEN,MCCOY,MAMAHON,&ARMSTRONG MCCUTCHEN,DOYLE,BROWN&ENERSON,LLP ALBERT D. SEENO CONSTRUCTION CO. PO BOX 218 PO Box V PO BOX 4113 DANVILLE, CA 94526-0218 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596-1270 CONCORD, CA 94524-4113 CECILY T. TALBERT WILSON F. WENDT ANNE E. MUDGE MCCUTCHEN,DOYLE,BROWN&ENERSON,LLP MILLER, STARR& REGALIA WASHBURN BRISCOE& MCCARTHY PO Box V PO Box 8177 55 FRANCISCO ST STE 600 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596-1270 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133 MARTA O. SELF, AICP HENRY A. ALKER, PH.D. WAYNE F. PIERCE MCGILL MARTIN SELF, INC. SOUTHPORT LANG&COMMERCIAL COMPANY RODDY RANCH, LLC 1500 NEWELL AVENUE STE 700 155 MONTGOMERY ST STE 504 21 PILLON REAL WALNUT CREEK, CA 945965180 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104-4110 PLEASANT HILL, CA 94523 BRUCE D. WHITE CHARLIE ABRAMS BVO & HELEN BALDOCCHI ASSOCIATED PLANNERS INVESTMENT ADVISORY, 2815 MITCHELL DRIVE, STE 120 6390 SELLERS AVENUE INC. WALNUT CREEK, CA 94598 OAKLEY, CA 94561 39273 LIBERTY ST STE D-10 FREMONT, CA 94538 JUDIE A. BROWN PAUL G. CORRADO, AICPIASLA EARLINE& OWEN SCHAFER 7101 CAMINO TASSAJARA PRESIDENT LAWRENCE ESTATES HOA 6351 JOHNSTON ROAD PLEASANTON, CA 94588 66 SHELTERWOOD DRIVE PLEASANTON, CA 94566 DANVILLE, CA 94506 CAROL& CLARENCE GRIBBON THOMAS W. HALL, PH.D. GORDON & KAREN RASMUSSEN 611 PINE CREEK ROAD 5900 HIGHLAND ROAD 6000 HIGHLAND ROAD WALNUT CREEK, CA 94598 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 H. L. HARRIS JOHN R. MONTGOMERY MARCUS O`CONNELL 100 BALFOUR ROAD PO BOX 687 3206 ESPERANZA DRIVE BRENTWOOD, CA 94513 CLAYTON, CA 94517 CONCORD, CA 94519 LARRY J. MORI 3913 CINNABAR STREET ANTIOCH, CA 94509 Ms.Sharon Marsh Ms.Harriett Zych Mr.Ed Zutra BMAC 436 Cleerwood Dr. 8425 Brentwood Blvd, 2615 Taylor Ln. Oakley CA 94561 Brentwood CA 94513 Byron CA 94514 Mr.Prank Dell Mr.Earl Wetzel ennis P' ila ECRPC ECRPC CC 1400 Sunset Rd. PO Box 184 PO Box Brentwood CA 94513 Byron CA 94514 Cone d CA 24 Mr.Aaron Meadows Mr.Bill Hili Ms.Marie Thomas OMAC 1180 Brearwater Way 3777 Bixler Rd. PO Box 5 Brentwood CA 94513 Byron CA 94514 Oakley CA 94561 Ms.Barbara Guise Ms.Janess Hanson N.yNat ylor Tri Delta ECRPC Sll 189 Sherwood Dr. 431 Levee Rd 12ornerySt.Brentwood CA 94513 Bay point CA 94565 Sisc 94104 Mr.Nick Papatakos Ms.Kathy Billeighton Ms.Marta Self Byron MAC Byron MAC,Byron Sewer MMS PO Box 96 PO Box 52 1500 Newell Ave Byron CA 94514 Byron CA 94514 Walnut Creek CA 94544 Mr.Jim Alves Mr.Joe Philbrick Mr.Art Breves Brentwood Planning Commission DBCDS 2301 Stamen Place 945 Buckskin Terrace 1957 Dolphin Place Brentwood CA 9ce Brentwood CA 94513 Discovery Bay CA 94514 4513 Mr.Tom Mooers Mr.John A.Gonzales Mr.Bob Doran Greenbelt Alliance KTAC RD-800 1372 North Main#203 PO Box 369 4920 Cabrillo Walnut Creek CA 94596 Knightsen CA 94548 Discovery Bay CA 94514 Ms.Betty Compilli Mr.Phil Day Ms.A.Judy Merriam Bryon Bethany ID BMAC BMAC PO Box 160 RT 1,Box 52B 282 Bixler Rd. Byron CA 94514 Byron CA 94514 Brentwood CA 94513 Mr.D.A. "Julio"Stack Mr.Greg Sherman Mr.James A.Gwerder PO Box 1 786 Valley Green Dr. 105 E. 10th St. Byron CA 94514 Brentwood CA 94513 'Tracy CA 95376 Mr.Jeff Berberiett Mr.Thomas Mr.George Cardinale 5000 Executive Parkway BCN Cardinale Co. Suite 125 PO Box 102 1120 Second St.,Suite 105 San Ramon CA 94583 Byron CA 94514 Brentwood.CA 94513 Mr.Torn Whalen Ms.Lisa Vorderbrueggen Mr.Leonard Gerry Hoffman Co. Contra Costa Times 56 Payne Ave. 1380 Galaxy Way 821 Main St. Brentwood CA 94513 Concord CA 94522 Martinez CA 94553 Mr.Henry Alker Ms. Shannon Murphy-Teixeira Mr. uy Bjer Pittsburg Chamber 4796 Bayside Way Home i rs Association 2010 Railroad Ave. Oakley CA 94561 PO B 0 Pittsburg CA 94565 S mon 94583 Mr.Randy Jerome Mr. ff lin Jim and Donna Conley City of Pittsburg City o 'tt�sburg City of Antioch PO Box 1518 2020 ilro , 5026 Toyon Way Pittsburg CA 94565 Pi sburg CA 94565 Antioch CA 94509 Mr.Don Lapidos Ms.Aleida Cerena-Rios Mr.Mike McGill Seeno City of Pittsburg McGill,Martin,Self,Inc. 4021 Port Chicago Hwy Citizen's Adv.Comm. 1500 Newell Ave Concord CA 94524 797 Ventura Dr. Walnut Creek CA 94596 Pittsburg CA 94565 Mr.Rudy L.Fernandez Ms.Laurie Ecler Ms. Sandra Brown Park and Recreation Commission McGill,Martin,Self,Inc. 3028 Clay St. 2816 Lupine Ct. 1500 Newell Ave,#700 San Francisco CA 94115 Antioch CA 94509 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Ms.Mary S.Metz Richard and Dale Tambellini S H Cowell Foundation 1551 Hunsaker Canyon Rd. 120 Montgomery St. Lafayette CA 94549 San Francisco CA 94104 Ms.Yvonne Beals Evo and Helen Baldocchi 6390 Sellers Ave Assemblyman Tom Torlakson $15 Estudillo St. Oakley CA 94561 Martinez CA 94553 Ms.Joan Ryan Ms.Linda Brown Mr.Allen Valentine City of Concord California Alliance for Jobs Pittsburg Planning Commission 1950 Parkside HJ553 70 Washington St.,#425 2255 San Remo Ct. Concord CA 94525 Oakland CA 94607 Pittsburg CA 94565 Ms.Mary Rosas Mr.Lou Rosas Mr.Nasser Shirazi 171 Sandpiper 171 Sandpiper City of Pittsburg CDD Pittsburg CA 94565 Pittsburg CA 94565 65 Civic Ave. Pittsburg CA 94565 Ms.Rose Lawrence Roger and Martha Henry CAC Antioch Planning Commission 131 Castlewood Dr. 3671 Brookdale Circle Pittsburg CA 94568 Antioch CA 94509 Mr. Lawrence Ms.Carmen Gaddes Mr. Planning Commission 131 Castlewood Dr. ine Pittsburg CA 94568 