Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07252000 - D2 D.2 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on July 25, 2000,by the following vote: AYES: NOES: SEE BELOW FOR VOTES ABSENT: ABSTAIN: On July 24, 2000, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date the hearing on the recommendation by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the request to consider an amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan, 1995-2010,to modify or adjust the boundary of the County's Urban Limit Line(GP#990001). 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; Martinez area; Tassajara area; Clayton Ranch area; Pittsburg area; Antioch area; Brentwood area(South); Brentwood Area(North); Oakley Area; Veale Tract; Cowell Ranch(see details of areas on July 24, 2000, Addendum to Item D.2) Those present included Dennis Barry,Director of Community Development; Patrick Roche, Principal Project Planner, Community Development; Silvan Marchesi, Chief Assistant County Counsel; and Roberta Mundie, Mundie&Associates (Consultant). Supervisor Gerber called for public comment, and the following people appeared to speak: Joan Bartulovich, League of Women Voters, El Cerrito Democrats, 7102 Donal Avenue, El Cerrito; Beverly Lane, East Bay Regional Park District Director, 556 Indian Dome Road,Danville; Don Tatzin, Lafayette City Council, 1114 Orchard Road, Lafayette; Phyllis Roff, 2893 San Carlos Drive, Walnut Creek; Jim McKeehan, Signature Properties, 4670 Willow Road, #240, Pleasanton; Renae Parker, Tassajara Concerned Citizens for Property Rights, 5500 Highland Road,Pleasanton; Brad Olsen, East Bay Regional Park District; Larry Tong, East Bay Regional Park District; Dinah Darvas, 1620 Mendota Court, Walnut Creek; Phyllis Ceaser, 22 San Jose Court, Walnut Creek; Rosanne Nocerino, 1620 Mendota Court, Walnut Creek; Greg Feere, Contra Costa Building Trades Council, 935 Alhambra Avenue, Martinez; Laura Kapp, 163 St. James Court,Danville; Guy Bjerke, Home Builders Association,P.O. Box 5160, San Ramon; Flora Campbell,Inheritance Rights, 1531 Santa Clara Street, Richmond; Millie Greenberg, Councilwoman, 674 Sheri Lane,Danville; Curt Kinney,Mayor of San Ramon; Federal Glover, Pittsburg City Council, 4314 Foothill Way, Pittsburg; Rosemary Corbin, Mayor of Richmond, 2600 Barrett Avenue, Richmond; Suzanne Jones, 1285 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon; Brent Parker, 5500 Highland Road, Pleasanton; Carol Alderdice, 3819 Walnut Avenue, Concord; Steve Spencer, Richmond Environmental Defense Fund, 52 Scenic Avenue, Richmond; Jackie Jones, 2252 Belford Drive, Walnut Creek; Diane Aflanas, 222 Balceta Court,Danville; Kathleen Nimr, Sierra Club, 2204 Olympic Drive, Martinez; 1 Richard Smith,P.O. Box 1892, Orinda; Hillary Fleischer, 2340 Westcliffe Lane, Walnut Creek; Roger Henry, Jr., 3671 Brookdale Circle, Antioch; Roger Epperson, 3819 Walnut Avenue, Concord; Tim Donahue,Delta Group—Sierra Club, 2412 Cambridge Drive, Antioch; Jana Haeike, 2377 Hagen Oaks, Alamo; Thomas Lehnert, 340 Paraiso Drive,Danville; Kathryn Benvenuto, 1055 Lehigh Valley Circle, Danville; Joan Lautenberger, 3979 S. Peardale Drive, Lafayette; Ben Paredes,Pleasant Hill Citizens for Responsible Growth, 510 Patterson Blvd.,Pleasant Hill; John Banke, Tassajara Concerned Citizens, 8540 Manning Road, Livermore, Laura Russ, 12 Simpson Drive,Walnut Creek; Seth Adams, Save Mount Diablo, 1196 Boulevard Way, #10,Walnut Creek; Fancy Tatarka, 12207 Toluca Drive, San Ramon; Dan Alex, 2033 Four Oaks Hollow, San Ramon; Ron Raab, 278 Ludlow, San Ramon; Lee Hancock, 610 Discovery Bay Blvd., Discovery Bay; Clarence Gribbon, 611 Pine Creek Blvd.,Walnut Creek; Nancy Chinn,Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce, 2020 Railroad Avenue, Pittsburg; Joyce Hawkins,Mayor of Orinda, 43 Tappan Lane,Orinda; Jeff Wiedemann, 6989 Highland Road,Pleasanton; Judie Brown, 7101 Camino Tassajara,Pleasanton; John Dalrymple, Contra Costa Labor Council, 1333 Pine Street, Ste E,Martinez; Steven Young, City Council Member of Brentwood, 700 Bellmeade Way, Brentwood; Jerry Hinkle, Greenbelt Allianice, Sierra Club, 1637 Mary Drive,Pleasant Hill; Karen Rasmussen, 6000 Highland Road,Pleasanton; Frank Aiello,Pittsburg City Councilmember, 120 Rangewood Drive, Pittsburg; Kathy Boswell, 3183 Wayside Plaza,#302, Walnut Creek; Kris Hunt, 2632 Cherry Lane,Walnut Creek; Wilma Shannon, 8181 Camino Tassajara,Pleasanton; Leonard Silva,4149 Wells Street,Pleasanton; Ron Enzweila,Moraga City Councilmember, 5 Corte Fiesca,Moraga; Linda Brown, California Alliance for Jobs, 70 Washington Street,#425, Oakland; John Viano,Farm.Bureau, 192 Morello Avenue,Moraga; Dorothy Silva, 173 Dogwood Place, San Ramon; Carrie Dell, 6100 Highland Road,Pleasanton; Julie Pierce, City of Clayton Councilmember, 1526 Haviland Place, Clayton; JoAnn Schultz, 118 Kingswood Circle,Danville; Bob Hicks,4031 Eagle Nest Lane,Danville; Bill Mendonca, 5300 Camino Tassajara,Danville; Jack Roddy,Chadbourne Road, Brentwood; Michael Thomas, 181 Pondlilly Lane,Brentwood; Jeannie Jeha,Danville; Matt Hicks, Lawrence Estates HOA, 61 Shelterwood Drive, Danville; Teresa Byres, 2490 Palm Court,Brentwood; John Wong,Mission Park Homes,40480 Encyclopedia Creek, Fremont; Joan Gallegos, 239 Cambridge Avenue,Kensington; Debbi Landshoff, Sierra Club -West County Group, 6016 Orchard.Avenue, Richmond; Valerie Raymond,Tri-Valley Vision 2010, 2.368 Buena Vista,Livermore; Kathy Griffin, 386 Pecan Place,Brentwood; Evelyn Stivers, Greenbelt Alliance, 1001 N.Main, Ste 105, Walnut Creek; Mike Daley, Sierra Club—San Francisco Bay Chapter, 729 Everett Street, El Cerrito; Gordon Kimber, 12237 Alcosta Blvd.., San Ramon; 2 } Trisha Meikle, 4621 Aralian Way, Antioch; Marcus O'Connell, 3206 Esperanza, Concord; Roxanne Lindsay,P.D. Box 652 ,Danville; Linda Best, Contra Costa Economic Partnership, 1001 Galaxy Way, Concord; Tom Mooers, Greenbelt Alliance, 1601 N. Main Street, Walnut Creek; Betsy McCormick, 593 Sundaie Lane,Brentwood; Pamela Simonds, 112 Beth Drive, Pleasant Hill. The following people did not wish to speak,however,the Chair read their comments into the record: Bettina Mayberry, 3033 Lunada Lane, Alamo; Louise Hull, 948 Reliez Station Road,Lafayette; Joseph Brown, 7101 Camino Tassajara,Pleasanton; Gloria Thomas, 5755 Nortonville Road,Pittsburg; Gene Wolfe, 5313 Terra Granda Drive#A,Walnut Creek; Gary Stem, 639 Glorietta Blvd., Lafayette; Gordon Rasmussen, 6000 Highland Road,Pleasanton; John Rasmussen, 6100 Highland Road,Pleasanton; Kari Amable,Pleasant Hill; Marilyn Torres, 5780 Nortonville Road,Pittsburg; Marilyn Cochran,Marigold Street,Danville; Erika Clark, San Ramon; Pamela Kraft, 117 Kingswood Circle,Danville; Henry Alker, Southport Land—Commercial Co., 155 Montgomery Street, #504, San Francisco; Gene DeMar, 1313 Cragg Lane, Concord; Tiffanie Peterson, 783 Bourne Court,Danville; Denise Differding, 6 Encina Place, Berkeley; Judy Hicks,4031 Eagle Nest Lane,Danville; Jacgi Roueche', Greenbrook HDA, 388 St.Norbert Drive,Danville; Robert Sudduth, 5755 Nortonville Road,Pittsburg; Ellen Kolb, 1925 Woodland Drive, Antioch. Those desiring to speak having been heard, Supervisor Uilkema moved to close the public hearing. Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion. The Board voted on the action unanimously. Roberta Mundie and Dennis Barry commented on aspects of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR). The Board continued their discussion. Following his comments about specific East County areas, Supervisor Canciamilla moved that the Board declare its intent to find that good cause exists pursuant to the terms of Measure C,to move the Urban Limit Line, and direct staff to return with the appropriate findings to do the following: 1. Adopt the alternate line proposed around the City of Pittsburg; 2. Adopt the Urban Limit Line proposal for the City of Antioch; 3. Approve to modify alternate proposal for Oakley, moving the boundary to the West to Knightsen Avenue; 4. Approve the Veale Tract modification as presented; 5. Approve the Clayton Ranch alternative as presented; 6. Approve a modified Cowell alternative,based and conditioned on the following: A. That a final agreement is reached between Signature Properties, the Cowell Foundation and the Trust for Public Land, providing for a development window as outlined in the plans that they have submitted; that the sale of the remaining balance of Cowell to the Trust for Public Land and dedication of that remainder as permanent open space, also be identified by a written agreement; that the parties be given until September 12, 2000, to return with a formal agreement; if that 3 should not be forthcoming, or if the transaction fails to close, then the line should be drawn to the line specified in the Urban Limit Line proposal. Supervisor Canciamilla conditioned his motion on its consideration with the final motion of the Board. Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion, and the Board discussed the matter. The vote on that motion was unanimous. Supervisor Gerber proposed that the Urban Limit Line be moved to the Sphere of Influence option. She noted there is a pending development proposal called Alamo Creeks,that doesn't have an Environmental Impact Review,but has been going through a study. She also stated that based on the evidence she reviewed,there is not adequate infrastructure to support the proposed number of homes. The motion died for lack of a second. Following further discussion, Supervisor Gerber moved approval of the "Tassajara Area Watershed option 3 A",which allows the Alamo Creek proposal to proceed and to be considered. (See map attached). The proposed change would reflect two modifications to the Urban Limit Line. Dennis Barry clarified the proposed boundaries. The Board continued their discussion. Supervisor Gerber restated her motion and moved the 3900+ acres in the Tassajara Valley outside the Urban Limit Line, this would be accomplished by moving the line South of Camino Tassajara to the Watershed Option; and moving the line North of Camino Tassajara to the Sphere of Influence line. This would connect with the existing land outside the Urban Limit Line in Hidden Valley. Cance the Board has considered the Alamo Creek development proposal,if that proposal is not approved, or even if it approved,that there be a return of the Urban Limit Line placement question to the Planning Commission at that time,reflective of whatever the Board's decision was on Alamo Creek. Supervisor Gioia requested clarification of the proposed motion. Supervisor Gerber restated her motion. The Board continued to discuss the matter. Supervisor Gerber then made the following motion,that the Board indicate its intent to move the Urban Limit Line inward,putting over 3900+acres outside the Urban Limit Line in the following manner: North of Camino Tassajara move the line to the Sphere of Influence line previously studied; South of Camino Tassajara move the line in to the "Watershed Option" indicated in Figure 3 A on Page 23 (as atwhed); additionally,the Board direct staff,upon the final determination of the Alamo Creek project,to bring a Urban Limit Line proposal to the Planning Commission that reflects the outcome of the final Board determination on the Alamo Creek project. Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion,with an amendment. That the Board request a staff report as to the consequence and meaning of that action for the next Board meeting. Supervisor Gerber agreed to the amendment. The Board continued their discussion. Following the discussion,the vote on motion was unanimous. Supervisor Uilkema presented the proposed changes to the Crockett and Martinez areas. She stated they were reflective of the public testimony and the total acreage that would be placed outside the Urban Limit Line is 771 acres. She moved approval as presented on Page 2 to the Crockett area and the Martinez area Urban Limit Line proposals. Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion. The Board vote unanimously to accept those changes. 4 Supervisor DeSaulnier presented the"Smart Growth" action plan as proposed by himself and Supervisor Gioia. He suggested that the Plan take action and give direction to continue to consider this process. Supervisor Gioia presented the principles of the "Smart Growth"plan. He moved for the Board to indicate its intent to: Put on next week's agenda the Contra Costa Smart Growth Action Plan; and today the support the"Smart Growth" elements in concept;with final approval to occur next week. Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion. He noted that he would like a workplan that is substantial and in the consensus building process with the cities. The Board discussed the issues. The Board voted unanimously to support the motion. Supervisor Canciamilla moved that the Board advance for final approval next week,the Urban Limit Line changes in Districts 5, 3, 2, and the Smart Growth Measures. Supervisor Gerber inquired if the motion included the certification of the EIR. Supervisor Canciamilla stated that it did. After further discussion,the Board voted unanimously to accept the motion as amended. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: July 25 2040 Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: CA,"k1 V 12" 7-- Depu C er 5 (This was the only item on this date) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on July 24, 2000,by the following vote: AYES: NOES: SEE BELOW FOR VOTE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: On this date,the Board of Supervisors considered the recommendation by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the request to consider an amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan, 1995-2010,to modify or adjust the boundary of the County's Urban Limit Line(GP#990001). 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--Three proposed locations: 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 by the U.S.National Park Services; 3)The Shell Marsh, located east of Interstate 680 and south of the Martinez-Benicia Bridge, that includes approximately 398 acres of predominately wetlands and a portion of hilly grassland. 0 Tassajara Area—There are two proposals affecting between 3,927 and 4,513 acres of land area essentially made up of the Tassajara Valley,which is 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. w Clayton Ranch Area—A proposal for approximately 1,030 acres of unincorporated land area that is under acquisition by the East Bay Regional Park District,which is immediately north of the Marsh Creek Road and Morgan Territory Road intersection about 4-5 miles east of the City of Clayton. ■ Pittsburg Area--There are two proposals affecting unincorporated land areas between the existing Urban Limit Line and the southern boundary of the city limits for the City of Pittsburg. ■ Antioch Area—There are two proposals affecting 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 proposals affecting unincorporated land areas between the existing Urban Limit Line and the southern boundary of the city limits for the City of Brentwood. ■ Brentwood Area (North)—A proposal affecting approximately 100 acres of unincorporated land area between the existing Urban Limit and the northeast boundary of the city limits for the City of Brentwood,bounded by Delta Road on 1 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 affecting approximately 334 acres of unincorporated land area located immediately east of the City of Oakley along Cypress Road, • Veale Tract—A proposal affecting approximately 1,040 acres of unincorporated land area located east of Knightsen at the end of Delta Road. • Cowell Ranch—An alternative Urban Limit Line boundary modification proposal for the Cowell Ranch site,which is located in an unincorporated area southwest of the City of Brentwood,proposed by the property owner. Dennis Barry, Director of the Community Development Department,presented the staff report and recommended options. Patrick Roche,Principal Project Planner, Community Development Department,presented the recommendations of the County Planning Commission. John Kopchik, Community Development Department was also present. In attendance were Silvano Marchesi, Chief Assistant County Counsel; and Roberta Mundie,Project Consultant,Mundie& Associates (re: CEQA). Supervisors DeSaulnier and Gioia noted they would like to discuss "Smart Growth" principles today, and inquired if those could be discussed at this time. Chair Gerber advised they could check with County Counsel to determine if that discussion was within the context of today's agenda, and they agreed that they would. Public comment was opened,and the following people appeared to speak: Quinton Kidd,Mayor of Brentwood, 708 Third Street,Brentwood; Roberta Schwarz, 1405 Fountain Springs Circle,Danville; Gwen Watson, League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley, 306 Maverick Court,Lafayette; Tom Steinrach, Executive Director of Greenbelt Alliance, 530 Bush Street, Ste 303, San Francisco; Ray Brant,41 Palma Vista,Diablo; Robert Ingalls, 3147 Riviera Way, San Ramon; Christy Elland, 2941 Millbridge Drive, San Ramon; Susan Friedman, 164 Corral Circle, San Ramon; Miriam Hawley,AC Transit,Berkeley; Mike McGill,McGill,Martin& Self,Inc., 1500 Newell Avenue, #700, Walnut Creek; Tyler Snortum-Phelps, Green Party of Contra Costa, 1211 Orange Street, Concord; Stephanie McFarland, San Ramon