Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 09122000 - D1
4 Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 SUBJECT: CONTINUE CLOSED HEARING DELIBERATION ON URBAN LIMIT LINE BOUNDARY MODIFICATIONS FOR THE BRENTWOOD AND PITTSBURG AREAS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. CONTINUE the closed hearing deliberation on Urban Limit Line boundary modifications for the Brentwood and Pittsburg areas. 2. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS: OPTION "A" APPROVE as a separate General Plan Amendment a boundary modification to the Urban Limit Line in the Brentwood Area under the "Cowell Ranch Alternative", as depicted in map form (listed as Exhibit "A" to this report) and expressed as an intent under Board Resolution 2000/366 adopted on August 1, 2000, based on verification of an agreement between the Cowell Foundation and the Trust For Public Land relating to the sale of approximately 4000 (+/-)acres of the Cowell Ranch property for permanent open space and the conveyance of the remaining 448 (+/-) acres inside the Urban Limit Line to Signature Properties; and for a boundary modification to the Urban Limit Line in the Pittsburg Area under the "Alternative", excepting about 200 (+/-) acres of the land area west of Bailey Road between the Concord Naval Weapons Station Blast Safety Easement Zone and the southern boundary of the City of Pittsburg, as depicted in map farm (listed as Exhibit"B" to this report)and expressed as an intent under Board Resolution 2000/366 adopted on August 1,2000. DIRECT staff to prepare a Statement of Findings for the above referenced boundary modifications to be included in the Board's adoption of this General Plan Amendment as the third consolidated General Plan Amendment for the Year 2000, and SCHEDULE adoption of Statement of Findings and third consolidated General Plan Amendment for the Board of Supervisors meeting on September 26, 2000. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATUREMOM t RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMM EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S). ACTION OF BOARD ON y e. ,p r 12 2anL APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER .XX See the attached addendum for Board action and vote VO F SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE _ UNANIMO (ABSENT ""` AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: ES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: N: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Patrick Roche, CDD-Adv. Planning(510/335-1242) ATTESTED September 12 . 2000 cc: Community Development department(CDD) CAO County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Clerk of the Board THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 4CO3 ADMINISTRATOR B , DEPUTY (j Continued Closed Hearing Deliberation on ULL Boundary Modifications re: Brentwood and Pittsburg Areas September 12, 2000 Page 2 OPTION "B" APPROVE as a separate General Plan Amendment a boundary modification to the Urban Limit Line in the Brentwood Area under the "Proposal", as depicted in map form (Fig. 7A from the CPC Report, June 20, 2000, and listed as Exhibit"C" to this report) and expressed as an intent under Board Resolution 2000/366 adopted on August 1, 2000, based on the inability of the Cowell Foundation and the Trust For Public Land to consumate an agreement relating to the sale of approximately 4000 (+/-)acres of the Cowell Ranch property for permanent open space; and a boundary modification to the Urban Limit Line in the Pittsburg Area under the "Alternative"with the exception of 200 (+/-) acres of land area west of Bailey Road between the Concord Naval Weapons Station Blast Safety Easement Zone and the southern boundary of the City of Pittsburg, as depicted in map form (listed as Exhibit "B" to this report) and expressed as an intent under Board Resolution 2000/366. DIRECT staff to prepare a Statement of Findings for the above referenced boundary modifications to be included in the Board's adoption of this General Plan Amendment as the third consolidated General Plan Amendment for the Year 2000, and SCHEDULE adoption of Statement of Findings and third consolidated General Plan Amendment for the Board of Supervisors meeting on September 26, 2000. OPTION "C" CONTINUE the closed hearing deliberation on this matter to September 26,2000, at which time the Board of Supervisors may consider approval of a General Plan Amendment for Urban Limit Line boundary modifications to the Brentwood and Pittsburg areas. This would provide an additional two weeks for the Cowell Foundation and the Trust For Public Land to complete negotiations on a sale agreement for the Cowell Ranch property. FISCAL IMPACT The costs associated with this General Plan Amendment study are covered in the budget of the Community Development Department. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On August 1, 2000, the Board of Supervisors adopted General Pian Amendment(GP#990001)to amend the Contra Costa County General Plan, 1995-2.010, under Resolution 2000/366 which modified the Urban Limit Line in several locations throughout the County. In adopting Resolution 2000/366, the Board of Supervisors declared its intent to consider adoption of a separate General Plan Amendment for the Brentwood and Pittsburg areas, as follows: 1) a modified version of the "Cowell Ranch Alternative" in the Brentwood Area pending an agreement between the Cowell Foundation and the Trust For Public Land relating to the sale of nearly all the property to the land trust for permanent open space purposes, except for a portion of the property to be conveyed to Signature Properties (see map listed as Exhibit "A" which depicts the intended boundary modification in the area south of Brentwood based on Board's action on August 1, 2000); and, 2) a modified version of the"Alternative"for the Pittsburg Area, excepting approximately 200 (+/-)acres of land area west of Bailey Road between the Concord Naval Weapons Station Blast Safety Easement Zone and the southern boundary of the City of Pittsburg (see map listed as Exhibit"B" to this