C Pittsburgttsurg CA 94565 Ms.Marilyn Torres Mr.Rudy Fernandez Mr.Ron Stolich 5780 Nortonville Rd. Park and Recreation Commission PO Box 399 Pittsburg CA 94565 2816 Lupine Ct. Clerments CA 95227 Antioch CA 94509 Ms.Naomi Morgan Ms.Cheryl Morgan Ms.Phyllis Peterson 6040 Morgan Territory EOC Clayton City Council Clayton CA 94517 5840 A Roundtree Drive 6000 Heritage Trail Concord CA 94520 Clayton CA 94517 Mr.Jeremy Graves Ms.Laura Hoffineister Ms.Delores League Clayton CDD City of Clayton 5731 Lewis Way 6000 Heritage Trail 6600 Heritage Trail Concord CA 94521 Clayton CA 94517 Clayton CA 94517 Ms.Julie Pierce Ms.Bonny Cunningham Mr.Jim Moita City of Clayton 920 Ridge Drive 8117 Marsh Creek Rd. 6000 Heritage Trail Concord CA 94518 Clayton CA 94517 Clayton CA 94517 Mr.Harold E.Parsley Eizo and Mary Kobayaini Mr.John C. Stricke 3967 Bellwood Ct 4001 Houston Ct. A.A.C.MIL,Pacheco MAC Concord CA 94517 Concord CA 94521 245 Vista Del Rio Pacheco CA 94553 Mr. Stan Hansen Ms.Marilyn Yomuth CCC Mobile Homes CCC Mobile Home Mr.Don Mount 1201 Monument Blvd. #33 Advisory Committee Lane Concord CA 94520 PO 8927 Concord C CA 94518 Pittsburg CA 94565 Ms.Joan Ryan City Mr. Gene DeMar Ms.Tune Dellapa Cof Concord ity Parkside d M/S 53 1313 Gragg Lane 176 Elminya Drive Concord CA 94518 Concord CA 94518 Pacheco CA 94553 Mr.Richard Rollins Mr.Marcus O'Connell Ms.Mary F.Draper 325 Preakness Court 3206 Esperanza LW V-DV Walnut Creek CA 94596 Concord CA 94519 2106 Lost Lake Place Martinez CA 94553 Ms.Gwen Watson Mr. Mr.Pete Wilson League of Women Voters 178 Art eoak l Moraga-Orinda Fire 306 Maverick Ct. 1788 rd CA Ave. 35 Lost Valley Lafayette CA 94549 Concord CA 94521 Orinda CA 94563 Mr. Sarge Littlehale Ms.Pamela Hardy Mr.Carl Andurs 4 Carolyn Court Ponderosa Homes Lafayette Planning Commission Orinda CA 94563 6671 Owens Drive 3360 Kincheloe Ct. Pleasanton CA 94588 Lafayette CA 94549 Mr.Alan Kapp Resident Lee Nelson 411 Donegal Way 264 Sandringham 136 Donald Drive Lafayette CA 94549 Moraga CA 94556 Moraga CA 94556 Mr.Robert Stevens Mr.Igor R.Blake Ms.Kathryn Peterson Saranap Homeowners Happy Valley Imp.Assoc. MRLT 125 Kendall Road 4165 Canyon Road 36 Deer Trail Walnut Creek CA 94595 Lafayette CA 94549 Lafayette CA 94549 Mr.Wayne Fettig Gary and Alice Stern Mr. Sam Zorich Saranap Community Associiation Orinda Lions 639 Glorietta Blvd 178 Kendall Road Lafayette CA 94549 10 Corte Del Rey Walnut Creek CA 94595 Orinda CA 94663 Ms.Cathy Sherwood Ms.Carol Carsten Mr.Steve Davis LWVDV LWVDV 1865 Reliez Valley Road 3320 Walnut Lane 1076 Country Club Drive Lafayette CA 94549 Lafayette CA 94549 Moraga CA 94556 Ms.Gail Rosen Ms.Linda Fishman Ott Mr.John Pereira 20 Presher Way 25 Wanda Way 6050 Alhambra Valley Rd. Lafayette CA 94549 Martinez CA 94553 Martinez CA 94553 Ms.Julia Frazer Ms.Laurie Eder Trail User Coalition 1500 Newell,Suite'700 2415 Alhambra Valley Road Martinez CA 94553 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Ms.Anne Campbell Ms.Jackie Heath Ms.Gigi Walker 336 Donegal Way 127 Gordon Way 307 Jordan Court Martinez CA 94553 Martinez CA 94553 Martinez CA 94553 Ms.Kay Cox Mr.Tina Batt Muir Heritage Land Trust Muir Heritage Land Trust Mr.Jim Black PO Box 2452 PO Box 2452 350 2nd Street Martinez CA 94553 Martinez CA 94553 Los Altos CA 94022 Ms.Virginia Radosevich William and Gale Foley Marie and Hal Olson 135 Gordon Way 1125 Bear Creek Road Alhambra Valley Impr.Assoc. Martinez CA 94553 Martinez CA 94553 22 Wanda Way Martinez CA 94553 Mr.Frank Pereira Pat Thomas Ms.Ellen Visser 6040 Alhambra Valley Rd. 4129 Florence Drive 5121 Alhambra Valley Rd. Martinez CA 94553 Martinez CA 94553 Martinez CA 94553 Ms.Cece Sellgren Mr.Ray Ulmer Ms.Ana Marie Avila 329 Haven St. 1357 Peach St. 950 Country Run Drive Martinez CA 94553 Martinez CA 94553 Martinez CA 94553 Mr.Isidro Farias Ms.Reva Clark Mr.Ben Johnson 144 Fountainhead ESMAC 537 Kendall Martinez CA 94553 4556-1 Appian Way Crockett CA 94525 El Sobrante CA 94803 Mr.Jay Lutz Mr.Matt Tomas Ms.Kristen Alcaraz PO 4505 City of Hercules 1424 Marlesta Road Walnut Creek CA 94596 111 Civic Drive Pinole CA 94564 Hercules CA 94547 Mr.Kent Peterson Mr.Torn Hansen Mr.Ramon Taraya C.I.A. IBEIN Local 302 Hecules CC 615 First Avenue 97 Bridgeview Court 1623 Swallow Way Crockett CA 94525 Crockett CA 94525 Hercules CA 94547 Mr.Howard Adams Mr.Willie M.Narcisse Ms. Connie Jackson C.I.A. 938 Sandy Cove Drive City of Hercules 720 Kendall Ave 111 Civic Drive Crockett CA 94525 Rodeo CA 94572 Hercules CA 94547 Mr.Dave Kurrent Mr.Andy Paras Mr.Bill Serat 980 Barkley Court City of Hercules 12 Camelford Court Pinole CA 94564 157 Newbury Court Moraga CA 94556 Hercules CA 94547 Ms. Grace Slinn Ms.Letty Catchings Ms.Katherine Noe Anderson 140 Valley Hill Drive 2113 Brampton Court Anderson Marketing Group Moraga CA 94556 Walnut Creek CA 94953 383 Diablo Road,Suite 100 Danville CA 94526 Mr.Richard E.Kennett Anamaria Perella Kennett Consulting Services Wayne and Irma Thomas CCC LAFCO PO Box 995 4723 Suzanne Drive 651 Pine St.,8th Floor Danville CA 94526 Pittsburg CA 94565 Martinez CA 94553 Mr.and Mrs.Wilson Ackerman Mr.Paul Choisser PO Box 374 1741 Lynwood Drive Brentwood CA 94513 Concord CA 94520 Mr.Brian Wiese Advance Planning,EBRPD Mr.Charles Blue Mr.Chris Parkes 2950 Peralta Oaks Ct, 29 Tampa Lane 3333 N.Lucille Ln PO Box 5381 ©rinds CA 94503 Lafayette CA 