Valley Unified School District-School Parents, Shadow Creek HOA, 4111 Creekpoint Court,Danville; Ralph Hernandez, Citizens for Democracy, 2718 Barcelona Circle,Antioch; Peter Duncan, 112 Roble Road; Del Olsen, 957 Alfred Lane, Walnut Creek; Michele Perrault, Sierra Club,2979 Rohrer Drive,Lafayette; Art Weber,2918 San Mateo Lane,El Cerrito; Jackie Stewart, Contra Costa County Farm Bureau,P.O.Box 19, Clayton; Warren Stewart, 1100 Bailey Road,Pittsburg; Rae Rubio, 1080 Dellwood Court,Brentwood; John Nunes, 3465 Canfield Drive,Danville; Mitch Oshinsky, City of Brentwood, 104 Oak Street,Brentwood; Jeff Kolin, City of Pittsburg, 65 Civic Avenue,Pittsburg; Paul Kilkenny, 817 Slater Road,Pleasant Hill; Mike Ramsey, City Manager of Antioch; Wilson Wendt,Finley Tassajara Corp., 1331 No. California Blvd., Walnut Creek; Michael Gibson, 70 Sam Lane,Alamo; Doug Lacey, 5825 Old School Road,Pleasanton; 2 Wayne Fettig, Saranap HOA, 178 Kendall Road,Walnut Creek; Iger O. Skaredoff,Friends of Alhambra Creek,411 Isabel Drive,Martinez; Kim Brant, 100 Gregory Lane,Pleasant Hill; Richard Rollins, 325 Preakness Court,Walnut Creek; Ron Rives, Seeno Construction Co.,4021 Port Chicago Highway, Concord; Bryan Cochran,230 Marigold,Danville; K. Wing Wong,27 Lily Court,Danville; Sanford Skaggs,Box V,Walnut Creek; James Levy,Alameda Creek Alliance, 130 Avocado Court, San Ramon; Janice George, 3368 Deer Hollow,Danville; Roger Wilson,Liberty Union High School District,Brentwood; John Stremel,Bailey Estates LLC,2762 Hutchison Court,Walnut Creek; Bob Munn, 10500 Brentwood Blvd.,Brentwood; Marilyn Langlois, 3878 Paseo Grande,Moraga; Sarah Mora,Farm Bureau, 5554 Clayton Road,Concord; Steve Herrick,Byron Municipal Advisory Council, 2830 Camino Diablo, Byron; JoAnn Hanna„ 950 Trails End,Walnut Creek; Tom Koch, Shapell Industries, 100 N.Milpitas Blvd.,Milpitas; Bobbie Bach, 4431 Deer Ridge Road,Danville; Jim Blickenstaff, 2410 Talavera Drive, San Ramon; Gloria Cannon,4801 Shavano Peak,Antioch; Pamela Hardy,Ponderosa Homes,6671 Owens Drive,Pleasanton; Lesley Hunt, 236 Warwick Drive, Walnut Creek; Christa Freihofner, 3272 Estero Drive, San Ramon; Sandy Barclay,3210 Ensenada Drive, San Ramon; Mark Altgelt, 347 W. Bissell Avenue,Richmond; David Azevedo,21 Van Tassel Lane,Orinda; Attila Bardoy, 131 Shelterwood Lane,Danville; Terry Fleming, 31173 Wayside Plaza#116,Walnut Creek; Owen Fair, 1407 Fountain Spring Circle,Danville; Ed Schwarz, 1405 Fountain Springs Circle,Danville; Peter Santina, 9667 Tareyton Avenue, San Ramon; Valerie Chapla, 30 Collin Drive,Pleasant Hill; Lora Warner,4975 Camino Tassajara,Danville; Larry Warner,4975 Camino Tassajara,Danville; Bill Pierson, Sierra Club-Delta Group, 1919 Birch Avenue, Antioch; Lynn Deckert,4487 Sweet Shrub,Concord; Robert Schultz, 118 Kingswood Circle,Danville; Don Mount, 1309 Gregg Lane, Concord; Glenn and Phyllis Browne,Concord; Stephen Brawn, Sierra Club—West Contra Costa,6706 Moeser Lane, El Cerrito; Lori Dare, El Cerrito Democratic Club, 1711 Arlington,El Cerrito; Richard Abbott, 1103 Rahara Drive,Lafayette; Jerry Hinkle, 1637 Mary Drive,Pleasant Hill. The following people did not wish to speak,however the Chair read their comments into the record; Giselle Downard, 650 B DeHaro Street, San Francisco; Sandra Paiva, 1529 Peters Ranch Read,Danville; Joseph Paiva, 1529 Peters Ranch Road, Danville; Lori Patotzka, 6008 Lakeview Circle, San Ramon; Rita Minjares, Sustainable El Cerrito, 7316 Rockway Avenue,El Cerrito; James Heidt, 1632 Live Oak Way, Walnut Creek; Mira Goetsch, 1841 Fallbrook Drive,Alamo; H.L. Harris, 100 Balfour Road,Brentwood; Nancy Wander,2001 Alameda Diablo,Diablo; Joyce Carr,2730 Sherbear Drive, San Ramon; Sandra Fredrickson,Byron Community Network,P.O. Box 1323, Oakley; 3 Elizabeth Heidt, 1632 Live Oak Way, Walnut Creek; Owen Fair, 1407 Fountain Sp. Circle, Danville; Jeanne Rosenmeier, 2644 San Carlos Drive, Walnut Creek; Joyce Warmerdam, 3104 Riviera Way, San Ramon; Joyce Wahlig, 59 Nead Place, San Ramon; Nolan Sharp, 4510 Tassajara Road, Danville; Mary Rocha, 3022 Rio Grande Drive, Antioch. Those desiring to speak having been heard today,the Chair advised the Board the this matter is to be continued on July 25, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. Supervisor Gioia moved to adjourn to that date and time, and Supervisor Canciamilla seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: July y 24, 2000 Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and Co dminis for By P#A0kDeeputy(l-e(j 4 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 (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 580 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 2,560 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. • Oaklev_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. 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 Beard 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 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 _._.. . Care 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 55/35 Contra Costa County Land Use Preservation Plan Ordinance. The proposed ordinance tent 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 Pian 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. lmgact of the Urban Limit Line on the Unincorporated Area, Incorporated Area and Cather 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 impact on any of the planning policies for the 19 citie's 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. i� 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 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 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-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 Pian, 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 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- (l) 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 II 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%, Fig. 10-7, page 1042, Safety Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-2010); USES 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. 15 ................................ , 8c `POO ' ! C& {tea+ � j9J Y i so _ t j S ! < i 4rrar.+o� Y ,,,/YYyYYYY [ f a4 s Cawr*zStra/t j av*wSte ` t Y Legend 1 ` ---- Contra Costs County line 4 err Coity Hmits ®—N-- City sphere of Irtluenoe line(SCI) — - - Darks Existing urban limit line(ULL) rrrw m Proposed otterrge to ULL Area pride existing ULL Area Inside aftV ULL,to be removed ur*r proposal l� Area outside existing ULL 0 4000 ft(appro*nats) Sources:Mundie&Associates,Clement Designs,Contra Costa County Figure 1 Potential ULL Mti0cotions Crockett Area G _ i ' •�� ? F M 14 jtl a,'°ytf R..,. H3S\ gY ` V'. f u ort Co f cwf*az ask If 4 W, RMP 4 JANM* Work Silt Lsgsnd tislowsh) .�...— Contra Costa County lineCRY llnft r rresxs ------ City sphere of influence line (SCI) -- Parks Existing urban limit fine(LLL) rue m m Proposed gangs to ULL Area inside exisgng ULL Area Inside exrstirg ULL, t''►� to be removed under proposal Area outside existing ULL A0u 6000 ft(approximate) Sources:Mundie&Associates,Clement Designs,Contra Costa County Figure 2 Potential ULL Modifications Martinez Area 2.1. MARTINEZ RIDGE Proposal Concept: A modification to the Urban Limit Line boundary on the Martinez (Franklin Wills) 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 Pian (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"; i [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 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-1950 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,B.(3)(e)j "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" 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 � f Mount Diablo State Pk f , , f Legend -w--»—• Contra Costa County line City Nmits --� City Wm of influence One(S01) arks `I II Camp Parks Existing urban limit One(ULL) Ramw Farces ma rm asr Proposed change to ULL FrabbVArsa ,.�"" 'Timsy-Gk ,s- Aeyk�nel Area inside wdsting ULL under to be remed un �y f z Area outside existing ULL ,.- 0 6oW ft(aPPraxlme«te) :Mmdic&Amdatm Q=mDeWpsfComm Com Figure 3A Potential ULL Modifications--Proposal Tassajara Area(Watershed Option) f i i ~ Mount Diablo Stats irk t k k f wk C y....,w..w......w.w«.,.+..,,rw.................e.w....s.,.«w,ww..,.v w.w.w...v.M.w«........ i ♦w Rd iRd Legend �—•r... Contra Costa County line .w a City limb '----- City spvm of intluernce line(801) I —---— Parks Camp Parks •'' Existing urban limit line(ULL) Re""Form Proposed Change to ULL TralntrgAme ,,.�"' ran*"Ck ,n�e�Ba.,at Area inside existing ULL .yam i� N"!'f1 Area Inside existing ULL,to be removed under alternate proposal S , Area outside existing ULL ,.•'"` _F u, (j;j) ®GUO ft(appro)dmaw) Saud:Mun&c&Associates,Clement Designs,Conten Ccs County Figure 3$ Potential ULL Modifications -Alternate Ttssajara 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 „Alternativeff, 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 16-42, 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 Uadate� Contra Costa Countvw/de 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 4 r 7SY, �d [ ri0fltla LU7i6&&—Ps* +!{ GW(dB t MAI Y A 6 f f ' wx Y A t DMmond 8 Mhw Rdobw Awx�wx xw wx 9 _ r , i y e.x.s w W 3 f]Y yr1 3w w v rrun V.n vww+r r r+yt i Y i rw� rr— a e Legend = Contra Costa County line P x 4. w x x wrw s a City limb i x x, ------- Cary sphere of Influence line(SOI) Mt UAW j w w Parks State ! Exlsfing urban limk fine(ULL) Palk m m m Proposed to ULL(NA--Clayton Ranch to be removed from existing ULL) Area Inside existing ULL Area inside exi*V ULL,to be removed under propose! Area outside existing ULL 0 6000 ft(approximate) Sour=:Mun&a&Ano=tmC1=cMD=WsR ContraCosta Ccnntty Figure 4 Poterdial ULL Modlfltf cions at'lylton kea 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 1980'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 t; � x s^ Y� t'4 k „s Sa;5 ' els ' k , v my y.� in. £ Chipps Island ii IER ;�, � Brom hkod Hegkml 4 Legend -- Contra Costa County line € •■• City limps F Cky sphere of Influence fins(SO[) Parke also j < txan 1 Existing urban limit fine(UAL) Baa m im Proposed change to ULL ;" Re __ _.ww Pnaarve Area Inside exisft ULL • Area inside exIAV ULL,to be removed under proposal ! Area outside exist V ULL c BWO ft(approArnats) Sources.M a&e&Associates,Clement resigns,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 2,852 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 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)9 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. In fact, as recently documented in the draft Year 2000 U»date: 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.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support either of the boundary modifications as defined. 34 Ch4Vs i Wand s i z m:sn 4 s: wini k01311K1 F � } 8f0"wow Replant � 4 it q Legend •—�••-.•• colra t;osta County line ------ Cky sphere of Iduence Ine(801) t _ Pa Existing urban atilt Nne(ULL) Proposed change to ULL ter" Reylant <—.N - Area h0de ming ULL Arm inside existing UU,to be removed under proposal ,n Aria outside exiAV ULL o sono rt(appmxlmate) Sour=:Mundic&Amociats,Cknxmt Desips,cDAt a tweets County Figure 5A Potential ULL Modifiim ions--Proposal Pittsburg Area atip58 Wand 'Ile 'SKS 11 a .� rTO " , crib K }t < $IYYWIty k{Island j l 4 I Legend ----- Contra Costa County line YNYtlBY K ONp1YY City pm ----`— City Who of influence Yne(SCS) t/ Y a g Parks Brach r Existing urban llmit line(ULL) — -- —Y times err res rrt Proposed change to ULL t rINWN Im Area Inside existing ULL k }{ Area inside existing ULL.,to be n` reined under alternate proposal Area outside existing ULL !' 0 6�000tt(approximate) Sources:Lundie&Associates,Clement Designs,Contra Costa County !�J Figure 5B 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 Geer Valley and Horse 'Valley. Approximately 660 acres would be shifted to outside the Urban Limit Line under the "Alternate". See Figures 6A and 68, 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 Pian (1995-2010); USOS 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 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 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.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support either of the boundary modifications as defined. 38 �s flr s r'Y i°', 9 15sytp Y d " t ,°, � �� 4 d�9 yl � 5���3 6'�'s�I F 4 t 3�� W`fi�'b; � .. ,i #4`r 3` F E,F`• f£�P i4. F -4.�{rMz 4 4 t taa + Caft Lara RVk"Park Gatti z et' z ftflMd Wn PMWW Legend --� Contra Costa County One wM 4 MW City limits ------ City sphere of Influence line(SCI) Parks Extsbng urban limit line(ULL) as ars= Proposed cdtange to ULL Area Inside existing ULL 9 Area inside exieft ULL,to be removed under proposal —J Area outside exiting ULL 00 ft(approximate) Sounnrs:Handle&Aw=atw,Cimumtriw*s,Coats Coeur County Figure 6A Potential ULL Modifications—Proposal Antioch Area ,37 t 4 4 t� e Lbrkratae�� �GpaMt 3 _w r Ow Legend �•.••-•_ Contra Costa County line City limits W ...® {OyOery of influence One(Sol) parks l:xxieanQ UttJan limit line(ULL) rw wK w imposed d"to ULL on Area inside existing ULL Area inside exWkq ULL,to be reamed under artemate proposal ,. Area outside existlng ULL (& 6000 ft( mate)�w��Lr Sc r-&MUa&& CkmMDe dgM Co=Cows Cm,ay Figure 6B Potential ULL Modifications—Alternate Antioch Area v 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 6B, 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 Uadafe: 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 ........ ......... ......... .. 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 346 acre parcel would presumably be proposed for a General Plan Amendment to urban uses. 43 4 4 Legend t4mah Crek int •..—•.�. Contra Costa County#ne ------ t am a aaam Cfty 11rrtits --..�.�.. City sphere of irrke nce we(SOQ » Parks ExWng urban DW fine(ULL) MMM Proposed change to ULL Diabte Ad Area inside existing ULL Area Inside exdefing UU,to be removed under proposal z 3 Area outsbe mdftq ULL 8400 rt{appro)imate} 9om+ms:Mundie&Anodatm ClamentDasiM Ccmtca Casa Cauaty Figure 7A Potential ULL Modifications—Proposal Brentwood Area 4 Legend Marsh Ovsk Rd —•.�••• Contra Caste County line win City+limits CKy of IrIlluenae line(SCH) w Pa Existing urban limit line(ULL) ®tet■rr Proposed changes to ULL Cann©iaft Pd Area Inside existing ULL Mash sri Area h elde exlstirtg ULL,to be removed under alternate proposal :V W Area outside axis"ULL o 6000 ft(approximate) So=m lY undle&AnodgMYlW4G34LDMPS,YsV)14 Cott] a Figure 7B Potential ULL Modifications—Alternate Brentwood Area 4 x �,168Q'Mll � 4� M8t8t1 Creek tai Legend --.—� Contra Costa County line was r ssrr Cgty Nmb —— ---�-- City sphere of Influence fine(SCI) packs pDkW Rd -- Correll ranch project boundary Existing urban limit line(ULL) L� urs i M Proposed ULL Area Inside the exisdng ULL Area hslde existing ULI,to be --- ---- - -- -_ removed under aftemate proposal Area outside alsiing ULL 06000 ft(approdmate) &nnm Mwdie&AaDdatm Gement Deaps,Contra Costa County Figure 10 Potenfial ULL Modifications Cowell Ranch Altemafive 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: Contras Costa Countmlde 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 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 0-1990 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.(3). are supported by the area's inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure to the area, and distance from existing development. 50 *a i >..-- OW Pafiottttne to �ty� to be piggy ' ` � l LAW t� s 4 COCO ow t to ULA COMA ,f' �'.r �xtszltit4�"4 A� toxtm�te) paten► U�'��° s t�ak� pea y 9. VEALE TRACT AREA Proposal Concept: In its original action on January 26 1359, 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.4,13.(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" 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 ............. .........._ . Holard Trod Rd ® �o tCltlgiltaln t�ilel� � Legend —.— Contra Costa County fine ■ Cfty Smits oNo®� CRy ime(Sol) Perks EAsting urban limit line(ULL) m m Proposed changes to ULL Area inside e)dsdng ULL tYrsstrrR 8t Area wide existing ULL,to be removed under proposal Area outside existing ULL A Marsh Crook Rd 4Q , 808a tt(appmAmate { Sources,Mundie dt Associates,Clement Desips,Contra Costa Com ty Figure 9 Potential ULL Modifications Veale Trod 5-S, EXHIBIT "A" 65135 LAND PRESERVATION STANDARD INVENTORY 56 Methods and Results for the 65/35 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 55/35 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 55/35 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 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 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 65135 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 non-urban uses In County: 335,110 acres 59.6% of County Total area of urban uses in County: 146,320 acres 30.4°Io 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 o en 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% Agricultural 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 non-urban 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/Semi-Public inside ULL 9,760 2.06 I Excluding water areas west of Stake Point—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 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 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©PEN 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 65135 Land Preservation Standard. Based on these adopted policies, staff categorized each land use designation as either urban or non- urban for purposes of the 65135 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 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 Commercial/Industrial RC Regional Commercial urban CO Commercial urban ACC Airport Commercial urban OF Office urban BP 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 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 Heavy 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 Parrs,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 . s..k • 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 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 55/35 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 55/35 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 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 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 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 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 :::. :..,kt ..: .A:. vA.: ::::.. :. ........::.:.:....... 