94549 Oakland CA 94605 Mr.Robert French Kayce Garcia eth Ada Save iiablo 530 West Wilson,#34 PO Box 169 P Bo PO Bo 3 Costa Mesa CA 92627 Canyon CA 94516 W Creek C Wa t Creek CA 6 Mr.Marshall Torre Mr.Tom Koch Mr.Tim Donahue,Chair Braddock and Logan Shapell Industries Delta Group-Sierra Club 4155 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, 100 N.Milpitas Blvd. 2412 Cambridge Drive Suite 201 Milpitas CA 95035 Antioch CA 94509 Danville CA 94506 Ms.Linda Lenehan,Chair Mr.Dick Schnieder,Chair Mt.Diablo Group-Sierra Club Conservation Committee Bay Area Open Space Council 1783 2nd Ave. Sierra Club—SF Bay Chapter 530 Bush Street,Room 303 Walnut Creek CA 94596 6867 Wilton Drive San Francisco CA 94108 Oakland CA 94611 Patricia Curtin Pat McGowan Jim Moita Gagen,McCoy,McMahon&Armstrong McGill Martin Self,Inc. Clayton Estates LLC 279 Front Street 1500 Newell Ave 3117 Marsh Creek Rd. PO Box 218 Suite 700 Clatyton CA 94517 Danville CA 94526 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Roger Wilson Richard T.Loewke,AICD Rich Texier Liberty Union High School District Planning Consultant Adams and Broadwell 20 Oak Street 55 Oak Trail Court 651 Gateway Blvd.,Suite 900 Brentwood CA 94513 Alamo CA 94507 South San Francisco CA 94080 Nancy Wenninger Dwight Leatham. Chair,Conservation Committee Tri Valley Herald Mt.Diablo Audubon Society 625 Court St. Blackhawk Homeowners Association 1091 Walker Avenue Room BIO 4725 Blackhawk Plaza Circle,Suite 23 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Martinez CA 94553 Danville CA 94506 Mission Peak Homes Melody Howe-Wein 40480 Encyclopedia Circle 3527 Mount Diablo,#265 Fremont CA 94538 Lafayette CA 94549 LEN BATTAGLIA HYMAN WONG GORDON KIMBER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 6480 HILLSIDE DRIVE 84 MORELLO HEIGHTS DRIVE 12237 ALCOSTA BLVD. EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 MARTINEZ CA 94553 SAN RAMON CA 94583 JOHN HANECAK CARMEN CADDIS MARVIN TERRELL COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 276 SCOTTSDALE ROAD 1535 NORINE DRIVE 1816 VENICE DRIVE PLEASANT HILL CA 94523 PITTSBURG CA 94555 CONCORD CA 94519 RICHARD CLARK. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PO BOX 2668 DANVILLE CA 94526 ANTHONY ASHE PHILIP DAY FRANK DELL ECRPC ECRPC ECRPC 1975 WILLOW PASS ROAD RT. 1 BOX 52B 1400 SUNSET ROAD BAY POINT CA 94565 BYRON CA 94514 BRENTWOOD CA 94512 PAUL HARPER WALTER MACVITTIE ECRPC ECRPC PO BOX 1473 1500 RIVERLAKE ROAD BETHEL ISLAND CA 94511 DISCOVERY BAY CA 94514 SCOTT COUTURE MICHAEL GIBSON PHILIP HO SRVRPC SRVRPC SRVRPC 166 TERACINA DRIVE 70 SARA LANE 4275 KNOLLVIEW DRIVE SAN RAMON,CA 94583 ALAMO,CA 94507 DANVILLE,CA 94525 NEAL MATSUNAGA NANCY J.MULVIHILL SHERRY NEELY SRVRPC SRVRPC SRVRPC 2429 CAMINO DE JUGAR 4490 FLEETWOOD ROAD 20 FLAGSTONE COURT SAN RAMON,CA 94583 DANVILLE,CA 94526 ALAMO,CA 94507 JEANNIE JEHA SRVRPC 251 VALLE VISTA DANVILLE,CA 94526 Smooth Feed Sheets'tm Use template for..51600 Design Division ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Victoria Isip Public Works Department Attn: Dan Guerra Community Development ***INTEROFFICE**, ** *****INTEROFFICE***** ******INTEROFFICE***** LAFCO Debra Johnson Sup. Gayle B. Uilkema ***INTEROFFICE*** Public Works Room 108A ***INTEROFFICE*** ****INTEROFFICE***** Raymond Wong Heather Ballenger Michele Wara ***INTEROFFICE*** Public Works Public Works Dept. ***INTEROFFICE*** Engineering Services ***INTEROFFICE**, Supervisor Canciamilla Paul Detjens Library Admin ***INTEROFFICE*** Public Works Department Pleasant Hill *****INTEROFFICE***** ***INTEROFFICE*** PC/ZA-22:SR/EC-4, SUPERVISOR DESAULNIER Press Room, Court House Public Works Department ***INTEROFFICE*** ***INTEROFFICE*** Steve Wright ***INTEROFFICE*** County Counsel BUILDING INSPECTION Melissa Morton ***INTEROFFICE*** ***INTEROFFICE*** Public Works ***INTEROFFICE*** Rebecca Watt Eastern Dev. Corp. W. Richard Texier Local Government Info. A. Ang Adams &Broadwell P.O. Box 10448 99 Somerset Lane 651 Gateway Blvd. #900 Arlington, VA 22210 Atherton„ CA 94027 S.San Francisco, CA 94080 Nathaniel Taylor Marilyn M. Boswell Man-Yin Tang Cowell Ranch Project Walnut Creek Manor DBD Structures 120 Montgomery St. #2570 1686 Union St. Suite 306 1329 Evans Ave. San Francisco, CA 94104 San Francisco, CA 94123 San Francisco, CA 94124 Nancy Mulvihil Jeff Lawrence Assoc.for Preservation 4490 FIood Road Braddock&Logan Group of Danville Boulevard D elle, CA 94506 4155 Blackhawk Plaza#201 P.O. Box 333 Danville, CA 94506 Alamo, CA 94507 Sherry Ne Michael Gib Antioch Planni Ipt. 20 FI one Court 70 S ane Victor iglla mo,CA 94507 mo, CA 94507 . Box 5007 Antioch, CA 94509 Smooth Feed Sheets TIM Use temptate for 51600 Neils T. Larsen Paul Harper Robert Heltmeyer Antioch Building Mats. P.O. Bo 73 Site Development Cons. P.O. Box 870 Be Island, CA 94511 P.O. Box F Antioch, CA 94509 Brentwood, CA 94513 East Contra Costa Robert Selders Frank Dell Irrigation District Western Pacific Housing 1400 qPRS19 Road P.O. Box 696 1210 Central Blvd. awirwood, CA 94513 Brentwood, CA 94513 Brentwood, CA 94513 Brentwood City Planning Liberty Union High l Philip Day Attn: Mitch O msky Dan Smith, S Rt 1 B B City Hal 8 Third St. 20 Oak et B n, CA 94514 Bre ood, CA 94513 Bre ood, CA 94513 Walter MacV!ttie Brentwood News Byron Bethany Irr. Dist. 1600 Riverlake Road - Roberta Fuss P.U. Box 160 Discovery Bay, CA 94514 4525 Discovery Pt. Byron, CA 94514 Byron, CA 94514 Discovery Bay MAC Marvin Terrel Concord Planning Dept. 155 Riverlake Rd. 1816 Ve ' e Drive 1950 Park ` Drive Suite D Conc d, CA 94519 Con , CA 94519 Byron, CA 94514 Contra Costa Builders Ex CC Mosquito Abatement Ellen Hole 1900 Bates Avenue 155 Mason Circle First American Title Suites E&F Concord, CA 94520 1355 Willow Way Sulte100 Concord, CA 94520 Concord, CA 94520 City of Pleasant CCC Fire District Pleasant Hill Rec& Park Planning Dep ment Engineering Division Robert B. Berggren 100 Grego Lane 2010 Geary Road 147 Gregory Lane Pleas Hill, CA 94523 Pleasant Hill,CA 94523 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 John Ha ak Georgia Olvera Mr. Dennis Pisila 276 ttsdale Road Albert D. Seeno Const. Contra Costa Water Dist. PI sant Hl11, CA 94523 P.O. Box 4113 P.U. Box H2O Concord, CA 94524 Concord, CA 94524 Contra Costa Water Dist Crockett Imprvmt. Assoc. Carol Robinson Attn: L. Gray P.O. Box 132 San Ramon Valley Times P.O. Box H2O Crockett, CA 94525 524 Hartz Avenue Concord, CA 94524 Danville, CA 94526 Mark Armstrong Jeannie Jeh Phili�ollview H Gagen,McCoy,McMahon,Arms 261 V lsta 427 Drive P.O. Box 218 D elle, CA 94526 n4526 Danville, CA 94526 Smooth Feed SheetSTM Use template for 5160@ Supervisor Donna Gerber Richard Clar Roy P.Clark *****INTEROFFICE`**** 1237 5pon Drive Blackhawk Corp. Da le, CA 94526 P.O. Box 807 Danville,CA 94526 Eugene F. DeBolt Diablo MAC David Kory DeBolt Civil Engineering Attn:James S.Adams C.CJ.AJM-16 811 San Raman Valley BI P.O. Box 35 419 Highland Ct. Danville,CA 94526 Diablo, CA 94528 Clyde,CA 94529 Ms.Ana M.Cortez Dorothy Elsenius, PMAC Knightsen Com.Council 513 Americano Way 3350 Cherry Hills Ct. P.O. Box 170 Fairfield,CA 94533 #B108 Knightsen, CA 94548 Fairfield,CA 94533 Lafayette City Office City of Lafaye Howard J. Martin P.O. Box 1968 Att/B968 ' g Director Schell&Martin, Inc. Lafayette, CA 94549, P. 3377 Mt, Diablo blvd. LafCA 94549 Lafayette,CA 94549 Lloyd Grange Rollie Willis Tassajara Fire District RAS Builders, Inc. TCI of California Vera Reinstein 3991 First Street,#F. 2333 Nissen_Drive 8100 Cameal Drive Livermore, CA 94550 Livermore, CA 94550 Livermore, CA 94550 CCC Housing Authority Richard J. Breitwieser ,Sgt.Jurold DeVaull Richard J. Martinez Attorney at Law S.O.-Community Relations P.O. Box 2759 736 Ferry Street 1980 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez,CA 94553 Pat Keeble, Editor Martinez News Gazette Martinez Plann' Dept. Contra Costa Insider P.O. Box 151 525 Henri Street P.O. Bax 216 Martinez, CA 94553 Ma1506z, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Mt. View Sanitary Dist. Contra Costa Times Harold L.Olson P.O. Box 2757 Planning&Growth Rptr. Alhambra Valley Im. Asso Martinez, CA 94553 821 Main Street 22 Wanda Way Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Hyman W Gregory D. Rueb, Esq. Cal Watterson 84 Mo o Heights Dr. Gord.,DeFrag.,Watr.,Pezz Carpenters Local 152 M nez, CA 94553 611 Las Juntas St. 3780 Alhambra Martinez,CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Oakley Union School Dist West County Times Pinole Plan ' Dept. Frank J.Hengel Attn: David Berkowitz 2131 r St. 91 Mercedes Lane P.O. Box 128 #�' le, CA 94564 Oakley, CA 94561 Pinole, CA 94564 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51660 Carmen Gad ' Anthony Ashe Nasser Shirazi 1536 Nor' Drive 1975 W' Pass Rd. City of Pittsburg Pitts g, CA 94565 Ba oint, CA 94565 P.O. Bax 1518 Pittsburg, CA 84565 Lisa Vorderbrueggen Guy Bjerke Gordon Kimber Valley Times Home Builders Assoc. 12237 to Blvd. 127 Spring Street P.O. Box 5160 Sa, anion, CA 94583 Pleasanton, CA 84566 San Ramon,CA 94583 Scott Co e Thomas P. Keehblel Neal K. Matsunaga '166 T cina Drive HCV Pacific Partners 2429 Camino De Jugar Sa amon, CA 94583 2309 Norris Canyon Rd. San Ramon, CA 94583 San Ramon,CA 94583 Mike O'Hara San Ramon Valley Prot. Jim Blickenstaff, Dir. Toll Brothers, Inc. Chief Dutcher Save Our Hills--TNTlaua 1501 Bollinger Canyon#B 1500 Bollinger Canyon 2410 Talavera Drive San Ramon, CA 94583 San Ramon, CA 94583 San Ramon, CA 94583 The Meyers Group John Peterson CC Tri-Vly Business Time Land Pro Research Assoc. Western Pacific Housing Attn. Donna Hemmila 5674 Stoneridge Dr.#208 6160-Stoneridge-Mall#210 61-60 Stonerlde Mall Rd. Pleasanton, CA 94588 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Robert Stevens Lynette Tanner-Busby Millicent Frias Saranap Homeowners Assc Contra Costa Centre Asso dk Associates, Inc. 125 Kendall Road 1350 Treat Blvd.#180 1440 Maria Ln. Suite 200 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Frank Garcia Patricia Jacobus David Gold Spieker Properties San Francisco Chronicle Morrison & Foerster 1255 Treat Blvd.#150 2737 North Main St. #100 101 Ygnacio Vly.Rd. #450 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Marge Stanzione CDD Walnut Creek Plan East Bay Coordinator City of Wain reek Paul Richard ,Chief Nextel Communications 1666 ain Street 1666 N ain St. 1255 Treat Blvd. W ut Creek, CA 94596 Wal t Creek,CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Kristine Hunt John Randolph Susan E. Long Walden Dist Imprmt Assoc Bay Area Ridge Trail Walnut Creek Manor 2632 Cherry Lane 2543 Lariat Lane 81 Mayhew Way Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Rich Ambrosini McCutchenDoyleBrownEners Matta Cogbum Kaufman&Broad Library-Tiven Racioppo P.O. Box 131 201 North Civic Dr.