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. Staff from the public Works Department provided substantial assistance with the computer mapping and area calculations. Their contributions are appreciated. 11 EXHIBIT "B" TEXT OF MEASURE C-1990 ORDINANCE 57 t 1. Introduction MEASURE C-1998 THE 65/35 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LAND PRESERVATION PLAN TEXT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE The People of the County of Contra Costa hereby ordain as follows: Section 1 This ordinance shall be entitled the"65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan." Section 2 Through this ordinance the people approve the policies contained in the 65/35 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"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 65/35 Land Preservation Plan standard except by a vote of the people; o Create an Urban Limit Line to identify the outer boundaries of urban development in the County; o Proted 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 Protan open hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County from development by zoning and other measures; o 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; 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 o Safeguard the County's obligation to provide its fair share of safe,decent and affordable housing. Section 3 Statement of Finding, and Policy 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 roceived extensive written comments on the Now 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 concerns and hopes stated in this public prooess. The proposed New General Plan consists of over 404 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 Now 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. E. , 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 tern 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 users in the 1.32 Excerpted from the 1996 CCC General Plan 1. Introduction County. Moreover, preservation and conservation of open space,wetlands,parks,hillsides and ridgetines 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 atter appropriate infrastructure(transportation, schools,water, tine and police protection)can be assured. (3) There is a critical need to matte 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[band Preservation Plan is intended to carry out the voters'desire to both preserve agriculture and open space land,parks,vA&nds,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. 13, The approval of the 65/35 Land Preservation flan 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 Impl=gntation of 651.35 Land P,res=yatian Plan To implement the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan,the following chapter is hereby added to the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code as Chapter 92-1 and numbered appropriately: A. New. Ge, ncral Plan The County shall adopt a new general plan by December 31, 1990(the"New General Plan"). B. 65M Land mseryalign 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) 65,135 Viand Prcstryatign 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 nonurban uses. (2) Chanees to the 65135 land Pres anon 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 Line To ensure the enforcement of the 65135 standard set forth in (B)(1) above, an Urban Limit Linc 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 II 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) Growth ManagMeent In accordance with the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program adopted on August 3, 1988,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) Agri UltuMl Protection 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) Hillsidc 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 U&n Limit Ling 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 mord. (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 shard 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 L Introduction available(from city or County growth management studios 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 Past 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 circumstances shall require a vote of the people. (S) Annexations and Inctions 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(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) Houlin 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 primes throughout the County. In accordance with the provisions of B(7)above,the Board of Supervisors may make fundings 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) Coopgmtijan with Ci nes 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 Proj cs PriortiLAdoption of New General P an 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. DW3LjQn The provisions of this chapter shall be in effect until December 31,2010,to the extent permitted by law. E. No Violation of Law by this Ordinnanr� (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 :...............:::.: w H.. ,.,,, 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. Dkfini17Qu (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. Section 5 Amendment and tx..MI This ordinance may be amended or repealed only by a vote of the people,except as expressly provided heroin. Section 6 Canflim with Other M tis= 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 supcm&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 3nmmbilil,K 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 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, G n- 1 P n' •M` et'n a, Sacramento, June 1987, pages 14-18 (paraphrased). 2. Ibid.,page 1.7. 1-36 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 flans 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 1994 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 65135 Land Preservation Standard. Eased 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 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 Commercial/Industrial 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 L____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 ®S 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 6$6-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 closers 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 Heavy 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 Parrs,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 Qpen 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,EBRPU 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 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 oft-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 nonurban 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 staffs 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 EXHIBIT "B" TEXT OF MEASURE C-1990 ORDINANCE 57 1. Introduction MEASURE C-1990 THE 65/35 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LAND PRESERVATION PLAN TEXT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE The People of the County of Contra Costa hereby ordain as follows: Section 11& This ordinance shall be entitled the"65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan." Section 2 SUmWaly Through this ordinance the people approve the policies contained in the 65/35 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; a Prohibit any changes to the 65/35 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; a Protect and promote the economic viability of agricultural Land by appropriate standards and policies, including a policy that increases the minimum parcel size for prune productive agricultural land outside the Urban Limit Line to 40 acres; a Protect open hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County from development by zoning and other measures; o 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; a 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 a Safeguard the County's obligation to provide its fair share:of safe,decent and affordable housing. Section 3 Statement of Findings and Polio 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 Platt 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 concerns 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 concems were: (1) Growing urbanization of the County is threatening the long term 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 1-32 E=xcerpted from the 1996 CCC General Plan f 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 socriery 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 land,parks,wetlands,hillsides and ridgelines,mariage growth to protect the quality of life,and provide for the County's fair share of decent,safe and affordable housing. D. It is approprutte 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 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 65135 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 IMplementation gf 65135 Land Preseryatipn Plan To implement the 65135 Land Preservation Plan,the following chapter is hereby added to the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code as Chapter 52-1 and numbered appropriately; A. &W 9€00ral Plan The County shall adopt a new general plan by December 31, 1990(the"New General Plan"). B. 65135 Land PrescrtA ion lan 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) 6513.5 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 tho ion elan 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 Line To ensnare 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 (-33 a 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 Lund 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,partes 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) Growth Management In accordance with the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program adopted on August 3,1988,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 Pro ration Policies° Minimum Parcel Siz= 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 nesarily be Iimited 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) Changs to the Urban Limit Lin 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 patty 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; (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 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; (fj 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 circumstances shall require a vote of the people. (8) Annexations and ncomorationc_ 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 (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 fundings 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) CoORQMtion 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. Ao ication to Prq;ects prior to Adoption of New Gencral P an 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 fording 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. The provisions of this chapter shall be in effect until december 31,2010,to the extent permitted by law. E. No Violation of Law 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 I-35 A 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. Dkfiw= (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 nexssary or desirable for the public health,safety or welfare or by state or federal law. Section 5 Amendment an R WA1 This ordinance may be amended or repealed only by a vote of the people,except as expressly provided herein. Section 6 Confli=M&h tither MrA4ssrm 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 aSm shill v 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 full4bree 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, feral Plan'Quidding, Sacramento, June 1987, pages 14-18 (paraphrased). 2. Ibid.,page 17. 1436 Smooth Feed SheetsTrA Use temptate for 51600 Tony Dehaesus Robert W. Pickett Brian Wiese 2064 Banbury Road Pickett Development Co. EBRPD-Adv.Planning Walnut Creek,CA 94598 2703 Ridgeview Lane 2950 Peralta Oaks Ct. Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Oakland, CA 94605 Harvey P. Hanoian Stephen Boeri Kenneth C. Scheidig EBMUD EBMUD AC Transit P.O. Box 24055 MS#701 P.O. Box 24055 1600 Franklin St. Oakland, CA 94607 Oakland, CA 94607 Oakland, CA 94612 East Bay MUD EBMUD Comm. Affairs Edythe Campbell Pa. Box 24055 Slot 802 P.O. Box 24055 96 Lawson Road Oakland, CA 94623 Oakland, CA 94623 Kensington,CA 94707 Diane Gossard Kensington Police Dept. John Grosvenor Kensington Outlook 217 Arlington Avenue Kensington MAC 166 Ardmore Road Kensington,CA 94707 4 Franciscan Way Kensington, CA 94707 Kensington, CA 94707 Marianne Loring Kensington Improvement Mr. Gary Freschi 274 Willamette Avenue Anthony Knight,President West CC Unified School Kensington,.CA 94708 234 Willamette Avenue 1108 Bissell Avenue Kensington, CA 94708 Richmond, CA 94801 Scott Moore Len Battagli Supervisor John Gioia Chevron Products Co. 6480 H. de Dr. *****INTEROFFICE***** P.O. Box 1272 EI rante, CA 94803 Richmond, CA 94802 City of San Pab EI Sobrante Valley Jim Panagopoulos Louie,Co unity Dev. Planning &Zoning Comm. The Spanos Corporation One arado Square P.O. Box 20136 1341 W. Robinhood B-2 S Pablo, CA 94806 El Sobrante, CA 94820 Stockton, CA 95207 Ann Mooney Business News Delta Protection Comm. The Record Tracy Wallace Margit Aramburu P.O. Box 419 1537 Heather Drive P.O. Box 530 Tracy, CA 95378 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Walnut Grove, CA 95690 Daniel E. Hail Wickland Oil Company P.O. Box 13648 Sacramento, CA 95853 • 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 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 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 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 1994. 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( 3),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. Stafffrom the Public Works Department provided substantial assistance with the computer mapping and area calculations. "heir contributions are appreciated. it Jeraey Inland 4 Knightaen Legend Contra Costa County line City Nml#s -- —�— Clay sphere of Influence Iine(SOQ Parks Existing urban lima line(ULL) =100111 Proposed changes to ULL Area Inside existing ULL Area Inside existing ULL,to be .3 removed under attemate proposal Area outside a)bting ULL e000�(appro)dmate} a Sousa:Moodie&Asaociatee,Clement DesWs,Contra,Costa County Figure 8B Potential ULL Modifications—Alternate Oakley Area 4 i.. 4 t rl Legend `' Mereh Creek Rd —e-� Contra Costa County line City limits City sphereof influenoe fine(S01) .._ Parks . Existing urban limit fins(ULL) m m m Proposed changes to ULL 0WO Rd Marsh CreeK� Area Inside existing ULL ri Area Inside exIsling ULL,to be ~` removed under alternate proposal Area outside existing ULL o e000 ft(appro)imate) Sources:Muadle&Asaodam Clement IwiW,Ca=Coate County Figure 7B Potential ULL Modifilcations—Alternate Brentwood Area Y.Y - r~ k { U � 4t ,4 4 71 PO 1 r s { y: is a �. Y► .7:Y I Ilk— M777711= F 1 YI ! 1 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 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.B.(3). are supported by the inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure to the area, and distance from existing development. 48 8. OAKLE'Y 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 8B, 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 Coun fywlde 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 I, YNt z �5 I.e9eiAd Com es COMW Iwo t Packs timK 1U►e tu►-t.? Tos to ULL P Mposad Asea tnos axla�nQ t}ta v,)g to be moved Mdec P° � � *exts�ln9 U�' 8000 t �xtmate) r tzx � °' c �ential Ut1.M00tCons..�-fit � �'a 4ak1s!►Area �E b L Chi�4�p n`f444+ w „ .GC' bland Mnt.Nq 'E fIsland "q Browne+'Islands ern�u� d k; 0 r Legend --�---- Contra Costa County line * City limits ------- City sphere of influence fine(SOI) , Parks awa 4 E)dsting urban limit One(ULL) "" „HN ANN "MM Proposed change to ULL f ° Pro#eliM Area Inside existing ULL f..._.--__—- >r Area Inside exiting ULL,to be +.,.....--—__removed under alternate proposal Area outside existing ULL 0 ww tt(approximate) Sources:Mundic&Associatcs,Ciewnt Designs,Contra Costa County Figi 'e 5B Potential ULL Modifirntions--Alterricte Pittsburg Area b 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 Geer 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 Pian, 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 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 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 4.13.(3)., and there is substantial evidence to support either of the boundary modifications as defined. 38 N,�� II F � r 4 4 womw LarN fiq it fpr Camra Lanz Rood"I Perk ' �✓ r Dhmood Mines PMWW Legend ---•— Contra Coats County line wM I won City limb ------ Clty sphere of influence die(SCI) Parks Existing urban limit line(ULL) { 10110111111111 Proposed change to ULL Area Imide existing ULL Area Inside existing ULL,to be rencved under proposal (�� J `� Area outside existing ULL 0 8004 ft(approximate) l L�i J Sauces:Mun"&Anociatm,Clmnent DewSak Contra Carta Courcy Figure 6A Potential ULL Modifications—Proposal Antioch Area §^ b"L _ 4 7 wowu 5 -may. i i � {� 4 wft Latta RagkrW Pwk 1 1 I f t DatttaW m�..............................✓ Aruba Regb W PMN" Legend Contra Costa County line i City limits 1 ®----- City sphere of influence One(SOI) Parks Existing urban limit line(ULL) wa m m Proposed change to ULL Area Inside existing ULL Area Inside existing ULL,to be d removed under aBemate proposal 0 ffWO tt(approximate) Area outside existing ULL L... rMMML -.I Sou=:Muadia&Aswdam C wmi Dedps,Contra Costa Caunv Figure 6B Potential ULL Moflifications—Alternate Antioch Area 40 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 713, 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 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 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 4.8.(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 Legend Marsh Geek Fid! •—••.—. Contra Costa County line . City limits ------ Ch+sphere of influence line(M) a — Parks Existing urban limit line(ULL) m m m Proposed change to ULL �°DW*Ad «� rAareh t�►k Area Imide existing ULL Area Inside w under pro ULL,to be rerrxa Area outside exlsft ULL � 4 6000 It(approximate) Swrow:Mum *&Aswmtm C1==Dmpx Cow&C-taC-V Figure 7A Potential ULL Modifications--Proposal Brentwood Area Methods and Results for the 65/35 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. 65/35 Land Preservation Plan The policies contained in this chapter shall be reflected in the New General Pian, 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 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 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+ 5/35 Land Preservation Standard Inventory for June 2000 Area of the County': 481,430 acres Area outside the Urban Limit Line (ULL)! 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 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% Agricultural 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) Cuff-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 non-urban 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/Semi-Public Inside ULL 9,760 2.0% 1 Excluding water areas west of Stake Point- -see text for explanation. 2 Excluding 3 small areas of pre-existing"urban"use outside ULL—see text for explanation. 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 4.8.(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 y" 4 i6 5 ' I I! FbNaod Trail Rd r. Knightsen Deity Rd coma Legend . ---� Contra Costa County line sew■ City limits -�-��-- City sphere of Influence line(S01) Parks 9? Existing urban limit line(ULL) m s errs Proposed changes to ULL Area inside existing ULL Chestart St Area inside exlsthxf ULL,to be t � removed under proposal L� Area outside existing ULL 4 Marsh Creek Rd eo00 t<(approximate) q re E Sources:Mundie&Amociates,Clement Desips,Contra Costa County Figure 9 Potential ULL Modifications Veale Traci EXHIBIT "A" 65135 LAND PRESERVATION STANDARD INVENTORY 56 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); 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. 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 Pian 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.4,8.(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 ''uT n'- xx¢ „>Y v.�, .s § xChi"s Island � 9rC �§ m, ec � TT�iA �aaq� p ` ' ,`E, .a. ,€, N,'eam'•`` .r ,r ren r,, a a F t - [t.s y'� l!s'"��..,� t '�lk 'Laid �ISlarrd erowm INxrd Repknd 8horsacM 4 ji i6r Legend ®--� Contra Caste Courdy line _ car r rwrw C#Y IMnRB +[� 4 _�-.�--- Cly sphere of influence line{StJI} ,{{ Parks 1 Brack DbMMW 6)isdng urban limit line(ULL) Asnra w w ssr Proposed change to ULL NOW Proaerva Area Inside existing ULL Area Inside existing ULL,to be removed under proposal Area outside existing ULL f a sono ft(epprasrimate) Sources:Mundie&Associates,Clement Designs,Contra Costa County Figure 5A Potential ULL Modifications-•—Proposal Pittsburg Area NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS COUNTYWIDE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Commencing on Monday, July 24, 2000, 2:00 p.m. , and continuing on Tuesday,July 25, 2000, 10:00 a.m. in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Room 106, (Comer of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: Recommendation by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the request to consider an amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan, 1995-2010, to modify or adjust the boundary of the County's Urban Limit Line(GP#990001), 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—Three proposed locations: 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 by the U.S.National Park Services; 3)The Shell Marsh, located east of Interstate 680 and south of the Martinez-Benicia Bridge,that includes approximately 398 acres of predominately wetlands and a portion of hilly grassland, • Tassajara Area—There are two proposals affecting between 3,927 and 4,513 acres of land area essentially made up of the Tassajara Valley,which is located in an unincorporated areas 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 for approximately 1,030 acres of unincorporated land area that is under acquisition by the East Bay Regional Park District, which is immediately north of the Marsh Creek Road and Morgan Territory Road intersection about 4-5 miles east of the City of Clayton. • Pittsburg Area—There are two proposals affecting unincorporated land areas between the existing Urban Limit Line and the southern boundary of the city limits for the City of Pittsburg. • Antioch Area—There are two proposals affecting 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 proposals affecting unincorporated land areas between the existing Urban Limit Line and the southern boundary of the city limits for the City of Brentwood. • Brentwood Area(North)—A proposal affecting approximately 100 acres of unincorporated land area between the existing Urban Limit 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 affecting approximately 334 acres of unincorporated land area located immediately east of the City of Oakley along Cypress Road. 1 • Veale Tract—A proposal affecting approximately 1,040 acres of unincorporated land area located east of Knightsen at the end of Delta Road. ■ Cowell Ranch—An alternative Urban Limit Line boundary modification proposal for the Cowell Ranch site,which is located in an unincorporated area southwest of the City of Brentwood„ proposed by the property owner. The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, generally identified above(a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building,Martinez, California): If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday,July 24, 2000, at 1:30 p.m., in Room 108,Administration Building,651 Pine Street, Martinez,to meet with any interested parties in order to(1) answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3)clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call Patrick Roche,Community Development Department, at(325)335-1242 by 3:00 p.m. on Friday,July 21,2000,to confirm your participation. x Date: July 10, 2000 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator L001- By arbara S. Gr , D ty Clerk 2 THE T.I € Y , .: X 200t#: i. 41i=0861, tun A W- 'Tye. jyi�I.R -36ett H/V s.rli4AraU4i>✓ eg{ iN :.x iRs, must 117t1Q;:K�1k COUNTYMMARM „} Mt=X Ir ttrrsiby gkkar►that on K wrintonaft On� g dtt� ra, R D..p a ir unty k a tMrA tp on in the CoAdministration Build W1 fine StreetOBRoom 908,furor of Pule and rt Esoobar Streets},Msrdnex,GalNamla the Gcsnt:+i Cnate 06unty Boar#oFSW cors wH1 imld l- ;a pufallo heannp ur trcinstdar tTre to4ktwinO plannlnq mutter. Racommenefatlon by the Contra Cam oiM Planning Caur$rIIaeron on the request to E consider ah arrfsnd �thent to the Con Costa County 0464 ti Plan 1996-2010 to rnWffy?ar -, r4tlat the bound of df the 0ounty's :i mft Lina MP�),it approved and 4tr�de 4: merited,W=ry maill4Ratlons uyzruid place bie following areas outsidethe Urban Limit r. Una*It tree duration of the current Ganeraf Plane OPIOCKEIT AREA-A for ilisttily 38 AV"Of unlrtoonwated Wand etas which aro A OortlOn o}thB�er C m�Propariy etl)doent to skis€.`ommunit�of Crockett; south of the n aRfwV Crockett Boulevard anti saatof Inter 11 80 IP ►MARTiNEZ AREA Titres proposed too"ons"(,I)The Martinez Rft%M{atao renown as to FYankOn Hdlel#tet W approownat 36E acres of rk4stllne.and Ac>txs area#lordktpd within itis �arftn is due Vvsa of Atttambra Avenue laetwsan$tat@ Roufe 4� { r` i}ta�argWnsX Stmt sttorrptirwa;�Ths Joan ltr4ufF NBtidnal}lis $rte.3or,.atsd epi < Aitlambtet'Avaawa,tl�at krdudes�t�prq rfkiia#ehj 9 acus of larrti area opuatsd by itis f3 s. } 'v tva6onal SerNCeha;alma 8tie1E Mesh krcatad o►att cit tntatatats 680 and qhs o4 the 1171/eV/1►t",l" 4NarifrnPrz-Eterticia t3rld0e.that 4rlCA+des appraadmately 398 acres of predominately wauandts iv and a portion qt grassland, TA88AJARA AREA-Titers are tvatrp afkeetfngg hawr.3,$27 and+4,5'13 acres'.of y t souk area ee4a meds up of the Tata Valley w7tloh Is focatad in era un noorpomw. Of WLO-Cb W Oontr'e costa County,bourxloid on the northeast by the Town of la on the OW by the City of San Rasion,and on tris South:by the Count y line border for u�tMstat and Alameda untlae,11a ' st�.AYTON R,4(#449 AREA-A proposal for toapl�9,#690 acres of urtin fans# 3 Ir r Ich of the M �ka Marsh Cre { d�6U d M wi, Flood lrifatt e�ctt r4: OR, ok tiro Otty of Clayton. V s<a PYfTSWRQ AREA;-Tnare are two prapoeale.aftscfin9 b-A tees land areas bOW4W (� rt¢UrfNrt tJlttlt Una and the sautl+am i7atindary cty Nmlte Aar ties Oily vt r>«AtkTlOUft AREA-There are two ekfectlrtg oris ted land area between V* 4•J�V k:OWAl tO Ut aan U`mit 13na and the boundary of"c ISmita tar the CI#Y of An yl3i. y{i k a NOPWOOD AREA OUTH)-Thera aro two propdesis land 4 areas between the Urban Limit line and the southern bow of the City Omits for Z11a City of 8rantwood. 411MINI TtA OM AftEA ff jOFfCH)-A 0rczposaf attlas tlr aC�+oximstaly 900 arras of unIneotpo• tt1\1 rated land gyros traltvveen"ard141 4Ja9w tJrnit as the rax9,a99 daryot the of 9 ton of the C#tp Of Brentwood.t waded 37elta Road on the, 6 traafsfan# ton the arwtrt,trts BtentwoAd OW Itrrrlt ort rite west,sns3 fllatsh ClBere oa east. «OAKLEY AREA-A aftacfiit� matwy 334 Sam of unincorporated land area located 4mmpdfatefy'eaattt ftthe City 4f i�s"C.ypross Road «VEALE TRACT.A'�i aifeCthip tett'1! �t340 sorsa of unittcorated land ores farcated seat of Ohioan at the and �Road. a COWELL RANOH-An afterrtatilve Urban Limit Una boundary mod tion rco al:for the CaweO Aeatcft site,"Joh it loCatsd in oaf unincorpor9tad area lout the CFty of BrontwoUG.ptttgaaea7 try the Property owner, C:�elocation ocr a n Of the�l�d�P�rtN ,,r�t�Sty Incl within u (senora ftlyl d Ow PO unty of be areermlinadV the�t>t fhs Diisctor orf Cofrnnufilty Davalopmant,Cot+nty AtlmtrtIsn#atlon 8ufidinO,Martinez,Ongbrifa};:, If you Challmtge this matbar in Court,-you may ba limited to rela4nO only those 4ssUae you or a4rneOrte else aklsed at tits V - healn�deacribeik In We soiree,or in vmtt8n cGrKsapon- derK7e deNverod to the Ocuny at,or psor'io;the public ffsarfrp. 4aFt10A Tlo THE HEARINOF 0 H#I ITY CIEvELOPMffNT DEPARTtAEklf STAFF iMLL.$E AVAltASf iw ON T+Jt 8pAY 3�,1i�Y 24 2000 AT 1 319 PAA,K ROW 908 ADMINISTRATION ied d l�tNk FAlldgf.6E7 PMi AAAietlt to meat wktt WntaeasIn order tr+.(1) rentlew$te tteadnq. res used tits arlfy tlt+e fset�aa dCMklanid #{n4 ane(41 an'. tl fF YEfU 7 IE� A1L�f5PR �EB`C 3 Qn P, fi)T1 FR '1 2t CONFf 1SftTAAEi f f AT FA�CfPftFK}kJ; Q4 4P JAY:t..-COQ fstl3,�ttt�l�tplf, �itis Board a;1$f�rat�T?#:�a��AtatO "VIrrttllkAt i a!!QSrtk' L)RFT 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"90001) 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. WHEREAS, the Urban Limit line, as contained 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. 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: The 65/35 Contra Costa Land Preservation Ordinance (1990). 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 DEIR was released on April 14, 2000 and the 45 day comment period concluded on May 30,2000. 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. WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, the project was scheduled for hearing 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 CEQA Guidelines. 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 in the following areas: page I DRAFT i. Crockett Area- A proposal for 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. The two sites in the Crockett area recommended for Urban Limit Line boundary modification are depicted in the map marked as Exhibit "A".Motion carried: AYE: 6: NO: 0 ABSENT: 1. 2. Martinez Area - There are three proposed locations in the Martinez Area: 1) The Martinez Ridge (also known as Franklin Bills) 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. rational Park Service. 3) The Shell Marsh, located east of Interstate 680 and south of the Martinez-Benicia Bridge, that includes approximately 398 acres of predominantly wetlands and a portion of hilly grassland. The three locations in the Martinez area recommended for Urban Limit Line boundary modification are depicted in the map marked as Exhibit"B".Motion carried: AYE: 6: NO: 0 ABSENT: 1. 3. Tassajara Area _ The inward movement of the Urban Limit Line 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. The recommended location for the Urban Limit Line boundary modification in the Tassajara area is depicted in map marked as Exhibit "C". Motion carried: AYE: 4: NO: 2 ABSENT: 1. 4. Clayton Ranch Area - A proposal to remove the Clayton Ranch site, 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. The recommended location for the Urban Limit Line boundary modification in the Clayton Ranch area is depicted in the map marked as Exhibit "D".Motion carried: AYE: 6: NO: 0 ABSENT: 1. 5. Pittsbur Area-The proposal identified as the "Alternate" which involves the inward movement of the Urban Limit Line on approximately 2,560 acres of unincorporated land area 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 south of Somersville Road. The recommended location for the Urban Limit Line boundary modification in the Pittsburg area is depicted in the map marked as Exhibit "E". Motion carried: AYE: 6: NO: 0 ABSENT: 1. page 2 DRAFT 6. Antioch Area - The proposal identified as the "Alternate", that involves the 7- 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, relocating the Urban Limit Line to approximately the 300 foot elevation. contour line, as identified in 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 Urban Limit Line boundary modification in the Antioch area is depicted in the map marked as Exhibit T". Motion carried: AYE: 4 NO: 2 ABSENT: 1. 7. Brentwood Area(South) -A combination two proposals: a) the proposal identified as the "Alternate" 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 in 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" that involves the inward movement of the Urban limit Line 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 Urban Limit line, as proposed by the Cowell Foundation, which runs in a north-south longtitude parallel to the alignment of the State Route 4 Bypass. The recommended location for the Urban Limit Line boundary modification in the Brentwood area (South) is depicted in the map marked as Exhibit "G". Motion carried: AYE: 5 NO: I ABSENT: 1. S. Brentwood Area(North) -A proposal to shift approximately 100 acres outside the Urban Limit line 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 Letaining the current Urban Limit Line boundary in the Brentwood area (North) as depicted in the map marked as Exhibit "H". Motion carried: AYE: 4 NO: I ABSENT: 1. page 3 DRAFT 9. Oakley Area - A proposal to shift approximately 334 acres of unincorporated land area located immediately east of the City of Oakley along the southside of Cypress Road, The Commission recommends retaininsz the current Urban Limit Line boundary in the Oakley area as depicted in the map marked as Exhibit "H". Motion carried: AYE: 4 NO: 1 ABSENT: 1. 10. Veale Tract - A proposal to place approximately 1,040 acres of unincorporated land area known as `Teale Tract, located east of Knightsen at the end of Delta Road, outside the Urban Limit Line. The recommended location for the Urban Limit Line boundary modification in the Veale Tract area is depicted in the map marked as Exhibit "H" Motion carried: AYE: 6: NO: 0 ABSENT: 1. 3) ADOPTS FINDINGS as follows: 1. Consistency with General Plan: The recommended Urban Limit Line boundary modifications under this General Plan Amendment, as defined in this resolution, are consistent with 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 Contra Costa County General Plan, 1995-2010. 2. Meets 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 4.8.