#239 1333 N.Califomia#210 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 � I•,�rj ek fl;� a o �.• ` �z. r..f. � }rpt x /:J kt �$ s.;,....'��., c:;.._.............C4�,`\ •�•;:.. ;`.` L � 4 / n, ,". CD CD ((( p.. tU C� /��y L V ..^.............,._. rjiJ/'j` t i a` \ �.... _.,� z J/ fr C...•A -.d ''Y '/ �•,,,,,...-. , :1 I '} ••...::` 41.x,4 \ ":�:, ,,4 >-w , !"i a'S:.ss :::' CD R} (""t Y/'7y CD I+ j�i J'r,'r ,t AV .{: (` t„ o,,. , , �4, , ` `.` rr f'"' ,�•' Ltrd E's L. 1CD dJJ%/, iJ t'' jit {{t ki , ......:•'-:'�'�� J''�.::::..Tj J!•`j `:,°i%'. S ,CIS...a :+SP \: � , , 11,1, 1 5(I i,•. .. r'' „. / ' �.L ', • a� t _ �"'}" � f /f'''i` % %f%il�)i ?I tt s ',.✓'•- } `'\!: ,;'C' .t, �� •ii 1i •`}`. ,Wtj �T./ii,! (,'., !(� •Y.w.✓••��'"":..•'•''Yi.` ,+', .,..1 �j�t; T: t� �i v /+ If tt�l '•rt't '! i 1: !! ijl" / �_J+ .1" F 'i .t'� °iittV j11 si1-��--+ �y,��f r r 1} k f,i ' r r •ri....••-• 1 :';.`: +''' i/ � i'ii ! 1 t V � �'w � •t ��w,��rr ))� ,'f 1./..,i t�l %/l lJ! J✓/,' t t....•,',..-....•-j/•./ i,: : •.,..,�� 1,/+ �'r; i�,i � i �� 4�``f Y-} v// Q CD CD � !J(' +;/' I i f,�+ Si / r n J C.,,, �.....`;:::e. / J+1) , !, { I ! 1• } "`�: ►'V CY ; : r„r+ /r✓ 'It�!.�J�' i J ""..r''''"^iy", I(, .'`,`t..,.._....... ,.: I .''j I r,i i r (b ll'�r ))f'ii; ;; %rt`//l/JJi '�` «✓ j 4�.`� ::; ,4j i4.^:...%'l'' ;i'a� t: k `f �j C,� � t� �,. � ffI//;. •,,; !l•`i ,,J J , - ~' � _.. • \ `.r";•' 1 i:d � �( i!i t 1'rFa ,"`1 ! J,J r, J'//1 /++• ", J f rJ ,r l....)�f: '`,'+,", J{tY, r '' !{ I 't CD ✓ `V s �!%J e r r r r +r /' ,::.:Y"' '/•�'f,.^'�,-'.+"w.q::�n:,:::i.::;j:ovr:� 4 ,. ... � E 1 jrtZ CD 11%J,`% ;i,i/ J' ,''1 '!✓j �..• �_'! / .......s-% •'!`°i•iI i ,,� f 1 i CD , t (� t i 5•' ... 'JJ;' 'g�� r..) � `•i' .:::.:. :�: ";t`<, 3�fj,"i,•�•, '-,,`.• i f i �.. , � ! 41 �:a1/r I r�`ai ,a '{ ( 'r,4J'....... r.r' :"'r*j:'.:.p l+ir,,r/,'r,;,e�i j k• •�'i r J 1 't E ,`I , i (� ,....,� .. /Y, r '1)S �) (`$ � ! ! rill+, ^�•4\`..r.... w�k ,;p'1,�/r „"++Y l�l/ is i �'J �f fr a`` �? ... :5 t f /`A <�y '� t7 ,/f,''��i '%„�,i'r w`N',7`"i` •r)4`;<� ,'i i,•+Y.�% di'/ f r l � < tI 4 f . CL I LA' i '�1 f,jrt '• J' �r, ,e,"` ' .. `+ S lt4 i( ; /' ±�� ' rr /J/ ..�.. "•� i � {j} •,IE' ii�l It Jj J/ lY, if, ,,; ,``"' f ,�/ '+i! �I1�I i )I,.it°';, ;r tri' ,i'/.• "J�t 7Jr ,t} {.l':ittttt ji i,l i�J i ._..--',{....,_..nt_........_.�•"i ti( ��+;•�.i. J ` ! rj ilit �i }` � ` 1 1, ,... ...{ \.., ✓".,.. 1 `.< .. � ! •`�<`k`y.�r il? ,.1� � .�� , ,: J / �%i` a`L� ':"''.. 4 \ <. J„ ;ir/ 'r l ams r I ♦1 sP�L is' ' .• — = 11 i ,,;..,. ..•., 4 .�,`.. , }t ip • .J/1 J t3 d Z 1�' .•�'�.! •! I/.% r.�r.;:".• �'`.'`` - .-'l t-��r:"� a4 t\,,1•\�' :/%J'�'rr J 1 ( �1 1 •p (€(.S i arrr n.� 01) /dl 1+ _�' +""' ...y. T t r '`•.4 + !� �•i•,iL •.. •' �/ r / ; e 1 r ,i i*`Z 7``.`+. 1 {.. jff r� ,.s� .•,+,. f !' :�.::•-..r:c .nra5r.:.i .:ro..:.y�:;:.•t::.'::. ,.., j o-. t `� l� a !!t iit E� f�j `t. ./ .uf i 1 sl `` � JFfJIf , iJ i+• lit jr t t ei •J• v �� t i ,C'+ •I1? i fy )I _ 4 ;� dd , �ii Ik' :, . ; . %J'' \ � `�`".,�''• 1 c'l !r;? , / { '` if Al V • )'. 11, -Z i `J•.,,. r,J,-\ ` \.'%�n��S{`�'td t'" ,•�l�t'!� l�,,r .�.:_..'.. `"•,.` _.,... ................. �y J. ryi''.` `�,'; l ! // 1% ,' � 11 ; •i;;} ,.ji •i� .< .�ti ....'� 1;T fii,? ,, �%,` 1.i.'...�.:......_..•..,,.• '`.\ :t""»/JJ: i ` ' f , ;, / t„X>y..!}, `... ,,..``"",♦TI'� / r 11.- .""r t f,1, r• ,' ..,. ' 4 � ii r i• ti :/ �y� '?rY1 `...i �{t `'�\"y`\� �' `'`_. Ji r ` �: `t ;j .,•` `` 'i � ,,..-••',��.�r��(i rx f-a k i , i} 3 I+ J r� I'!`lp, 4 `r,l'.t '.;< �i t 1! ,•,''`. - .-,;,-,, jt �I/r J` rfJ ,`.�'�/" 1 , �1 � 1 � f. •� `• ��.'. i-.��}._. ! _ +; )I r, ,a I� t � ' ;.�j,( ;• f}� i, 1, j J, 1 ..`},k ! it tt f � i1� ',l}j� �sqli `�: ► 1: :j; ',, Il,i�+'JY 1..-�:::::\; ti r4 ,Jr) fl:,r' , i r/ i iri i' r! ,f' , ,I, ! tt il:.; JJ ••t '<, �` � i R ..''`�� ty�/ , yr +r ,i,� , IWO,, 4a \4'•LL i `pi//e,, l)1 i,tF .'t k,J t '',�♦ \ � •�A� .-�^:.,+ Sr 'j,, ?rkf, j�� I YJ ) f)t '/i�7 �t••r i5 a i%:..ri� •'� ;' J+ `\...:��J�,. J% t `'y'3 TJ -4,'• tti •!r I > :'?'': {�� !r � i�k:t•. (j/ �k s / / ,% / ,J, % a l tx"a ' ,l;ir. r'J J'J / •\ 1 { 14 ug -.,r• --"`� t:s ;17 Il' y 1 'r �! f ! i ! j^t :`} ti 5't t / , j J Tl / ..,y �`.. i I 9r�."''7' t ','a !1'•'T 1F ♦ l,ra 'S'' `'l'` .oi: },( ' `, ', .r�� '� t' lJ, ,',1 ` 1• �```�\,4 / }.�`�<`4v: !t, i H laJit„/,,,- '�'J ii' o• i li, ! !f °f 51?'' �.�-.. 1�F..,i�... , i'.�:;!C �„ r',/''; 7 + ..,} 't i Ft4rr ;�ji {(; t' ''1J , J +'"'.:a:. 4 4 ,`•`w./i.i tt,i � / '``s' ;1,!'"All i}'J%',,l/ ,,tti {/ l f.•''.• .. \\�< t •,J, :` ` ~``•i' T;�,'''' j t 1 ''�.J P i� r l % ,%,'..� , t' `, `t •, t 'l,a,i, 1,1 `C` t')(!/ � „�`•��,••, <`, "..\\. ,`��'S tfi i � ', ?i ! "4. :f:•: , I i i /,r J'+,'1 'J/ i'..•`l ,`<`\.``��`�;'4`.. ''' 11 r:f• `.r T 1'` / .... `t i ` \ "i\ \. L4}r %' �.'a J•1 '..::: �,r.11; i, 4� t i`rf•'i'.{' rr , •I {+Fs �� 'E.. \..i ..'i'+i,�' +'j Jr/JJ t.......,.;".;.''� r,...,,\ ��•` ':ii�. it i i+ } it ( X,}'” tili; " '�r J ' ( ..'`.•.....,� `�```,'::;i' 1,; r / i III }` i J� � i" :!: r• e'•' Y + !' ::: (/ 'a ,•iri .< .l f„ it 1 '�\.,` `;i t;! p 1)r 'f°!i t /im �%. �i` f-33 .4,' :/j••' `t`' .'< ``::.:�':, �„ ,8, rr/ !.•:: .:. <�.,``dl:`:s::fS lr :i t..1�J I \'. s _� %,,' ! ' / } '{ i s i;`i: , �}, •. J' l .