(3) in Measure C(1990). Evidence: Report to County Planning Commission, dated June 20, 2000; testimony provided at Public Hearing; and, Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Changes to Urban Limit Line will not violate 65/35 Land Preservation Standard: The recommended urban Limit Line boundary modifications under this General Plan Amendment, as defined in this resolution, will not cause a violation of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard as set forth under Section 4.8.(1) in Measure C(1990) Evidence: Report to County Planning Commission, dated June 20, 2000 page 4 4. Changes to Urban Limit Lane will not violate 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 pursuant to Measure C-1988. Evidence: Report to County Planning Commission, dated June 20, 2000; testimony provided at Public Hearing; and, Draft Environmental Impact Report 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, Dennis M. Barry, Secretary of the County Planning Commission, hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on June 27,2000. ATTEST: Dennis M.Barry, Secretary of the County Planning Commission, Contra Costa County,State of California Cpa molugonjun272000 page 5 OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 PINE STREET,ROOM 106 MARTINEZ, CA 94553 Phone: (925)335-1900 FAX(925)335-1913 DATE: /0 o 0 17 Teo�O: A .. FROM: .---=- � SUBJECT: - TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: 00 001, PLEASE ADVISE IF FOR ANY REASON YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THIS ITEM COMPLETE! PLEASE CALL IF YOU RECEIVE THIS FAX IN ERROR OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 PINE STREET,ROOM 106 MARTINEZ;, CA 94553 Phone: (925)335-1900 FAX(925)335-1913 DATE: c. TO: FROM: '► SUBJECT: TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: PLEASE ADVISE IF FOR ANY REASON YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THIS ITEM COMPLETE! PLEASE CALL IF YOU RECEIVE THIS FAX IN ERROR OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 PINE STREET,ROOM 106 MARTINEZ, CA 94553 Phone: (925)335-1900 FAX (925)335-1913 DATE: /�� t FROM: 7 SUBJECT: TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: r I zA1—AA&e--= PLEASE ADVISE IF FOR ANY REASON YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THIS ITEM COMPLETE! PLEASE CALL IF YOU RECEIVE THIS FAX IN ERROR OFFICE OF THE CLERK.OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 551 PINE STREET,ROOM 106 MARTINEZ, CA 94553 Phone: (925)335-1900 FAX(925)335-1913 BATE: . Old 00 ,t TO: FROM: cc.� ` �l �✓ SUBJECT: ;C TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: t 2:z woo PLEASE ADVISE IF FOR ANY REASON YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THIS ITEM COMPLETE! PLEASE CALL IF YOU RECEIVE THIS FAX IN ERROR LEGAL PUBLICATION I EQUISTION i Contra Costa County From: Clerk of the Board To: San Ramon Valley Times 651 Pine St., Room 106 PO Box 68 Martinez, CA 94553 Danville, CA 94526 Requested by: Barbara Grant Date: July 1 Q; 2000 Phone No: 335-1904 Reference No: 436 Org: 1100 Sub Object: 2190 Task: Activity: Publication Date (s): Thursday, July 13._2000 No. of Pages: 1l8 ng ad LEGAL PUBLICATION- 116an Limit Line a#-29-0001 ****Immediately upon expiration of publication,**** send in one affidavit for each publication in order that the auditor may be authorized to pay your bill. A. Authorized Signature: 4V ( 111AA.1 Please confirm da e of publication & receipt of this fax. LEGAL PUBLICATION REQUISTION Contra Costa County From: Clerk of the Board To: Contra Costa Times 651 Pine St., Room 106 PO Box 5124 Martinez, CA 94553 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Requested by: Barbara Cuant Date: July 1 Q_, 2000 Phone No: 335-1904 Reference No: 434 Org: 1 IQQ Sub Object: 2190 Task: Activity: Publication Date (s): Thursday., July 13, 2000 No. of Pages: 1/8 12g ad LEGAL PUBLICATION- urban Limit Line CSP 99-0001 ****Immediately upon expiration of publication,**** send in one affidavit for each publication in order that the auditor may be authorized to pay your bill. Authorized Signature: 4bp"p ° Please confirm date of publication & receipt of this fax. � S LEGAL PUBLICATION REQUISTION Contra Costa County From: Clerk of the Board To: Ledger Dispatch 651 Pine St., Room 106 PO Box 2299 Martinez, CA 94553 Antioch, CA 94549 Requested by: Barbara Grant Date: y 10, 2000 Phone No: 335-1904 Reference No: 435 Org: 1100 Sub Object: 2.1990 Task: Activity: Publication Date (s): Thursday, July 10. 2000 No. of Pages: 1/&12g ad LEGAL PUBLICATION- urban Limit Linc GP#99-0001 ****Immediately upon expiration of publication,**** send in one affidavit for each publication in order that the auditor may be authorized to pay your bill. OAuthorized Signature: _4 " Please confirm date of publication & receipt of this fax. LEGAL PUBLICATION REQUISTION Contra Costa County From: Clerk of the Board To: West County Times 651 Pine St., Room 106 PO Box 100 Martinez, CA 94553 Pinole, CA 94564 Requested by: Barbam Gr= Date: July 1 Q, 200 Phone No: 335-1094 94 Reference No: 437 Org: 1100 Sub Object: 2190 Task: Activity: Publication Date (s): Thur ay, July 13; 2000 No. of Pages: 1I8 pg ad LEGAL PUBLICATION- Urban Limit Line P#99-00 1 *""Immediately upon expiration of publication,**** send in one affidavit for each publication in order that the auditor may be authorized to pay your bill. Authorized Signature: 11.0 Please confirm date of publication & receipt of this fax. ... .: :. � � � '. . .'.:�. �:-:f'f,., ., �;. . ...: � ::... ::: :::.' ..: `: .. :..1:..is "i .. :'::�:- � � - � - r { l7 ij%J4.;Yi}Y,'.;,'i,:+.;i fit..• 'A:<f ,+ I M a� V. . y� f. 3MMIF/F: % Y Y aea H .4 - Y: f ' cY xc} x ` a- �> � � W . ' :; �+ :::�: «•���is rn:::: CX:��<a � � �`` � <:.:� Ro •; �c :ra C'E:; :� �'s i 4 ` S * Uitrai 'pia��f has bt" 7 � ���yy�� uranvmdm' die, gl Sim jr I 6f P 29 " tsn said i3itraar has been aung used FP to yr devei pent. .� t as t of t�raa about expos �q, .cszn$ � a s4I1 C btrt .RV oorWan::�tla'1LRuti � bink the mrd �tc�tU rnae n tita t^ > !� a8i V�#f1L8P S by"�I, in the v rxtey a saidaunir said,' "to Al" hcs a�'ax�t�r caxt it#�pt�sve �A�' y Meese,���'Jae�i lltrama : d€t bhttsr a m East Gaya�was e le at t ce;;om, wtt t his - t Is piaut have b ft gh -so mu, t I a ,whcx He>� shut Itl l l i has ceeex�es ahead of htnnt �but T.earn try tvWockx, 9.to need t latsi fiYt . aut Vivre OnSt. a schztQ v ,# nea "said " had ct a has"ached tai spetd some 3aronep tf `Brent "n a ft- # tnar;pial m< esc: eta.. ov. thv Idesstivv Alit, aucl sdtoais, Antioch and would;CA 10 ear in tba Avon xef%iery€a ; �� twa aft "� toady teph h .. the Ott Iimit tct het:ate urtiti hmtt;.tried a Mast" an, 19�9,tikebna � € , v IG6, hams saf ad iute t xts std I998 inssalata rnal e�antritat pn A. ll <�; s said: t who If the b+aard ahifts"tihe �ro�th .< d� 5attstit vri jai- baunttefi t tib vias tootaa for been j ice v+te�s sttU.stra�a: demV. es_ dri Imo# ce-410 r �ifaarivri. cereal# v�swhet tip s sffcats" ctttctdadvittit a baarei ha&the abty to pry tead- lv Y s et int iut the; exswpll € ell TO WWI fey are the thearnn 1�v 01,91 . sn�n trx � n` oris and I believe#hip board ss ca+a- >� ���Tcts�s�`� stile ei�s .. bo�e1 I'hrnds Q' lie�,to a€nernft vn a rssisg lale;' atd, " t nri#dti�e .. taapr b' thea MOW ma-o dei A� � : WO AW,.... t�ey1. 11dl viler eludes Brittwcaa d; ?. 6rta rRoda he deri dilch, itvvtli aO I#3� be.;griad€nt~ nutIF ti, t xu . BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING HEARING ON COUNTYWIDE AREA,} AMENDMENT TO CONTRA COSTA) COUNTY GENERAL PLAN ) (URBAN LIMIT LINE GP#990001) } } I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States and over the age of 18. Today, I deposited the addressed Notices of Hearing on the above matter,with the County General Services Department, to be stamped and mailed in the United States Postal Service from 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, executed at 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California. Dated: July 10, 2000 By Bar ara S. Grant, ?e6k Clerk 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 BA EQLM STREET EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT PACIFIC PLAZA BUILDING SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94109 OA Box 5,C 1340 TREAT BLVD.,STE 150 OAKLAND,CA 94605-03$1 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 946074756 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 C PBOX H 0 YOUNTVILLE CA 94599 3310 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 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 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 3PD 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 in Elam, City Manager Alchard 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 10890 San Pablo Ave. Danville,Concord, CA 94519 t le, CA 94526 Gonda Way EI Cerrito, CA 94530 Da Raj Pankhania Asst to the City Manager Stephen Falk, City Manager Marcia Raines, City Manager City of Hercules City of Lafayette City of Martinez Cit 111 CitCivic Drive 3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd. #210 525 Henrietta St. Hercules, CA 94547 Lafayette, CA 94549 Martinez, CA 94553 Town Manager William Lindsay, City Manager Town of Moraga Mike Oliver, City Manager City of Orinda P.O. Box 188 City of Oakley Moraga, CA 94556 P.O. Box 6 26 Orinda Way Oakley, CA 94561 Orinda, CA 94563 Marc Grisham, City Manager Jeffrey C. Kolln, City Manager Joseph Tanner, City Manager City of Pinole City of Pleasant Hili 2200 Pear St. City Pittsburg 100 Gregory Ln. Pinola , CA 94564 P.O. BPittsburg, CA ox 1CA 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 Craves 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 945315007 Brentwood,CA 94513 Clayton,CA 94517 Lydia DuBorg Jill Kiemach Community Development Director Kevin f Dan,Chief of Planning Planning Manager City of Concord Town of Danville City of El Cerrito D 1950 Parkside Drive,MIS 50 a Gonda Way 10890 San Pablo Avenue Concord,CA 94519 Danvitlle, CA 94526 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 of Moraga City of Oakley City of Orinda P.O. Box 188 26 Orinda Way Moraga,CA 94556 P.O.Box 6 Orinda, CA 94563 Oakley, CA 94561 Dave Dosjvswell,Ci Planner Randy Jerome Rich Bottarini Planning Manager Community Development Director City of Pinole City of Pleasant Hill City of 2131 Pear Street P.O.Box 1 Pittsburgsb100 Gregory Lane Pinole,CA 94564 Pittsburg,CA 94565 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Dan Shaw,Planning Director Baron McCoy Phil Wang 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 Devin Roberts Community Development Director City of Walnut Creek P.O.Box 8039 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 f l It P"M L..a-4" I- S'r Matt Hicks Alicia Guerra Mariane Foglia 61 Shelterwood Drive Morrison and Forrester Brentwood News Danville CA 94506 101 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 450 ren wo d Suite 13 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Brentwood CA 94513 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 Dyett &Bhatia John Muir National Historic Site City of Oakley 70 Zoe Street, #100 4202 Alhambra Ave PO Box 6 San Francisco CA 94107 Martinez CA 94553 Oakley CA 94561 Marshall TorreNancy Chinn Braddock&Logan Services,LLC Jerry Shih Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce 1565 Reliance Way 2020 Railroad Ave. 4155 Blackhawk Plaza Circle,Suite 201 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 10'h 2215 Fifth Street South San Francisco CA 94080 Tracy CA 95376 Berkeley CA 94710 Contra Cost.Council Judith Barrall Henry A. Alker III 877 Ygnacio Valley Rd. 692 Snapdragon PI 155 Montgomery St., Suite 5 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Benicia CA 94510 San Francisco 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 6571 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 Cau he 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 Torn 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 Mr. Joe Miller Mike Daly Central San 1501 Old Ranch Estate Drive Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter 5019 ImhoffPlace San Ramon CA 94583 2530 San Pablo Martinez CA 94553 Berkeley, CA 94702 Paul Speroni Signature Properties Margo Lederer 245 Joseph Lane 4670 Willow Road, 200 Alameda County Community Development Pleasanton CA 94588 Pleasanton CA 94588 399 Elmhurst 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 1331 N Calif Blvd 5h Flr Discovery Bay, CA 94514 Alamo, CA 94507 walnut Creek, CA 94596 Wilson Wendt Ronald Rives Renae Parker Miller, Starr & Regalia Seeno Company 1331 N Calif Blvd 5th Flr 4012 Port Chicago Hwy 5500 Highland road Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Concord, CA 94524 Pleasanton CA 94588 Brendt Parker Mira Goetsch Guy Bgrke 5500 Highland Road 360 Diablo Road Home Builders Assn Pleasanton, CA 94588 Danville CA 94507 PO Box 5160 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 Linda Brown Evelyn Stivers City of San Ramon 1601 N Main St Ste 105 CA Alliance for fobs 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 EBMUD 5400 Penny Lane 3050 Citrus Cir Ste 202 375 11th Street Pleasanton, CA 94588 walnut Creek, CA 94598 Oakland, CA 94607 Gordon Rasmussen 6000 Highland Road Pleasanton, CA 94588 Vic r Carniglia zlie Stewart Darren Smith City o ntioch League of Women Voters 1100 Dailey Road P,O.Box 007 500 St Mary's Road#14 Pittsburg CA 94565 Antioch CA 4553 Lafayette CA 94549 W i W endt Paul Corrado Matt Hicks 1331 California Blvd. 66 Shelterwood Drive 61 Shelterwood Drive Walnut Cr 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 Idy Jerome Bjerke 729 Everett St. 65 b Ave PO ox 5160 El Cerrito CA 94530 Pittsb A 94565 San n CA 94583 Se Adams Hal$oex Sanford Skaggs Save aunt Diablo 3441 Tice Creek Box V 1196 B levard Way#10 Walnut Creek CA 94595 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Walnut Cr k CA 94595 Michael Gibson Tom Koch Re Parker Shapell 70 Sara Lane 5500 ghland Road Alamo CA 94507 100 N,Milpitas Blvd Plesaan n CA 945$8 Milpitas CA 95035 Curt Kinney Roger Smith Marta Self Mayor of San Ramon 85 High Eagle Road 1500]Hewell Ave. 7439 Ascension Drive Alamo CAA 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 a� �- - � Millie Greenberg John Banke Dick Roscha Mayor Town of Danville 8540 Manning Road 1320 Willow Pass Road 674 Sheri Lane Livermore CA 94550 Concord Ca 94520 Danville CA 94526 Jim McKechan 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 CARNIGLIA QUINTIN L. KIDD, MAYOR JEREMY GRAVES, AICD, 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. GALLEY, AICP AVANINDRA K. GANGAPURANT CURT KINNEY, MAYOR TOWN OF DANVILLE CITY OF PITTSBURG, CDD CITY OF SAN RAMON 510 LA GONDA WAY PO Box 5148 CA 94565 DANVILLE, CA 94526-1740 65 CIVIC AVENUE SAN RAMON, CA 94583-1350 PITTSBURG,P KATHY LEIGHTON, CHAIR, BMAC GREGORY GARTRELL MARILYN L. MILLER P.O. Box 268 CCWD 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 VIANo CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR JOBS 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 LAND&COMMERCIAL COMPANY RODDY RANCH, LLC 1500 NEWELL AVENUE STE 700 155 MONTGOMERY ST STE 504 21 PILLON REAL WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596-5180 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104-4110 PLEASANT HILL, CA 94523 BRUCE D. WHITE CHARLIE ABRAMS EVO & 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, AICP/ASLA BARLINE& OWEN SCHAFER 7101 CAMINO TASSAJARA PRESIDENT LAWRENCE ESTATES HOA 6351 JOHNSTON ROAD PLEASANTON, CA 94588 66 SHELTERWOOD DRIVE PLEASANTON, CA 94588 DANVILLE, CA 94506 CAROL& CLARENCE GRIBBON THOMAS W. HALL, PH.D. GORDON & KAREN RASMU SSEN 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 BsPERAN7-A DRIVE BRENTWOOD, CA 94513 CLAYTON, CA 94517 CONCORD, CA 94519 LARRY J. MORI 3913 CINNABAR STREET ANTIOCH, CA 94509 LL "e'at 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.Frank Dell Mr.Earl Wetzel ennis P" ila ECRPC ECRPC CC 1400 Sunset Rd. PO Box 184 PO Box Brentwood CA 94513 Byron CA 94514 Conc d CA 4 Mr.Aaron Meadows Mr.Bill Hill Ms.Marie Thomas GMAC. 1180 Brearwater Way 3777 Bixler Rd. PO Box 5 Brentwood CA 94513 Byron CA 94514 Oakley CA 94561 Ms.Barbara Guise Ms.Janess Hanson Nat for Tri Delta ECRPC S H ell 189 Sherwood Dr. 431 Levee Rd 120 o omery St. Brentwood CA 94513 Bay Point CA 94565 S Francisc 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 Sparten Place 945 Buckskin Terrace 1957 Dolphin Place Brentwood CA 94513 Brentwood CA 94513 Discovery Bay CA 94514 Mr.Torn Mooers Mr.John A.Gonzales Mr.Bob Doran Greenbelt Alliance KTAC RD o 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 1D 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.Leonard Gerry Mr.Torn Whalen Ms. Lisa Vorderbrueggen 56 Payne Ave. Hoffman Co. Contra Costa Times Brentwood CA 94513 1380 Galaxy Way 521 Main St. Concord CA 94522 Martinez CA 94553 Mr.Henry Alker Mr. uy Bjer Pittsburg Chamber Ms. Shannon Murphy-Teixeira Horne i rs Association 2010 Railroad Ave. 4796 Bayside Way POB 0 Pittsburg CA 94565 Oakley CA 94561 S on 94553 Mr.Randy Jerome Mr. ff Jim and Donna.Conley City of Pittsburg City o burg City of Antioch PO Box 1515 202 ilroa 5026 Toyon Way Pittsburg CA 94565 Pi burg 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. 