•'� 1j ,,ir,J,....,.�,�`.�'!�\,,,t,',l L ,� . �,x � i L`yf \ � �t •'ar '/' J `t (! � it S i1 •;'y ";Qi;;��lilt 41`;:.""•. ti! lil y{ .1` Ij `t:.., �;;. `,i t. `i „S fl,: k j ': I 1, .............. , •••} .t•t:5• ':f`Z-- :a ',�` ,'. e;"1�,:.N i`1• .� / 1 1 t�i: �ti6 i� It�t � ,� 1!�' `i�li i j'.'.`•.rir... J J .��'Y `< r; 4 Jr'!`�•, ! I 4,4•, 41 r •`tr i' zi k i#I ?tjf 'S w� tt 7 "\.,<\- iiil iitl i,{� �y/ ✓' /"1� �'.}' •c�• •'l.`V l�>�:�i� lJ•r�,;r)l'' �/ +• a i•' ` .. _... ... T , re ,r r q { ? '/: � � I ! •,} iittitt'3 j;(it;? Itf^'_''! �I l '`.\(,r`/...\\\,\:Jf/J r J i-t,%,'` // ^. � �i}j�' `i`•si'ettt'�..,♦�f%/1,!.''��',i:'l.i/'/f-"�.f1J/r frtJb�t/te'l �,y�.. ,•i•.. :,�;a:_;:� ......':....- -...�]it W o S t 'y i i ! 5 5 i .:i F it�j♦ ' i `4`'` r r r�,' ,� ,'` t 1 t ri i 1r f'7 ....r r•.}.. .•...,,K...•..::,.�..,_ -. i i 7 5 � � J,J f�f''i`•1`�,� ,, , r `�r /? 4,'e 1 ki'tie:::;,/,'' / /, ", JL'��J, ��„t/,1; �#�r 1-' ,'' 'r, L :Y Y.! S L�� ../ i - /,+J (`+`(I i' �.,..� '..LY`C^,, i.:.�Ye' +yy«..,.' �.•i ..Jy:,�..... ti _•'a,,,, r' i // t•t: iy /a': ..1. \' '; 4 /i' . '/ '1 t #Al 1i ii ri;ct:4 '``•.:i ii� ' �J </' \"`. "'`•,:: �+/Jf'��1!♦1' � f / !' .� ... ••4, t ' ` r f' I i'' J' ,,...,r•..::r• t t:}:t i �-."•.` a♦r i}i._,..\:\�, i� •`,t` 411 '` h`` ♦...., L r, j i•� �`� .- .� >^•a"" J t , .., i,k i iiti '< •,....' '' J. -`.1� \: ` , (! i: 1 °: `i ! 4.T•}'• •`"."?.}i S t SS'��`<.;:'t :,.ii� i, ,+tir� •j »3 l,�t}�, f \ a •' �+�''`� i i' �' \y k j ' t i \ ; 1 `.`;:r:'! t\;` '1 �..�•L �'i: t t�} f i I -,� /•`t,. »,.....�„ ,' \ is ' .: t ! / .. t,i' ,, '� �3 �i Q 't i 11 �� ! ? 5 t-4. '✓• �.w. *ax-•• ...� •,t-t $ k' a� ,.L````�`.T^.. ,-4.;....• 4;it iti';i. :K�"t t5i. ''`,t t -... '� ::(;:rr..• .,,'::...e,�a:......., (11 fr iii r t t ��\' `, a •\, �' �'a,t.,t "'`iif 1-t 'I i'in � i..; r '`,, f �%r f JI .', � J�•11 J' `� i i L°�.� •\, fes/"} I I,,I , :• i��<,.:.�.. �4.'\., i�?' la k,�,q;j� til� �' \, J I � % \ `, �� f ✓'.' 1 t � 5 `t ` •.< .` y.SL `,�,,, <i ,il� t/,', ..._. ....ar,:w: -` ,..•',J 'i ,.i,'.."7+r:'�,:•• :� , ..- d \ .. '.r;y. \4 rJ ,,f;i;1,/ ,�.,•, ......i,`,t+y.,.....,,../.'- l.•`,, '.�- ,'\,./•`::%• J• ° i •• t - - � � .. , ,,,,/,,,✓ r.`�, f'�kd.,ti`<`•L )_ < �`'`.. J!'"` �", J�'� :.+•:i •J t 'ti i( 4 .,.,, r/1/-Y ,'` ',`: .•.<,t r:To `•:.�....... , a „ ,, .,,,�< `1 t',:, `` • f° , i t 1• ! +,.Ji','s. i • 1 1 �4�\:`. '' 't, <, ``"`-...........;',...•".`•e+ ,gait;.„„ �1L+ 5 •i " ',. ,1 ,'.`..+• i ,i flI �' '� 4``,i.,. 1'r `, .\ '\` i .Ei4i�{�Y'v r t }•2f,.� H U,.,�,... `at .,".`.�,, 4. SY.ss•ut `s•a t�' ''r `'Y r,v, w� t! t' ... ✓ <~` ,�•`.!'1�/!' ��:.w,4�+�.�\.`\..z ty((. �: «+,.r ,1 g 1s+ "?<j�,1 ir1`�'±��1\ I�.`,< `M •,, �+1�' .....•' �a� i'��5'as•,u. sga5t�:t;:�,'....':::::A;�+ ,i �\°\,, J!! (••.�-d.�....__j¢3 +"••w j ``. , 1 ,41 14 '.'` `\•'4....�_• °`4",,,;a.+f'`; J�J 6t•,,,::,1 �,`,J/ `\'`,�,,J ..l •�i4 ``tn Ali '} J✓ Fi sJ 1 ,aT ,':` .s�j , i,JJ t 11 ,! ! r 't�•,' / +•, , ar,; t,/� /�::: �� .`titia:.'4,4`. `_ „•<`r L,4 . ., (i: pit 0 �� ,�Jj 5.<,`.,444~ r r,...(��4'< } •�+t,.3.J�i.~ `•....'r `,y I'l' �p�( til} 11 ...,. �k�''r .' `� r.,. .. , //••••t� 41t,� `'�,�,..t`", ` .Ar�' ru't/ ,,., ..•.,.r (d i r ril y\`.,/ '"„`",•jJ' 14. r�� It .rf i 'iB : �,�✓,, •4, 't '•�:<^•I \`4` .k r ! "` "4.4n '1 J � .t�•�� t ny, t /r„ M� i ��111 �✓ Y. t� '4 t i` �t % +,. � ,t / '•1 < < 1 �l�J �'�' j� �►•�y ,a,tw.wr,.,, t ,„,�` ti +4r ./)i �+� rl /`rfi'''dr ?'' 'tt' \ 4`` �, ! i,}i ( \\ < fr, r ry `<, j4ir (� ��+Ji u ,1 { i .�# ,...� '✓int+ 1wH1 ':�� ' ytm µj tom. � � .•,•.`, ;:,'k'}r::„\ 4�• §t” `` I J} .. �' }` \t��r.11iJ' fil xl�.,c !}Jt]Il `�::.:: L '� ,r `t ,rte{ �^+...i.,., ;,�• ; `� d ,i;; ,�t �\. ',4i��' �'. �`•' /,\<+•4 ',/r /•' '\ }''I i{r J. ;Fr.I L� :}'af".L:1".... i+1 /' ,<•� 8 L 1 / � ....... �l 1�, ``,,•:;;tyi9 44• ,v4 //� `��, `'�,4.,%J" <., !/ ( '� V •,l�J i'��.✓�", r...Nl•1t�.. !� -(�,. ` I 4�, //:' '1, :;\• \°:-'�..♦ 4�t, l�;t 5 Tf�)'�"dflt} +': `"+� .t},\�i3 M.4,,.,.:.,,(/ 1� $r/J�/F 'i'�:tIJ �i• 4 �•'.'' ./ ``'•\ �''t ,.... J.. ,';�(: ..yS,t r �} .r, ate. '•�'. :� VI Ulf 2f Y�/.,i•j :+„�i C.�.w�; 51F it`.F�'�:; w\� 11�; � \4`ti`...."..V•`' 1 t(+lPtrt �. ,.(i../ �.•.+ •i ..,�,�-. / `\..4� � �;;,,. �i }�yii'° LIiC• i �( .jy t'44'' `'i: ,'!'.' s' •. .''�•��. :`' ,4`.'`4.. t 1� �...... 4•% .. \ .... ., I f7.... f, }r ;i .. f 1.,J' {fit .'��' tti'4.4 ,�y:.)` ? J'' (• K.;y"""• o, �`... / tt "�� .`s. J. .;/ !" .li ,t \<. ``,`• ..i { / .'C` s,,. �` 'Y"Y, j t , i {i �1...":;..; `..;,`'. `'��" :'i' ,a, j{�I) :•4 \(`"""''C.L.. .a,,,�) }. 1'1 Zo.:,,'•t \ t \ `^§u.�ai...,,y_.• f � ` k) '•ger .�tt', r• I i`<� i �1 �.r/��i ( � '% t.... ,, ` f �.......� �;,r f �t..._. ..i i: ... ; K.\��'.1 ";'.:+. � i(�'` 1 l ..,'.• , (�i�•` `i � !I f/ ",r!(� 1�i t `j �� yl r„.n<c(.�..,... _ •-^, ` �fi '"•• ` 1).'✓.. E +{ \ {,yyif� ",Jr 1 T// i .C `.` ? \e{r}, _fir. �sa:.•y, 1 � � i � �•�:• ''.+'°•` .� j:` .✓n, :ti;•�'1.,� tt �`t i'. ` 1=.;,••. "'"(y! /f l' J r.�• �� " ..):h::dn• 1 � ..., ki .r - ''J''• ..�. ii .o'' ils ir�. ,: , 't�:': ... r? `t J 1 f J{fy ,..-:.:.`, •.rc•�.4 �"'.'' J r, 3•ty j; .1! ` ♦ Fi j ` L- .....kL:,..,�• !'i i C acs:.�t�. ..`�.. y�. .. .....,... �� •�,�•- ••+.•r�`4 s a :.+: ff' -t� 1... �"�..r .�..•�•4 ..*�.r, r. .;v ,�: .L......_....^.._......._...... ,.