3025 Clay St. 2516 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 Evo and Helen Baldocchi Ms.Yvonne Beals 6390 Sellers Ave Assemblyman Torn Torlakson Oakley CA 94561 515 Estudillo St. Martinez CA 94553 Ms.Joan Ryan Ms.Linda Brown Mr.Allen Valentine City of Concord California Alliance for lobs Pittsburg Planning Commission 1950 Parkside H/553 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 Ll Mr. Lawrence Ms.Carmen Gaddes 131 Castlewood Dr. CCC Planning Commission Pittsburg CA 94568 1536 Norine Pittsburg 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 ClayMs.Laura Hoffrneister Ms.Delores League Clayton CDD Heritage Trail City of Clayton 5731 Lewis Way 6000 Clayton CA 94517 6600 Heritage Trail Concord CA 94521 Clayton CA 94517 Ms.Julie Pierce of Clayton Ms.Bonny Cunningham Mr.Jim Mona City 6000 CityHeritage Trail 920 Ridge Drive 8117 Marsh Creek Rd. Clayton CA 94517 Concord CA 9451$ 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 1309 Gragg Lane Concord CA 94520 PO 8927 Concord CA 94518 Pittsburg CA 94565 Ms. Joan Ryan Mr.Gene DeMar Ms.June Dellapa City of Concord 1313 Gragg Lane 176 Elminya Drive 1950 Parkside Dr.,MIS 53 Concord CA 94518 Pacheco CA 94553 Concord CA 94518 Mr.Richard Rollins Mr.Marcus O'Connell Ms.Mary F.Draper 325 Preakness Court 3206 Esperanza LWV-DV Walnut Creek CA 94596 Concord CA 94519 2106 Lost Lake Place Martinez CA 94553 Ms. Gwen Watson Mr.Art Bonwall Mr.Pete Wilson League of Women Voters 1788 Liveoak Ave. Moraga-Orinda Fire 306 Maverick Ct. Concord CA 94521 35 Lost Valley Lafayette CA 94549 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 1~ettig Mr.Sam Zorich Saranap Community Associiation Gary and Alice Stern Orinda Lions 639 Glorietta Blvd 178 Kendall Road 10 Corte Del Rey Walnut Creek CA 94595 Lafayette CA 94549 Orinda CA 94663 Ms.Cathy Sherwood Ms.Carol Carsten LWVDV LWVDV Mr.Steve Davis 3320 Walnut Lane 1076 Country Club Drive 1865 ReValley Road Lafayette CA 94549 Moraga CA 94556 Lafayetteeiez CA 94549 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 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Martinez CA 94553 Ms.Anne Campbell Ms.Jackie Meath 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 111 Civic 1424 Marlesta Road Drive Walnut Creek CA 94596 Hercules Dr ve Pinole CA 94564 Mr.Kent Peterson Mr.Tom 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 Rodeo CA 94572 111 Civic Drive Crockett CA 94525 Hercules CA 94547 Mr.Dave Kurrent Mr.Andy Paras Mr.Bill Serat 980 BarkleyCourt City of Hercules 157 Newbury Court 12 Camelford Court Pinole CA 94564 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 Wayne and Irma Thomas Anamaria Perella Kennett Consulting Services 4723 Suzanne Drive CCC LAFCO PO Box 995 Pittsburg CA 94565 651 Pine St., 8th Floor Danville CA 94526 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 Mr.Charles Blue Mr.Chris Parkes Advance Planning,EBRPD 2950 Peralta Oaks Ct. 29 Tampa Lane 3333 N.Lucille Ln PO Box 5381 Orinda CA 94563 Lafayette CA 94549 Oakland CA 94605 Mr.Robert French Kayce Garcia eth Ada 530 West Wilson,#34 PO Box 169 Save iablo Costa Mesa CA 92627 Canyon CA 94516 PO Bo 3 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,McCo 'McMahon&Armstrong McGill Martin Self,Inc. 1500 Newell Ave Clayton Estates LLC 279 Front Street Suite 700 3117 Marsh Creek Rd. PO Box 21$ Clatyton CA 94517 Danville CA 94526 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Roger Wilson Richard T.Loewke,AICP 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 Blackhawk Homeowners Association Mt.Diablo Audubon Society 625 Court St. 4725 Blackhawk Plaza Circle,Suite 230 1091 Walker Avenue Room B 10 Danville CA 94506 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Martinez CA 94553 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 HANECA.K CARMEN CADDIS MARVIN TERRELL COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 276 SCOTTSDALE ROAD 1536 NORINE DRIVE 1816 VENICE DRIVE PLEASANT HILL CA 94523 PITTSBURG CA 94565 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 1600 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 4276 KNOLLVIEW DRIVE SAN RAMON,CA 94583 ALAMO,CA 94507 DANVILLE,CA 94526 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 261 VALLE VISTA DANVILLE,CA 94526 f v 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. Ulikema ***INTEROFFICE=*** Public Works Room 108A **"INTEROFFICE*** ****INTEROFFICE***** Raymond Wong Heather Ballenger Michele Wara ***INTEROFFICE*** Public Works Public Works Dept. ***INTEROFFICE*** Engineering Services ***INTEROFFICE**, • Supervisor Canclamilla Paul Detlens Library Admin ***INTEROFFICE*** Public Works Department Pleasant Hill *****INTEROFFICE***"* ***INTEROFFICE*** PC1ZA-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 FI ood Road Braddock&Logan Group of Danville Boulevard D ilia,CA 94546 4155 Blackhawk Plaza#201 P.O. Box 333 Danville,CA 94506 Alamo,CA 94507 Sherry N Michael Gib Antioch PEanni pt, 20 FI one Court 70S ane Victor 1glia mo,CA 94507 mo, CA 94507 . Box 51707 Antioch,CA 94509 Smooth Feed SheetsTm Use template for 51600 Neils T. Larsen Paul Harper Robert Heitmeyer Antioch Building Mats. P.O. Bo 73 Site Development Cons. P.C. Box 870 B '96 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 1400S Road P.O. Box 696 1210 Central Blvd, cod,CA 94513 Brentwood,CA 94513 Brentwood,CA 94513 Brentwood Clty P nning Liberty Union High>S&I Philip Day A In: Mitch msky Dan Smith,S �Bt �nCA City Hai 8 Third St, 20 Oak et 4514 Bre cod,CA 94513 Bre ood,CA 94513 Walter MacVittie Brentwood News Byron Bethany Irr. Dist. 1600 Riverlake Road Roberta Puss P.C. Box 160 Discovery Bay, CA 94514 4525 Discovery Pt. Byron, CA 94514 Byron, CA 94514 Discovery Bay MAC Marvin Terrel Concord Planning Dept 155 Riveriake Rd. 1616 Ve ` a Drive 1950 Par 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 Suite100 Concord, CA 94520 Concord, CA 94520 City of Pleasant VKCCC Fire District Pleasant Hill Rec& Park Planning Dep went Engineering Division Robert B. Berggren 100 Grego ane 2010 Geary Road 147 Gregory Lane Pleas Hill,CA 94523 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 John He ak Georgia Olvera Mr. Dennis Pisila 276 ttsdale Road Albert D.Seeno Const. Contra Costa Water Dist. PI sant Hill, CA 94523 P.C. Box 4113 P.O. 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.U. Box H2O Crockett, CA 94525 524 Hary Avenue Concord,CA 94524 Danville, CA 94526 Mark Armstrong Jeannie Jeh Philip Ho Gagen,McCoy,McMahon,Arms 261 V lata 427 ollvlew Drive P.C. Box 218 D tfile, CA 94526 nville,CA 94526 Danville, CA 94526 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use temptate for 5160® Supervisor Donna Gerber Richard Ciar Roy P.Clark *****INTEROFFICE*'*'* 1237 R n Drive Blackhawk Corp. Da I 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.C.I.A./M-16 811 San Ramon Valley BI P.O. Box 35 419 Highland Ct. Danville,CA 94526 Diablo,CA 94528 Clyde,CA 94529 Ms. Ana M.Cortez Dorothy Eisenius, PMAC Knightsen Com.Council 513 Americano Way 3350 Cherry Hills Ct. P.O. Box 170 Fairfield, CA 94533 #8108 Knightsen, CA 94548 Fairfield,CA 94533 Lafayette City Office City of Lafaye Howard J.Martin P.O. Box 1968 Attn: Plan g Director Schell&Martin, Inc. Lafayette, CA 94549• P.O. B 1968 3377 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Laf ette, CA 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 Carneal Drive Livermore, CA 94550 Livermore, CA 94550 Livermore, CA 94550 CCC Housing Authority Richard J. Breitwieser Sgt.Jurold DeVauli 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 Keebie, Editor Martinez News Gazette Martinez PlannIP9 Dept. Contra Costa Insider P.O. Box 151 525 Henri Street P.O. Box 216 Martinez, CA 94553 Mart ,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 Inez, CA 94553 611 Las Juntas St. 3780 Alhambra Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Oakley Union School Dist West County Times Pinole Pian ' Dept. Frank J. Hengel Attn: David Berkowitz 2131 r St. 91 Mercedes Lane P.O. Box 128 P' ie, CA 94564 Oakley, CA 94561 Pinole, CA 94564 Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 516019 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. Box 1518 Pittsburg,CA 94565 Lisa Vorderbrueggen Guy Bjerke Gordon Kimbe Valley Times Home Builders Assoc. 12237 to Blvd. 127 Spring Street P.O. Box 5160 Sa. amon, CA 94583 Pleasanton, CA 94566 San Ramon, CA 94583 Scott CZ a Thomas P.Keehbiel Neal K. Matsunaga 166 T Drive HCV Pacific Partners 2429 Camino De Jugar Sa arnon, 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-TNT/aua 1501 Bollinger Canyon#B 1500 Bollinger Canyon 2410 Talavera Drive San Ramon, CA 94583 Sari 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 6180-Stoneridge-Mail#210 61-60 Stoneride 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 B1vd.#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 Viy.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 Waln reek Paui Richard 'Chief Nextel Communications 1666 aln Street 1666 N ain St. 1255 Treat Blvd. W ut Creek, CA 94596 Wal ut 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 McCutchenDoyieBrownEners Matta Cogburn Kaufman & Broad Library-Tiven Raciioppo 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 Smooth Feed 5heetsTM Use temptate for 5160@ Tony Dehaesus Robert W. Pickett Brian Wiese 2064 Banbury Road Pickett Development Co. EBRPD-Adv.Pianning Walnut Creek,CA 94598 2703 Ridgeview Lane 2950 Peralta Oaks Ct. Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Oakland, CA 94605 Harvey P. Hanoian Stephen Boed Kenneth C. Scheidig EBMUD EBMUD AC Transit P.O. Box 24055 MS#701 P.O. Box 24055 1600 Franklin St. Oakland, CA 94607 Oakland, CA 94607 Oakland, CA 94612 East Bay MUD EBMUD Comm. Affairs Edythe Campbell PO. Box 24055 Slot 802 P.O. Box 24055 96 Lawson Road Oakland, CA 94623 Oakland, CA 94623 Kensington,CA 94707 Diane Gossard Kensington Police Dept. John Grosvenor Kensington Outlook 217 Arlington Avenue Kensington MAC 166 Ardmore Road Kensington,CA 94707 4 Franciscan Way Kensington, CA 94707 Kensington,CA 94707 Marianne Loring Kensington Improvement Mr.Gary Freschi 274 Willamette Avenue Anthony Knight,President West CC Unified School Kensington,.CA .94708 234 Willamette Avenue 1108 Bissell Avenue Kensington, CA 94708 Richmond, CA 94801 Scott Moore Len Battagli Supervisor John Gioia Chevron Products Co. 6480 H" a Dr. *****INTEROFFICE***** P.O. Box 1272 El$df5rante, CA 94803 Richmond,CA 94802 City of San Pab EI Sobrante Valley Jim Panagopoulos Louie,Co unity Dev. Planning &Zoning Comm. The Spanos Corporation Onearado Square P.O. Box 20136 1341 W. Robinhood B-2 S Pablo,CA 94806 El Sobrante,CA 94820 Stockton, CA 95207 Ann Mooney Business News Delta Protection Comm. The Record Tracy Wallace Margit Aramburu P.O. Box 419 1537 Heather Drive P.O. Box 530 Tracy,CA 95378 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Walnut Grove, CA 95690 Daniel E. Hall Wickland Oil Company P.O. Box 13648 Sacramento, CA 95853 All Corrected Mailing Addresses for Urban Li=xw me Notifications Eric and Ann Rossovich Wanda Hildebrandt Rosemary Corrie 5150 Camino Tassajara 5959 Camino Tassajara 1437 Finley Road Danville CA 94506 Pleasanton CA 94588 Pleasanton CA 94588 Tassa-Highland Corp. 206030028 C/o O'Connell and Clock Jay and Petersen Terry Denniston Joyce tswell Joy S.Stearns Road 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW 9a`Floor 7979 Camino Tassajara 249 S. ea s Road Washington DC 20036-4114 Pleasanton CA 94588 361 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 Cale 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 370130004 Meacham Corportation APN 206 030 030 CALTRANS Nolan and Marian Sharp Earl F.Glock,Esq. Rept.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 rP Eugene H.Miller James W.Black Richard T.Loewke Miller,Starr&Regalia 350 Second Street,Suite 7 55 Oak Trail Court 1331 North California Blvd. Los Altos CA 94022 Alamo Ca 94507-2502 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 200364114 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 Waahinoton T)r 20036-4114 Finley-Tassajara Corp.APN 220100 023 Finley-Toss ller Corp.APN 220100 023 Flormont Cal Inc.APN 206 030 023 Richard T.Loewke Eugene H.Miller Miller,Starr&Regalia Earl F.Clock,Esq. 55 Oak Trail Court 1331 North California Blvd. O'Connell&Glock Alamo Ca 94507-2502 Walnut Creek CA 94596 1100 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Ninth Floor Waahincfton 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 Karry and Lora Warner 4925 Camino Tassajara 4975 Camino Tassajara Pleasanton CA 94588 Pleasanton CA 94588 00915 losel rGsc a,r+, p�rt1�.. � staael ssaaPp%f OAU3,Ar!' Z144 2t 4Olt?0©2rVa.� t0- �- 204 010 003 Of Califon ' tate Of California State Of 400 t#3110 400 R St#5000 95814 cranaento, CA 95914 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 5655 Old School Rd Pleasanton, CA 94588 Pleasanton,CA 94589 Pleasanton. CA 94588 204 040 025 204 040 027 204 040 029 Alan&Melina le Alan&Melina Vanwfiikle Robert Hoffman 543301 of Rd Robert Hoffman 5505 Old School Rd Mon,CA 94588 5433 Old School Rd Pleasanton. CA 94588 Pleasanton,CA 94598 204 040 030 204 040 031 204 040 032 Robert&Janet Zupetz Clarence&, Norma Perm Clarence& NpwePeri3, 5525 Old School Rd 5375 Old School Rd 3575 O drool Rd Pleasanton, CA 94588 Pleasanton. CA 94588 P ; Mon. CA 94588 204 040 033 204 040 034 204 040 035 Lawrence Reese Allen Kirk Hutchison D Adam &Velma Young Jr. 5500 Old School Rd 5490 Old School Rd 2351 Woodthrush Way Pleasanton,CA 94588 Plcasamon. CA 04588 Pleasanton. CA 94566 204 040 036 204 040 038 00 on cores&t'±or, 1;if. 204 040 039 Paul &Michelle Speroni Violct Fa , &Albert <Y: Violet Fadd;a Douglas Lacey&Cindy Silvani-Lace 245 Joseph Ln 5745School Rd 5855 Old Sclaool Rd Pleasanton, CA 94588 Raaaaon.CA 945,: Pleasammi. CA 94588 204 040 040 204. 040 041 204 040 043 Richard&Jean Fischer Marlin &Norma Rockfield Jr. Core Sohau 5250 Old School Rd 5370 Old School Rd 240 Joseph Ln Pleasanton, CA 94588 Plcasamon. CA 945811 Pleasaamora, CA 94588 204 040 044 204 040 045 204 040 04i 8#'\ t i w to4L �t1• T Henry Borghi Wenn Bor Jinunr` R}' n�' BarUaaa Kiley 5574 Old School Rd 557 Sclaool Rd til r0 School Rd Pleasanton,CA 94588 c;asanton. CA 945SS ;upon. CA 94583 204 040 047 704 040 047 ,.. 204 040 048 Kenneth Santos&Patricia Lilied;alal Kenneth S;tit an ilricia Liljeclahl James&Sandra Hague 5750 Old School Rd 57511 School Rd 59411 Olc! School Rd Pleasanton,CA 94588 easamon. CA 94519.8Plc;asaaatnn.CA 94585 204 040 049 204 040 050 204 040 031 Norman&Sylvia Hale Fredric Strange& Sara Straaage William &Donna Kosch 5901 Old School Rd 5655 Old School Rd 5374 Old School Rd Pleasanton,CA 94588 Pic.asramon, CA 94598 Ple;asanion, CA 94588 .AQTG 101 mtt>wai tlaStt w.tsleau5 Paej i11001t1§ OD09LS lasEl s aqej ssalPPV �J1 19/itl 204 040 052 204 050 002 204 050 021 Darrow&Louise Crowe Catherine Foley&Patrick Foley Owen Schafer 232 Joseph Ln PO Bot 433 6351 Johnston Rd Pleasanton,CA 94588 Hayward,CA 94543 Pleasanton,CA 94588 204 050 022 204 050 024 204 050 025 Erika Riesz Marshall Anthony&Mattreen Ukaszcm-ski Shote Stables Doran PO Box 782 6000 Old School Rd PO Box 2437 Diablo, CA 94528 Pleasanton,CA 94589 Danville. CA 94526 204 050 026 204 050 027 204 050 028 Richard&Laura Doran E Greg&Beverly Kent James&Loretta Bellig 5910 Old School Rd PO Box 236 6300 Old School Rd Pleasanton, CA 94588 Alamo,CA 94507 Pleasanton,CA 94588 204 050 028 204 070 001 _,,.r 204 070 003 on James&Lo ellig Sart Renton L!: rrc District Dennis& Vick•' beck (;j,,` 6300 drool Rd 150(1 B ger Canyon Rd 15-+ut F• d sattton, CA 94598 anon.CA 94583 anon. CA 94526 204 070 005 204 070 013 204 070 014 Clteryl Williams&Sunivor's Ronald&Karen Steward Ronald& K teward 1450 Finley Rd 1550 Finley Rd I iiQX4111ey Rd Pleasanton,CA 94589 Pleasanton. CA 9458}~ .o—eleasarilon. CA 94589 204 070 015 204 070 016 204 070 017 Ante&Vivi Hatrgland Michael & Patricia Johnson Ralph SaNton 1530 Finley Rd 1 100 Finley Rd 33.50 Tcrr:t Cir:m:tda Dr#2B Pleasanton. CA 94588 Pieas:tn(on. CA 945,14N Wainm Creek. CA 04595 204 070 021 204 070 022 204 070 02 3 Ronald&'Tracy August Donald&Cecelia Irvine Michael &Pltvllis Bleecker 1351 Country Ln PO Box 1527 1251 Country Ln Pleasanton,CA 94588 Danville,CA 94526 Pleasanton.CA 94588 204 070 025 204 070 026 on 204 070 027 Hunt&Patti Bascom Richard &Jud• sbc 1;S+ Ron & Dana August 1051 Country Ln I 1 I I CotubATLII 101)1 Coarun- Ln Pleasanton, CA 94588 IRTSACe I Plcasamon. CA 94588 rg*"?.✓~`tr,A C-0 204 070 028 204 070 029 204 070 030 Michael Rapposelli Robert &Peg&v Shafer Manuel &Rose Lavrador 1047 Country Ln 1250 Country Ln 1150 Country Ln Pleasanton, CA 94588 Pleasanton.CA 945`8 Pleasanton. CA 94588 204 070 031 204 070 032 204 070 033 Kevin Lynch Michael & Alexis Lawson Stephen&Catherine Eppler 1050 Country Ln 1046 Country Ln 1420 Finlev Rd Pleasanton, CA 94588 Pleasrtnton. CA 9458'8, Pleasanton, CA 945-88 —ncrc aoi weldwai asn wxs1904S paaj 410OWS d (DOM Jasel '(c-cs c,�,•. sa.4gej ssaippV QA2 3AV 204 130 001 on to v *ioh 204 130 001 204 130 002 Mark Jones 4 i4"i Mark Jones �; St John &Gayle Bishop 3100 Fi Rd#3101 310{1]rials #31{1 l .2800 Finlev Rd Sa mon,CA 94583 Pleasanton, CA 94588 204 130 003 204 130 004 204 130 005 Fred&Margrit Matter Cole&Murcia Hinton James&Linda Harryman 2700 Finley Rd PO Box 9536 2550 Finley Rd Pleasanton,CA 94588 Incline Village. NV 89452 Pleasanton, CA 04588 204 130 006 204 130 006 204 130 007 Robert&Linda Mederos Robert &Lit edcros Thomas& Marilyn Fitzmyers 2500 Finley Rd 2500 . ey Rd 2651 Finiev Rd Pleasanton,CA 94588 anton, CA 94589 Pleasanton. CA 94588 -AQT C im a]tdtd Wal nn - ui r S19;)44 paaj U100W4; Q)09TS jas>el S.4gej SsajPPV eAU3AV 205 040 002 205 040 004 205 040 005 Gordon&Daren 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 Pd 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 Pd 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 ' wn 1624 Ashford Dr 7101 Camino Tassajara 7101 zno Tassajara Roseville,CA 95661-5122 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9565 AffaGsanton,CA 94588-9565 205 050 009 205 050 010 205 060 002 Robert&Chelsea Bonavito Robert&Chels avito Charles Erwin Richey Iii 7303 Camino Tassajam 7303 Caaw assajara Charlsie Robe Hunter Amador Valley,CA 94566P ton,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 6861 T ara Rd Pleasanton,CA 94588-9587 P anton,CA 94588-9449 205 070 002oo 205 070 003 205 070 005 Charles&Vivi olman Traian&Alina Micu Annamarie Taylor&Frank Taylor i 5400104petth Rd 5390 Johnston Rd 5536 Johnston Rd >296ton,CA 94588-9587 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9586 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9506 205 070 006 205 070 007 205 070 009 , Annamarie&Fran ,Tezp tSr Jr. Ronald Ferry Wanda H` rant ,ro 11. 