•f,:' •',"`: .i�f.. � % �'' --' 'tl::'. •`I I •\r :1� i;,, /'r+ `'. i•jJ}� /�'t 1 rJJ J/1 �. , {``..,.. ,. .. ... '.t5 r�;t }i '' ( _. •'ik� ._ '.i• ,�l is '!. ••5u�';• #r }`�„ <�.'a/''it •. �I r 1 ,r ti � 6 , 1 .'��Nji{ , / ........:`•.:.2',.•� / } (i - �E3 t '+a-eft I�<� ti; "t', '. 1 tlf{• t' r 1 J 5 , �+ //,,JJ'(f`{ i,•, `/t)/ _,,,,,...., J' .. ''�i i e it S s ' ?i.; "N �;ti; \4 \ ...' L,l;..\:, it+r t• ti i t, { tr J �'r,//�/J ,'t tib i 1.�: )`!1�' i � k fjo tey 4 +' J C"! Li hJ N C� C V) cj� ` C'2! (:5 C? C3 r-- VN N t'It9Z LO W � I � ��►'�`�' N V'7 3.£r£l.tN N3.8'57"w 4 C \, tZ`L£Sb r.OZ Y157 001) 2992.51 6 re; ` V} NVIO183W 0181!10 1W � ,;, n, cvCL --_----� ''� f1) >►'SZZ£ 3 M 1 N 99 so9z 3 00 0 t— vMrr9£.it.t5 L9'9L5Z trEUv 3..L£.9S.ON 91'929Z n ry 9L'SS9Z 3.,SZ.>.t t J 3d4.0£.tN 8 ' .: f�•4Ar17 G tQ • �f .,.1 h; 1 f T 6yC gRSV i .Illi � ac.. les n. NhC � � r``) ,': � 11 +�' � r.+ h .•;> . ty y.i• � 4 raN n k042b"3"E -0�Fy W Y •. \YrlrSr � R '�1�j '• ` ry 14"tf£I {tv t r �; F' :y :;� �w rrrr��+�► ( (1�„ 3»>7r9£.$N ,{fi{� gF� ''�� zar � .:{� �3x { i; Now Will IV ,F F ' h ...� Mfg T n ! k Pi r Sell '• t v, Y Y� RONY IIOl co UJ o cc i4J ;x 1 ` W > " ,2�71 Q `_! I .i3�(_I�,:,� Cy i �! r�"a r _ -.C'-.1 (~ice L(•.i <3_,_r"J-C78G+u 2 i rte_ 2 -IFECEIVED JUL 2 4 2000 ;I INTRA COSTA CO. GNtX.' 0 P'ROlPERIUS UOI Walm Avt -CoD L CA 4519-2435 Phone(025)693-2.391—Frrx 69&om July 23,2000 Supenisor John Gioia Supervisor Gayle L'"-lkerna District i District 2 (510)374.3429 fax (925)335-1076 Supervisor Danita,Gerber Supe or Mirk-DeSaukierr District 3 District 4 (9"x'...5)820-6627 fax (925)646-5-767 SuperAsor ace Canciarr a District 5 (925)427-8142 Re: urban Limit Trine(GP#99 1) Dear Supe visors, I air,ra)Cing this opport=ity to mA e.all of you aware of rosy fiUy's posm-on`tn regard to the proposed boundary modifications reftr enced above. undoukedly yoti are already aware of our long-standiag history in the cattle ranching,bts-siness in Contra f✓osu County_ Grim y we own 7,200 acres covering several ranches between Walnut Creek and A=ocl? Me=re C was passed by the voters and imp ed in 1990. This ordinance was euftled the"65/35 Contra Cassis County Lurid Ffesetvatian Plan". Our family wm the single tamest a5oaod private property ovv-=by far. Over A=of our holdings, 5,900 acres out of a total of 7,200 ages,ware placed outside the Urban Limit Line.Tle sole ranch that ri--mlainad inside the line is 1,.292 acres,and lo=eA in the eastern pet of the Ctstinty. We have never complained about the sigtificavr vahmton impacts this has had and c ntin sees to have on our properties. Approx tely 250/6 o the 1,292 acres is already within the city limits of Antioch. The remainder of the raach is varotwded on more than a sides by either Brentwood's or Antioch's city limits_ New home f oastruction is currendy underway on property contiguous to our east &-id sotAhesst boundary. It would be paistfhAy ironic if'the Coun y rrstzi # ou: use of this property solely to agricWtttre:,ince our ability to continue ranching this property in this urbanizd enviiottment is extremely limited, Page 2 ULL Review Over the last 60 years we have solei part of our properties on only a small number of occasions. These sales permitted the properties to become a part of Lime Ridge Open Space, East Bay Regional Turks, Concord Naval Weapon Station and Pacific Gas & Electric Storage Facility. All were accomplished under threat of Eminent Domain (Condemnation for Public Good).We understand the pressure you're under to further restrict the amount of land that could potentially be urbanized. Clearly a compromise consistent with Supervisor Canciamilla's "alternative" line can be supported. We support this proposal whole-heartedl_y. The "Alternative" proposal, in East County, would further restrict more than two-thirds of the property that was unaffected by Measure C in 1990. >incere w, txtis .. Ciinodhio � (C G� I " J 33 � h s t �� a • s • � • ! .��i; a Marsh CD Marsh FaiMowAv a' 7 z 't + • r ri ! o i sy ! T 40 ev C___ __—__e_w_ iv -2 __� Wainut BNd -^� ca �, `� �eB�sht4robd8,Yt1 C, G_J As a representa ' - Jze roup in EI Cerrito concerned with development, Sustainable EI Cerr2ra I'd like to make some 'observations about w y es n Costa County communities would be interested in urban limit lines in Central and Eastern Contra Costa County. The problems of West Contra Costa County are not the problems of dense inner cities. Rather they are the problems of vulnerable inner suburbs. These are places of low-density, low-rise single family homes-the suburban dream of years past. Unfortunately, what were once affordable housing tracts on the urban fringe can decline if development and services are always focused on the fringe that moves further and further away. All of the problems that people associate with cities--crumbling infrastructure, rising crime, struggling schools-also occur in aging suburbs. The problem is not urbanism or suburbanism. The problem is neglecting what we have and always building somewhere new. In effect, we are building disposable communities-popular and serviced as long as the paint is fresh and the landscaping is young. Cities are always vulnerable to cycles of boom and bust, but there are limits to how far they will decline. As sites of significant culture, museums, sporting venues, institutions, and business districts, they will always play a regional role. But what will