0i*�, 5536 Jo d 5656 Johnston Rd 233 nd Ave t.%4r nton,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 349020 5400 stop Rd San Francisco,CA 94110-2521 S rancisco,CA 94110-2521 pielginton,CA 94588-9587 r;,n9t;jot midwai asn - wislaayS paaj 410OWS OD0915 Jasel sngej ss;ajppd eA213AV 205 070 014 205 070 015 205 080 001 Charles&Vivi man Contra Contra County Rosa Silva 5400 Jo 255 Glacier Dr 6000 Johnston Rd Pl 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&Margareat'�on Kenneth Howland William&Ellen Tauscher 5621 Hi d 5631 Highland Rd 5611 Highland Rd C*Sglton,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 B 5938 Fairham Rd 5707 Highland Rd 5707 HIM i Ad Hamilton,OH 45011-2037 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9575 P anton,CA 94588-9575 205 090 009 Jorgen&Kristine Clausen P4 Box 400 Cantua Creek,CA 93608-0400 -AQ'rC im aipi trial v-IFin qui SMUG Daaj YI00Wq OD091S lasel '� jare.. '; qr�-� ssa PPtl sAUSAVice► 206 030 006 206 030 010 206 030 016 Shapell Industries Inc Jerry&Jean Sht'h 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 Guilherme&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 023206 030 025 206 030 025 Flormont Ca c 1;S't' River Island Farms Inc&Carole Corrie River Island inc&Carole Carrie 1901 P lvania Ave NW#1000 7950 Dublin Blvd#111 7950 to Blvd 0111 Wame9ton,DC 20006-3405 Dublin,CA 94568-2936 tn,CA 94568-2936 206 030 026 206 030 027 •ra car✓ff O44*^ 206 030 028 Malan&M atp t or rt-dN+r Nolan&M harp t �" ` Joyce Sh &Joyce Shatswell 4510 mo Tassajara t 4510 tno Tassajara 47�Ville- mo Tassajara villa,CA 94506-5900 tile,CA 94506-5900 CA 206 030 029 yy 206 030 030 ts+"► r s r r� .oto r+• 206060005 Eric&Ann R ch ✓r t.+sFti s�► Meacham Co ion Nv 1` Sidney Co ` 5150 o Tassajara t:5 1901 P vania Ave NW#1000 7950 to Blvd#111 tile,CA 94506=5903 tngton,DC 20006-3405 in,CA 94568-2936 206 060 007 206 060 009 206 060 010 Sidney Carrie 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 01 pr, r„r,.�,,#�e rr 206 060 017 O C r e/404*1 r►7 San Ramon Valley Fire District Tassa- ' and Corporation 1;rt Black Iris Corporation ` 1500 Bollinger Canyon Rd 660 amino Tassajara. 1901 P sylvania Ave NW#1000 San Ramon,CA 94583-1756 villa,CA tngton,DC 20006-3405 206 070 006 206 070 011 206 070 013 William Newman Tassajara Associates Martin S r. P{3 Box 1691 3561 Bittern PI 31 Horse Ct San Bruno,CA 94066-7691 Fremont,CA 94555-1307 ogFamo,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 Sily 8181 Camino Tassajara 173 ood PI 173 od PI Amador Valley,CA 94566 Ramon,CA 94583-3909 on,CA 94583-3909 rxQ9` ;.101 m1tlttt018Sl1 IMI.SJOa4S PaaA L110OWS 009tS �as�-� "('c,tS ylal ssa.lpPb 0AIMAW u 206 151 005 206 151 013 206 151014 is rl t of rd offom Gottlieb&Shirley Ribary Gottlieb&Shine '' Jay&Peter!!a.X46y Denniston 1 5"t 21010 195Th Ave SE 21010 195ve SE 7979 o Tassajam Monroe,WA 98272-8815 e,WA 98272-8815 A or Valley,CA 206,151015 206 151020 206 151 021 Philip Husted&Linda Scott Mark&Jennifer Cardoza Kelly Adamic 8001 Camino Tassajara 8115 Camino Tassajara 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 Tassajam Walnut Creek,CA 94596-4113 Walnut Creek,CA 94596-4113 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9433 206 152 004 206 152 006 206 152 007 Frank&Cheri Wip De Loit&Carol Hinton Donald&Elaine Mckay Ii 7980 Camino ajara 8850 Camino Tassajara 7990 Camino Tassajam Pleas ,CA 94588-9433 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9435 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9433 206 152 008 206 152 009 206 152 010 O r% e o v, on Timothy Bennett&Diane 4f1'utt Dominic&Lourdes Uychaco Emiliano& elita Bemarao 7890 Camino Tassajam 7880 Camino Tassajam 8020 mo Tassajam Pleasanton,CA 94588-9430 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9430 or Valley,CA 94566 206 152 011 206 180 001 206 180 001 Donald&Duetta Taylor Keith Joseph Freitas Keith Josep I 8010 Camino Tassajara 8651 Camino Tassajara 8651 rno Tassajara PIeasanton,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 -nQTC joi atprdurai aen ....rslaauc naa.a ui00wc 095 sages ssalpPy GAMAVI 220 020 001 220 020 002 220 020 004 Ettore Bertagnolti Ettore Bertagno California a Of On Geraldin Bertagnolli Geraldin gnolli 650 a Ave a'N PO Box 3 PO B ento,CA 95825-47315 Clayton,CA 94517-0003 C on,CA 94517-0003 220 020 005 220 020 006 220 020 007 California S O r California Of 0 M California a Of 6^ 400P10 (o rre mHsr1 650 Ave 6 or` 0�,t- 650 a Ave S ento,CA 95814-53451*-S+ j;4;W CA 95825-4731 Wramento,CA 95825-4731 220 020 008 220 020 011 a r, a sr es--*i#4 220 020 012 State Of California Department Of Par Califo tate Of State Of California Department Of Par PO Box 942896 F' PO Box 942896 Sacramento,CA 94296-0001 Ramon,CA 94583 Sacramento,CA 94296-0001 Rosa Silva 1 2Cal�f�0 002 ©f�� � rr�.sl+8� 220 030 003 l:{1►fi California Of O M r+►+ +e.� 6000 Johnston Rd 400 t#3110 400 #3110 "�.t. Pleasanton,CA 94588-9506 cramento,CA 95814-5345 ento,CA 95814- 345 220 030 004 220 040 002 220 040 008 Califo a Of C irrr.A*- Catherine Foley&Patrick Foley Blackhawk Corporation 400 #3110 IN$� PO Box 433 PO Box 807 cramento,CA 95814-5345 Hayward,CA 94543-0433 Danville,CA 94526-0807 220 100 002 220 100 005 220 100 005 Catherine Foley WIff>&Foley John&Debbie Pereira John&DebbiUmvWr PO Box 1501 Finley Rd 150VIjgZ5Rkd H ard,CA 94543-0433 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9403 ton,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 220100 016 220 100 019 220 100 021 Esther Doris Fultz Rosemary Cor ' a Donald Rees 1431 Finley Rd 101 w Dr#109 e v rtott D PO Box 2353 Pleasanton,CA 94588-9402 stop,T 77351 t:5f' Olympic Valley,CA 96146-2353 220 100 023 Orr t Fniley-Tassaj + 1901 PSowylvania Ave NW#1000 n,DC 20006-3405 —none poi wetdwat asn _ ., 519OUq Daa4 tlloowC Smooth Feed SheetsTM ' "" 'LSar'- - `"�� Use template for 51600 206 030 010 206 030 023 206 030 025 —004 Jerry DRi Jean Shih F'lonnnont Ca0 P e +r lea&A#V% River Island F nc&Carole Corrie Keiming&Emilie Yen 1901 P yivania Ave NW#I 00y.st 7950 D Blvd#111 2590 Sabercat Ct W gton,DC 20006-3405 C,CA 94568-2936 Fremont,CA 94539-5647 206 030 025 2060300260 ri206 030 028 &&% c * • ` . River Island Farms Inc&Carole Corrie Nolan&M Sharp rz 5 r Joyce Sh oyce Shatsw"Al 7950 Dublin Blvd#1 I1 4510 CpTtmo Tassajara, 4700 ino Tassajara Dublin,CA 94568-2936 Dayffie,CA 94506-5900 ville,CA 206 030 030 s Mesct►a n Co n Nv IZ 1901 Pe vania Ave NW#1000 W " gton,DC 20006-3405 M AVERYO - Address Labels Laser 5160QD 4D091S Josel 't�c�ca� ra+k -�q�� ssa�PPb OAU3AW u 204 070 034 204 070 035 204 070 036 Histada&Yoko Imamura Nicholas&Katherine Schuran•el Lloyd Szabo&Pat Karleskind-Szabo 1410 Finley Rd 1350 Country Ln 1300 Country Ln Pleasanton,CA 94588 Pleasanton.CA 94588 Pleasanton. CA 94588 204 070 037 204 070 037 204 080 003 Stephen&Li odetorra#i0t. Stephen& }r Bode Charles Rund& L S Donna �Rratnton, t,�t.►:Wks1`s'C Rr 2 255 losepit Ln A 94588 PI 7tnton. CA 94599 Pleasan(on, CA 94588 204 080 003 204080004 20.3 090 005 G r+ tra. d h Charles Run S bonny Dieter&Jennifer Not7)elnetn Russell orotlty alone 255 Jo n 254 Joseph Ln 259 J pit Ln PI tan,CA 94588 Pleasanton,CA 94595 fr a5�+1 �t G!? W 6�?a 204 080 006 204 080 007 0 t ty ee al-10i1 204 090 t103 Bruce&Stephanie Costello Robert& Hv ,n Hoclsch qj-j- Charles K Patricia Daggett 260 Joseph Ln 590 Bn r 5.3 I I Brace Dr Pleasanton. CA 94588 f Pleas,mtott. CA 94598 2tk5r1.rthsn , C l� WSW 204 090 004 204 090 005 204 (39(.1 006 William&Cynthia Todd Craw;&Datrn Amack Robert Cheadle 1045 Detroit Ave 5175 Camino Tassa,jara 1050 Finley Rd Concord.CA 94518 Pleasanton. CA 9458;; Pleasmilm. CA 9458,8 204 090 007 204 090 009 204 090 0009 William Busby Mark Ton D h err e#"or% Robcrl & Diammid bunter 5655 Bruce Dr 5555 5Mcc Dr 1« 5455 Bruce Dr Pleasanton.CA 94585 Pleasmitnn. CA 94588 i¢c�4an tarp► C' qhs 204 100 004 204 100 005 204 100 006 Duane&Brlyn Madsen Amnelte Dames Kashmir Singh 5401 Johnston Rd 53;1 Johnston Rd 5300 Petirm Ln Pleasanton,CA 94588 Pleasanton,CA 94589 Pleasanton. CA 94585 204 100 007 On 204 100 008 204 10(1009 tprYr film Scott Bishop&Dorothy Burt Bnice&Mont rite Frank Cociho 5400 Pen n �'b 234 Smith Rd PO Bo.x 22R6 Alamo. C'A 945!17 Danville. CA 94526 Sit itl K yyc3 204 100 010 —,-0- 204 2114 100 01 I 204. 100 012 Stepheno& Vicki Nelsotrt,z-t Bntcc&Joall Flamigmi H.hh bivestmem &Supply Co 53 nice Dr 5500 Bruce Dr 1665 Amador Plaza Rd an Ramon, CA 94583 Pleasanton. CA 945Rti Dublin. CA 94i68 204 100 013 204 1.30 0011 0h��tlt ►r`++�► 204 130 001 Amy Stiles Mark Jones Mark Jones 5451 Johnston Rd 3100 Fitn d #3101 3100 Finle_ i-#�.i0 t Pleasanton,CA 94188 Sa morn, CA 94583 —nQTC 101 atetdutml acn 6artltn��, �/�f 9'1 _ 10,1000 ...o SIODUC®aa4 uzaowc ,DO91S aaseI %11.s It 4r PL slagel ssaa PPb eA*J3AVVA 089150 001 089150 005 089150 007 _,,.•-� Dallas Ranch Landowners Chevron Usa Inc Edward& rBiggs 300 H St#D PO Box 285 1757 Acres Ln Antioch,CA 94309-1280 Houston,TX 77001-0285 City, CA 94585-1343 089 150 007 089 150 010 089150 012 Edward&Charlotte Biggs Conara Bay Arca Res Prop Chevron Usa Inc 1757 Green Aares Ln 1764 San Diego Arne PO Box 285 5ulson City,CA 94585-1303 San Diego,CA 92110-1906 Houston,TX 77001-0285 08 089150 014 Coast Ho 3iWas est Chevron Usa Inc 4021 P Chicago Hwyoa r,rc+fiio n . PO Box 285 Ca rd,CA 94520-1122 Houston,TX 77001.0285 .n9tc,soi alsidwal asci wYslaayS P"A yIOOWS ..._.. .. ....... . .. ...... .__ . ..... ....... 00915 jssel 6" slagel ssaippV GAU3AW 354 281 006 354 281 008 354 282 003 Fast Bay Municipal Utility Dis East Bay Regional Park Dist East Bay Regional Park Dist PO Box 24055 PO Box 5381 PO Box 5381 Oakland,CA 94623-1055 Oakland,CA 94605-0381 Oakland,CA 94605-0381 -nGTC.1ni amdwai asn _ slaOUC R084 L1100pq p09T.S aastl We yAxr-'cv,sv IL^ArV6 doge- ssaippv QAH3AV 370 130 00401, 370130 007 370 130 009 carr+r.�e"!sw California Stat&Of -t 0+ City Of Martinez John&Sharon Funk NO S T NAME or NUMBER 525 Henrietta St 120 Wallin St ez,CA 94553 Martinez,CA 94553-2337 Martinez,CA 94553-3757 370 1301010 370 130 011 372 010 002 Bast Bay Regional Park Dist John&Shar East Bay Regional Park Dist 2950 Peralta Oaks Ct 120. n St PO Box 5381 Oakland,CA 94505-5320 Inez,CA.94553-3757 Oakland,CA 94605-0381 372 010 005 372 010 008 372 010 021 Bast Bay Regional Park Dist Martinez City Of East 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 Bax 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 Bstudillo 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 372130 008 372130009 372 130 010 Virginia Lee Davidson Virginia Lee Davidson David Randall Fischer Dolores Hilgendorf Dolores Hilgendorf PO Box. 1997 335 Kirbyson Ct 335 Kirbyson Ct Martinez,CA 94553-0997 Vacaville,CA 95588-2125 Vacaville,CA 95688-2125 .Ti Qtq J04 aleldtl.w21 a5f1 - wislaa45 Peal 4 40ows r s 00915 a�sL "el ss IPPB �h�3Atl 370 050 041 r» r w +r a a�- P. United S America on " ex,CA 94553 - `-�- .� ... . . wig q'S P Smooth Feed Sheet-'`"' Use template for 5160QD 4wt^�(\ 159310005 159310018 159310021 Martinez City Of Terminals Llc Shore Terminals Llc Shore 525 Henrietta St 2550 Middle Rd#603 2550 Middle Rd#603 Martinez,CA 94553-2337 Bettendorf,IA 52722-3291 Bettendorf,lA 52722-3291 159 310 023 159 320 003 159 320 004 Terminals Llc 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 159 330 002 00% 380 010 015 380 010 019 California S East Bay Regional Park Dist Mt View Sanitary District trio ST NAME or NUMBER 2950 Peralta Oaks Ct PO Box 2757 M ez,CA 94553 Oakland,CA 94605-5324 Martinez,CA 94553-7757 380 010 021 380 010 022 Mt View Sanitary District East Bay Regional Park Dist PO Box 2757 2954 Peralta Oaks Ct Martinez,CA 94553-7757 Oakland,CA 94645-5324 MA'VERYS Address Labets Laser 51600 078 040 002 078 040 008 078 040 009 Regional Parks Foundation East 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 East 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 ?4k 6 ur) 089 050 013 089 050 041 089 050 042 Calva The City Of Pitteburg Gordon Gravelle 1227 O 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 PG Box 4113 PO Bax 727 Concord,CA 94524-4113 San Brune,CA 94066-0727 Smooth Feed SheetSTM �`�`+ _ Use template for 5160(0 494 100 011 094 100 012 094 360 003 Angelo&Gloria Alaimo William Wayne Exr Thomas Keller Canyon Landfill Co 132 Pelican Loop Ann Gloria Thomas PO Bot 42165 Pittsburg,CA 94565 4723 Suzanne far Houston,TX 77242 Pittsburg,CA 94565 094 360 004 094 360 005 094 360 006 Keller Canyon Landfill Co Virginia Smith Pittsburg City Of PO Box 42165 1100 Bailey ltd 2020 railroad Arse Houston,TX 77242 Pittsburg,CA 94505 Piit,;burg, 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 Seecou Financial &Const Co Kclicr Cimpon Umd(iil Co 4021 Port Chicago HwN PO Box 421M Concord,CA 94520 Houston.TX 77242 Il.� Ali7PV(� llrlr#reS 1 ahal¢ - Leer 5160@ Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use temptate 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 097 200 002 097 200 003 097 220 003 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 945201122 1100 Bailey Rd Bay Point,CA 945654309 097 230 003 097 230 004 097 240 002 Bailey Estates L.lc Bailey Estates L,lc Seecon Financial&Constr Co 2762 Hutchinson Ct 2762 Hutchinson Ct 4021 Port Chicago Hwy Walnut Creek,CA 945984456 Walnut Creek,CA 94598-4456 Concord,CA 94520-1122 IIR AVERYa Address Labets _ Laser 5160 007 010 006 007 010 007 007 010 012 Jeffery&Sara Tamayo Evergreen Management Group David&Patricia Lowe 325 Towncentre Ter#A 606 N 1St St 200 Balfour Rd Brentwood,CA 94513-2212 San Jose,CA 95112-5109 Brentwood,CA 94513-4924 007 010 013 007 010 014 007 010 015 Glen&Miaja Mccauley Rick&Regina Sikes Glen&MeRd uley 300 Balfour Rd Rr 2 300 B Brentwood,CA 94513-4925 Brentwood,CA 94513-9802 twood,CA 94513-4925 007 010 025 007 010 027 007 010 029 Jack Roddy Jack Roddy Roddy Ranch Public Financing Authorit 5601 Chadbourne Rd 5601 urne 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-Atte Monte&Lucia Albers 6495 N Palm Ave#10 1 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 PO 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 „nor.C toi amidwai asn M98U!Z Da84 uloowq Smooth Feed SheetSTM .oc ( lra.a , Use template for 51600 057 060 006 057 060 011 057 460 012 Oak Hill Paris 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 Hay Blvd PO Box 396 6495 N Palm Ave#101 Byron,CA 94514 Stanfield, AZ 85272 Fresno,CA 93704 057 070 002 057 070 003 057 070 004 Paddy Ranch Public Financing Authori Roddy Ranch Llc Roddy Ranch Llc 6495 N Palm Ave#101 1035 Mepham Dr 1035 Mcpham Dr Fresno,CA 93704 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Pittsburg, CA 94565 057 074 005 057 070 006 057 070 007 Roddy Ranch Llc Roddy Ranch Llc Roddy Ranch Llc t035 Mepham Dr 1435 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#101 Fresno, CA 93704 AVIE*RYO Address Labels _ Laser 51600 ®0915 Jss>el d2 Art.*- SIRgVI smpptl CHUM 1u 032 020 005 032 020 001 032 020 008 Wayne&Margaret West Clyde Cola Jean Thompso else Rucker 4050 Live Oak Ave 4410 Franklins Ln 4370 F rn Ln Oakley,CA 94561-3928 Oakley,CA 94561-3709 O ea 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 La PO Box 395 Oakley,CA 94561-3701 Oakley,CA 94561-3701 Oakley,CA 94561-0395 032 020 011 032 020 012 032 02i�i� 03 Frank&Pamela Haywood Gregory&Karen Palmer Frank wood PO Box 961 4185 Knightsen Ave PO Oakley,CA 94561-0961 Oakley,CA 94561-3615 ey,CA 94561-0961 032 020 013 032 020 014 032 030 001 Frank&Pame ywood Douglas Pagano Barbara Regier&Deborah Regier PO Box PO Box 396 4210 Knightsen Ave O ,CA 94561-0961 Byron,CA 94514-0396 Oakley,CA 94561-3611 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 ayette,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 tghtsen Ave 4150 Knightsen Ave Oakley,CA 94561-3611 Oa ey,CA 94561-3611 Oakley,CA 94561-3611 032 040 002 032 040 003 032 040 007 Wayne Deruyte Wayne De Charles&Arlene Erskine 4300 Knightsen Ave 4300 ightsen Ave 4340 Knightsen Ave Oakley,CA 94561-3608 ley,CA 94561-3608 Oakley,CA 94561-3608 032 040 008 032 040 009 ' 032040010 Joel&Catalina Ee Gutierrez Alonzo&Judith Alvarez Oren Omo Jose Luis Gutierrez 4380 Knightsen Ave 4400 Knightsen Ave 4356 Knightsen Ave#4358 Oakley,CA 94561-3+608 Oakley,CA 94561-3625 Oakley,CA 94561-3608 032 040 011 032 040 012 032 040 014 David&Billie Rios Michael Roy&Sharroi 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 -noT c !nl awidutaz acn ..I SlaaUC D;)a4 U10OW4Z 04915 Josel -, o., _..... SIPgrt ssaipptl �s�liEl /11d n 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 EI Monte Ct Oakley,CA 94561-3626 Oakley,CA 94561-4106 032 040 021 032 040 022 032 040 023 Gelasia Velez Miguel&Suan Aguirre Miguel&S uure 81 Broadway Ln 91 Broadway Ln 91 B ay Ln Oakley,CA 94561-3626 Oakley,CA 94561-3626 OOQ4cley,CA 94561-3626 032 040 024 032 040 025 032 040 026 Mabel Broussard J&Alicia Rivera Louis&Sarah Hernandez 90 Broadway Ln 502 51h 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 94561-3631 032 040 031 032 040 032 032 040 037 Victor Nicole Olan Clyde Melvin&Apryle Wooten Leo&iherman odges20 Broadway Ln 3143 Clayton Rd 20 _. Island Rd Oakley,CA 94561-3631 Concord,CA 94519-2732 10 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&Virgjlya-PrIkine 4649 Humphrey Park Crest PO Box 55 PO B Portland,OR 97222 Knightsen,CA 94548-0055 ghtsen,CA 94548-0055 032 040 048 032 050 001 032 050 001 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 Francisco,CA 94124-1907 .09ts aoi alaldwal asB Wislaays ROA U;oows 018 240 001 018 240 008 018 240 009 Richard&Josie Chapa Sr. Bradley&Lyne Scalise Ronald&Martha Linker 2143 Pheasant Dr 33013 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 5pefitanRobert&Diane Nussbaumer Lawrence Mori&Donna Mori Burcio 283 Dejtaltd PO Box 59588 3913 Cinnabar St O ,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 ' Fina Mori Burcio 3913 Cinnabar St 3913 ar 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 Mori Burcio Joseph&Patricia Marinucci Eddie&Marcia Simmons 3913 Cinnoaf& 491 Delta Rd PO Box 96 Antio 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 Box 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 94548-0158 018 300 012 Ora Norris&NUNES MANUEL&D 471 Delta Rd Oakley,CA 94561-2849 i tgy091 S Josin Or:$'+N o+ Arm vagej ssaippV eAN3AV 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 007090021 Roman Catholic Bishop Oakland Mazy Jane Wetzel David Gale B Lynn Co EBut 2900 Lakeshore Ave 2828 Woodhall Way 2901 es 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 Letty Ca Ronald&Valerie Valle 2113 Brampton Ct 21 ton Ct Mary Mohs Walnut Creek,CA 94598-2316almd 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 Llc 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 Bdones Valley Rd Brentwood,CA 94513-9802 Brentwood,CA 94513-4907 Brentwood,CA 94513-4934 007 090 035 007 090 036 007 090 037 d&Wan n Gerald&Wan in Patrick&Kelly Wentz B ' Valley Rd 3125 B ` Valley Rd 1054 San Antonio Ave 4 ood, CA 94513-4934 B3prrvood,CA 94513-4934 Alameda,CA 94501-3961 007 100 003 007 100 003 007100005 - Strickler Family Partnership Strickler Family Partnership Strickler Family Partnership 1276 Lincoln Ave -1-276 Lincoln Avis--- 1276-Lincoln-Ave San Jose,CA 95125-3008 San Jose,CA 95125-3008 San Jost-_Q&4,1125-3008 007 100 006 007 100 009 007 100 010—-- California Sun Brentwood Llc California Sun Brentwood Llc CccFlood 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 007 100 011 007 100 012 007 100 020 S H Cowell Foundation Ccc Flood Control District Mission Peak-Homes 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 CA 94553-4825 San Jose,CA 95125-3008 San Jose,CA 95125-3008 -noYc ini nividnim artn ,,,,SMUG D004 U100tU4Z r� 00915 �ase� fs"A Wo + � s qej ssaippd eAkJ3AVI2 r 4 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 007 120 012 007 120 013 007 120 014 S H Cowell Foundation S H Cowell Foundation Ccc Flood Control District PO Box 63700 PO Box 63700 255 Glacier Dr San Francisco,CA 941634001 San Francisco,CA 94163-0001 Martinez,CA 945534825 007120 015 007120 016 007120 017 Ccc Flood Control District California f �, r� .r S H Cowell Foundation 255 Glacier Dr k Rd 1,s PO Box 63700 Martinez,CA 94553-4825 twood,CA 94513 San Francisco,CA 94163-0001 —nar.(;aoi awidwai asn - ;. ,slaauc Da04 uioQwc ..........11..._...11. ..._1.111 ... ...... ......_.. ...._......_.._... ...._. ...... ...._...... .... .._...._ _. ....... ....... 009IS Josel r �Y ,So fir jtx,- c, laga'1 ssaippV vAH3AV12 007 090 005 007 090 007 007 090 016 S H Cowell Foundation S H Cowell Foundation Roman Catholic Bishop Oakland PO Box 63700 PO Box 63700 2900 Lakeshore Ave San Francisco, CA 94163-0001 San Francisco,CA 94163-0001 Oakland,CA 94610-3614 007 090 023 007 090 024 007 090 034 Letty Catchings Letty Cat j Gerald&W tein 2113 Brampton Ct 2113 pton Ct 3125 B ' es Valley Rd Walnut Creek,CA 94598-2316 W t Creek, CA 94598-2316 Bpadwood, CA 94513-4934 007 090 635 007 090 036 007 090 037 Gerald&Wanda Stein Gerald&W tein Patrick&Kelly Wentz 3125 Brioni 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 007100 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 95125-3008 019 120 002 019 120 007 019 120 008 10 Peter Eugen&Jo mochio Peter Eugen& e Ginochio Peter EugierA a Ginochio Eugene Pet Eugene Eug NOT NAME or NUMBER N ET NAME or NUMBER STREET NAME or NUMBER ,CA ,CA ,gom aol ajeldwal asn _ W,SIO'9gS Paas yRoowS 00915 aase1 lit k slagej ssaippV eA213A%f U 020 160 008 020 160 009 020160 009 Foundation Beaulieu Coleman Foley Coleman F PO Box 2290 1196 Vineyard Ave 1196 eyard Ave Carmel Valley,CA 939242290 Pleasanton,CA 94566-6324 anton,CA 94566-6324 020 160 009 020 160 009 020 160 009 Coleman Fal ;9e6 man Fal Coleman Fol 1196 V Ave Vin Ave 1196 V Ave PI n,CA 94566-6324 n,CA 94566-6324 P ton,CA 94566-6324 s e mogis aol aaeldwaj asn w,slaau paaa U100wq OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS COUNTYWIDE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Commencing on Monday, July 24, 2000, 2:00 p.m. , and continuing on Tuesday, July 25, 2000, 10:00 a.m. in the County Administration Building,651 Pine Street,Room 106,(Comer of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: Recommendation by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the request to consider an amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan, 1995-2010,to modify or adjust the boundary of the County's Urban Limit Line(GP#990001), 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—Three proposed locations: 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 by the U.S.National Park Services; 3) The Shell Marsh, located east of Interstate 680 and south of the Martinez-Benicia Bridge, that includes approximately 398 acres of predominately wetlands and a portion of hilly grassland. • Tassajara Area—There are two proposals affecting between 3,927 and 4,513 acres of land area essentially made up of the Tassajara Valley,which is located in an unincorporated areas 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 for approximately 1,030 acres of unincorporated land area that is under acquisition by the East Day Regional Park District,which is immediately north of the Marsh Creek Road and Morgan Territory Road intersection about 4-5 miles east of the City of Clayton. • Pittsburg Area—There are two proposals affecting unincorporated land areas between the existing Urban Limit Line and the southern boundary of the city limits for the City of Pittsburg. • Antioch Area—There are two proposals affecting 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 proposals affecting unincorporated land areas between the existing Urban Limit Line and the southern boundary of the city limits for the City of Brentwood. • Brentwood Area (North)—A proposal affecting approximately 100 acres of unincorporated land area between the existing Urban Limit 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 affecting approximately 334 acres of unincorporated area located immediately east of the City of Oakley along Cypress Road. • Veale Tract—A proposal affecting approximately 1,040 acres of unincorporated land area located east of Knightsen at the end of Delta Road. • Cowell Ranch—An alternative Urban Limit Line boundary modification proposal for the Cowell Ranch site,which is located in an unincorporated area southwest of the City of Brentwood, proposed by the property owner. The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, generally identified above(a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building,Martinez, California): If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to,the public hearing. Prior to the hearing,Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, July 24,2000, at 1:30 p.m.,in Room 108,Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez,to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call Patrick Roche, Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1242 by 3:00 p.m. on Friday,July 21,2000,to confirm your participation. Date: July 10, 2000 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator B Barbara S. Grant,Deputy Clerk 2 COMM -SION-2-M,GADDIS ABSENT ALL Ort c1ER COMMISSIONERS PRESENT STAFF: HARRY,KOPCHIK,LAUGHLIN,ROCHE&PARKES PUBLIC WORKS: BALLENGER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TUESDAY,JUNE 27,2000 ROOM 147—COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING PINE AND ESCOBAR STREETS,MARTINEZ CHAIR: R.Clark VICE-CHAIR: H.Wong COMMISSIONERS: L.Battaglia,C.Gaddis,J.Hanecak,G.Kimber,M.Terrell, NOTICE: Commission may change the order of items on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting No new items involving the opportunity for public hearing will be considered by the Commission after 10:00 P.M.unless specifically authorized by a unanimous vote of the Commission present. The Commission will adjourn at 10:30 P.M.unless there is a unanimous consent to continue. Items not heard may be rescheduled to the next meeting. Environmental Impact Reports have been prepared for each of the agenda iterns indicated by an asterisk(*} ****7.-00 P.M.**** I. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE PQ�At M=FiCATIONS TO ME ag u LIMIT,11NE. CONTRA CQSIA COUNTY SIENFRAL PLAN AMENDMPNT S"�JDY ( ' 990001):(Continued from 6/20/00) RECOMMEND + 2. This is a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan, 1995-2010,to APPROVAL OF GPA modify or adjust the boundary of the County s Urban Limit Line.The Urban Limit Line,as referenced in the TO THE BOARD OF General Plan's Land Use and Open Space Elements,establishes the outer limit of the unincorporated area of SUPERVISORS AS Contra Costa County in which urban development may be considered. The boundary modifications would NOTED BELOW occur in multiple locations in the County that are eligible far placement outside the Urban Limit Line according to the criteria established under Measure C:The 55/35 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: RECOMMEND . Crocklla Area-A proposal for approximately 39 acres of unincorporated land area which an a portion APPROVAL(Fig. 1, of the former C&H Property adjacent to the community of Crockett, south of the town along Crockett CPC Report,5/20100) Boulevard and east of Interstate$0. RECOMMEND " MM t�nez Area-Then 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 APPROVAL(Fig.2, mainly within the City of Martinez due west of Alhambra Avenue between State Route 4 and the CPC Report,6/20/00) 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 cast of Interstate 680 and south of the Martinez-Benicia Bridge,that includes approximately 368 acres of predominantly wetlands and a portion of hilly grassland. RECOMMEND • Tnsaiara /m - There are two proposals affecting between 3,927 and 4,513 acres of land area APPROVAL OF essentially made up of the Tassajara Valley,which is located in an unincorporated area of south-central FIGURE 3B -Sphere of Contra Costa County,bounded on the northeast by the Town of Danville,on the east by the City of San Influence Boundary, Ramon,and on the south by the County line border for Contra Costa and Alameda counties. (CPC Report,6/20/00) Contra Costa County June 27,2000 Planning Cor nission Page 2 RECOMMEND • Clayton Ra.„ch Area - A proposal for approximately 1,030 acres of unincorporated land area that is APPROVAL(Fig.4, under acquisition by the East Bay Regional Park District, which is immediately north of the Marsh CPC Report,6/20100) Creek Road and Morgan"Territory Road intersection about 4-5 miles east of the City of Clayton. RECOMMEND . )aittsbura rca a There are two proposals affecting unincorporated land area between the existing Urban APPROVAL OF Limit Line and the southern boundary of the city limits for the City of Pittsburg. FIGURE 5B- Alternate, (CPC Report,5/20/00) RECOMMEND • Antioch Area-Then are two proposals affecting unincorporated land area between the existing Urban APPROVAL OF Limit Line and the southern boundary of the city limits for the City of Antioch. FIGURE 63 -Alternate, (CPC Report,6/20/00) RECOMMEND . ntnod Ata &MM - 'There are two proposals affecting unincorporated land area between the APPROVAL OF existing Urban Limit Line and the southern boundary of the city limits for the City of Brentwood. FIGURE 10 -Cowell Ranch Alternative (CPC Report,6/20/00) RECOMMEND Br c2pd ASa(NorthL_A proposal affecting approximately 100 acres of unincorporated land area APPROVAL OF between the existing Urban Limit Line and the northeast boundary of the city limits for the City of FIGURE 8B-Alternate Brentwood,bounded by Delta Road on the north,a sewage treatment plant on the south,the Brentwood Proposal WITH THE city limit on the west,and Marsh Creek on the east. EXCEPTION OF THE LAND SOUTH OF CYPRESS ROAD (CPC Report,5/20/00) RECOMMEND . tOWey res - A proposal affecting approximately 322 acres of unincorporated land area located APPROVAL OF immediately east of the City of Oakley along Cypress Road. FIGURE 8B-Alternate Proposal WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LAND SOUTH OF CYPRESS ROAD (CPC Report,6/20/00) RECOMMEND . Velik• r c -A proposal affecting approximately 1,040 acres of unincorporated land area located east APPROVAL(Fig.9, of Knightsen at the end of Delta Road. CPC Report,5/20100) RECOMMEND AL OF • Cowell Ranch-An alternative Urban Limit Line boundary modification proposal for the Cowell Ranch APPROVaction site, which is located in unincorporated area southwest of the City of Brentwood, proposed by the FIGURE A (SeOF pertaining to Brentwood property owner. Area—South) MOM :EIMUC HEAR= RECOMMEND 3. EREFEL=lhDMOMM(Applicant),K&,?PROP= L L (Owners),County File#RZ003092: APPROVAL TO THE A request to rezone approximately 26,500 square feet of the site from Retail Business;RB, to General BOARD OF Commercial, C. The subject property consists of approximately 3.27 acres, located at #1104 and 1126 SUPERVISORS Saranap Avenue in the Walnut Creek area.(ZA:N-13)(CT 3410)(Parcel#'s 185-370.023,001).ML COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TUESDAY,JUNE 20,2000 ROOM 107—COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING PINE AND ESCOBAR STREETS,MARTINEZ CHAIR; R.Clark VICE-CHAIR: H.Wong COMMISSIONERS: L.Battaglia,C.Gaddis,J.Hanecak,G.Kimber,M.Terrell, NOTICE- Commission may change the order of items on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting No new items involving the opportunity for public hearing will be considered by the Commission after 10:00 P.M.unless specifically authorized by a unanimous vote of the Commission present. The Commission will adjourn at 10:30 P.M.unless there is a unanimous consent to continue. Items not heard may be rescheduled to the next meeting. Environmental Impact Reports have been prepared for each of the agenda items indicated by an asterisk ****7.00 P.M."" I, PUBLIC COMMENTS. PMIMAL MORICATIQNS TO = OMAN LJh91 LINB. CONTRA QOSIA COUNn( UaRALFL&N AMENDMENT S21MY M22MD: 2. This is a public hewing to consider an amendment to the Contra Costs 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 Costs County in which urban development may be considered. The boundary modifications would occur in multiple locations in the County that we eligible for placement outside the Urban Limit Line according to the criteria established under Measure C. The 65/35 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. V, 0 Martina AM -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 cast of Interstate 680 and south of the Martinez-Benicia Bridge,that includes approximately 368 acres of predominantly wetlands and a portion of hilly grassland. IgEsitiara Area - Them are two proposals affecting between 3,927 and 4,513 acres of land area essentially made up of the Tassajan Valley,which is 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. Claytpm Ranch Are - A proposal for approximately 1,030 acres of unincorporated land area that is under acquisition by the East Bay Regional Park District, which is immediately north of the Marsh Creek Road and Morgan Territory Road intersection about 4-5 miles cast of the City of Clayton. • Eftishug,-Area-Them are two proposals affecting unincorporated land area between the existing Urban Limit Line and the southern boundary of the city limits for the City of Pittsburg. • Antioch An -There are two proposals affecting unincorporated land area between the existing Urban Limit Line and the southern boundary of the city limits for the City of Antioch. • Brentwood Arca (South) - There are two proposals affecting unincorporated land area between the existing Urban Limit Line and the southern boundary ofthe city limits for the City of Brentwood. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT readt ;ce--*tor,5 Project: Brief Descri�tion: Appy t: Owner: County File * G-P 9 9 a©0 1 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: .0 0 0 10':o o ali.4 41 Briefing Meeting Date: Briefing Meeting Time: 1'.!> To Briefing Meeting Location: ' cc: Bennis M. Barry, Director Catherine K.utsuris, Deputy Director Heather Ballenger, Engineering Services Project Planner: -:�-k R,:� .