retain people's loyalty to dpplining suburbs? A recent issue of Inc. Magazine on the return of white-collar workers to cities predicts that central city populations could jump by 50% by 2010. What will become of suburbs-both old and new--when significant numbers of the middle class return to the city? The challenge before us is not to continue to build distant new suburbs, but rather to make our present suburbs more livable and appealing. We need to make our inner suburbs work as vital parts of the Bay Area's urban environment. As Friday's editorial in The Times advocated, let's tighten the urban limit lines and "invest in area_s that have been ignored, particularly in West County." Steve Price Urban Advantage Oakland, CA 510.835-9420 voice Q� 510.835-9538 fax maiIto:sh rice urb - _ � ( _ an advantage.com � http://www.urban-advantag_e.com �� t di .. : f ' . -_ _ 1 ------ -. - _... _.- ....... ... _ _ _ _................. ...... ................. ........... . _.. ... _ __._ -. __ .. +....:. ...... --- -------- ....... ......... _....... . ..... .._... t... ._...._... ... . ... ............. _. .. .......... ................. . The urban limit line was legislated by a majority vote from the residents of Contra Costa County in 1"0. This measure was in direct response to the "Manifest Destiny" approach to allowed development within our county and its residents' foresight to realize how open space drastically needed protection and preservation in Contra Costa County. There are areas of our County, outside the initially drawn lines, which now, need protection from development to insure that the stastainability of these areas remain cohesive for the residents already living the areas in question. The altering of the Urban Limit line may accomplish this feat, however I want to bring to the Boards attention, that all loopholes need to be addressed and secured within these changes. You as board members need to assure the public that there is no possible way for developers to come back and initiate lawsuits due to the alteration of this General Plan. I urge you, to make sure that as a result of any changes you make to the Counties General Plan in respect to the Urban Limit Line, will not open the door to lawsuits by those with deep pockets thereby acquiring the right to develop lands which were previously protected by the current Urban Limit Line, if you, the current board of Supervisors, expand the decision to move this democratically approved protection of some of our counties open spaces. I want to add that if you decide to move the Urban Limit Line, Veale tract, the eastern most protected area, will become unprotected from. growth. Veale tract is a prominent wetland area and. it would be criminal to destroy any remaining wetlands near our Delta. Wetlands can be mitigated, but do we want to send a wetland to the top of a hill or to a field or do we want the natural wetlands to do what nature intended them. to do, filter the water in our rivers and streams. After all, they are free; our taxes are paying for the restoration of wetlands in our Delta right now. Therefore:, when Veale Tract becomes unprotected, you as a board need to insure the wetlands will be preserved for the future of our Delta waterways. h � RECEIVED Rocha: stop Urban sprawl; Move Urban Limit ""JUL � subr� s �O 00 Mayor Mary Rocha the Board of Supervisors cc �snCos�ras proposal- 1) The County should move in the voter approved Urban Limit Line to restrict more land from being developed. This is an important step that will provide us with more open space. 2) I support having all lands outside of the current city limits restricted from home development. The new urban limit line in all areas of the county including the Tassajara area should be moved to the city limits of the existing municipalities. We must stop urban sprawl Moving the urban limit line to city limits will give citizens direct control on new housing proposals through the local planning process. Having cities control housing will result in more restrictions on growth such as Antioch has imposed. Land within the city limits will become more valuable and revitalization of the Delta waterfront can become a reality through moving the urban limit line. This also encourages development near transit centers, and existing rail lines and highways. 3) Further, the Board of Supervisors must ensure that moving the urban limit line to the most restrictive location does not prevent businesses from locating in or around East Contra Costa. Regional economic development should be encouraged. Bringing jobs to East Contra Costa County will reduce the cars on the highways and provide a better quality of life for our residents. M Requiring the projects to be regionally planned will encourage cooperation between cities and limit the number of projects proposed. Any project considered must also be located near transportation or have plans for multi-passenger transportation to their location. I am encourage by the proposals discussed in the newspapers the last couple of days. I urge the Board to implement policies that enhance city efforts to bring economic development closer to transit centers and makes undeveloped urban lands more desirable. The urban limit line is just one piece of how we control growth and get our traffic situation under control. Y