report which depicts the intended boundary modification in the area south of Pittsburg based on Board's action on August 1,2000). Board Resolution 2000/366 established September 12,2000 as the date to continue the Board of Supervisors closed hearing deliberation on these respective boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line. The purpose of the continued closed hearing deliberation was to provide additional time for the Cowell Foundation and the Trust For Public Land to negotiate an agreement on sale of the Cowell Ranch property. Staff has been informed by a representative for the Cowell Foundation that final negotiations for an agreement between the Cowell Foundation and the Trust For Public Land on the sale of the Cowell Ranch Property are still in progress.The Cowell Foundation representative anticipated that these final negotiations should be concluded by no later than Monday, September 11, 2000, and they Continued Closed Hearing Deliberation on ULL Boundary Modifications re: Brentwood and Pittsburg Areas September 12, 2000 Page 3 expect to report on the successful conclusion of these negotiations at the Board meeting on Tuesday, September 12, 2000. A separate agreement between the Cowell Foundation and Signature Properties has been negotiated for the remaining portion of the ranch site that would remain inside the Urban Limit Line under a modified version of the "Cowell Ranch Alternative" as intended under the Board's action on August 1, 2000. This modified version of the "Cowell Ranch Alternative" placing approximately 448 (+/-) acres of the ranch site inside the Urban Limit Line, however, is contingent upon the Cowell Foundation reaching an agreement with the Trust For Public Land. Depending on the successful outcome or progress in negotiations between the Cowell Foundation and the Trust For Public Land on a sale agreement by September 12th, staff has identified three options the Board may wish to consider regarding this matter, as follows: OPTION "A" APPROVE a separate General Plan Amendment(GP#00001)for a boundary modification to the Urban Limit Line in the Brentwood Area under the "Cowell Ranch Alternative", as depicted in map form (listed as Exhibit"A"to this report)and expressed as an intent under Board Resolution 2000/366 adopted on August 1, 2000, based on verification of an agreement between the Cowell Foundation and the Trust For Public Lands relating to the sale of approximately 4000 (+/-) acres of the Cowell Ranch property for permanent open space and the conveyance of the remaining 448 (+/-) acres to Signature Properties to be considered for future urban development; and for a boundary modification to the Urban Limit Line in the Pittsburg Area under the"Alternative", with the exception of about 200(+/-)acres of land area west of Bailey Road between the Concord Naval Weapons Station Blast Safety Easement Zone and the southern boundary of the City of Pittsburg, as depicted in map form (listed as Exhibit "B" to this report) and expressed as an intent under Board Resolution 2000/366 adopted on August 1, 2000. This General Plan Amendment would serve as the third consolidated General Pian Amendment for the Year 2000 as allowed under California Government Code Section 65358(b). DIRECT staff to prepare a Statement of Findings for the above referenced boundary modifications to be included in the Board's adoption of this General Plan Amendment as the third consolidated General Plan Amendment for the Year 2000, and SCHEDULE adoption of Statement of Findings and third consolidated General Plan Amendment for the Board of Supervisors meeting on September 26, 2000. OPTION "B" APPROVE a separate General Pian Amendment (GP#00001)for a boundary modification to the Urban Limit Line in the Brentwood Area under the "Proposal", as depicted in map form (Fig. 7A from the CPC Report, June 20, 2000, and listed as Exhibit"C"to this report) and expressed as an intent under Board Resolution 2000/366 adopted on August 1,2000, based on the inability of the Cowell Foundation and the Trust For Public Land to consumate an agreement relating to the sale of approximately 4000 (+/-) acres of the Cowell Ranch property for permanent open space; and for a boundary modification to the Urban Limit Line in the Pittsburg Area under the "Alternative", with the exception of about 200 (+/-) acres of land area west of Bailey Road between the Concord Naval Weapons Station Blast Safety Easement Zone and the southern boundary of the City of Pittsburg, as depicted in map form (listed as Exhibit "B" to this report) and expressed as an intent under Board Resolution 2000/366. This General Plan Amendment would serve as the third consolidated General Plan Amendment for the Year 2000 as allowed under California government Code Section 65358(b). DIRECT staff to prepare a Statement of Findings for the above referenced boundary modifications to be included in the Board's adoption of this General Plan Amendment as the third consolidated General Plan Amendment for the Year 2000, and SCHEDULE adoption of Statement of Findings and third consolidated General Plan Amendment for the Board of Supervisors meeting on September 26, 2000. Continued Closed Hearing Deliberation on ULL Boundary Modifications re: Brentwood and Pittsburg Ares September 12,20001 Page 4 OPTION "C" CONTINUE the closed hearing deliberation on this matter to September 26, 2000, at which time the Board of Supervisors may consider approval of a General Plan Amendment for Urban Limit Line boundary modifications to the Brentwood and Pittsburg areas. This would provide an additional two weeks for the Cowell Foundation and the Trust For Public Land to complete negotiations on a sale agreement for the Cowell Ranch property. Staff also notes that the additional time has enabled the boundary modifications for the Brentwood and Pittsburg areas, as declared by the Board's intent under Resolution 20001566, to be referred to the County Planning Commission for review and comment pursuant to California Government Code Section 65366. As established under this Government Code Section, the Board of Supervisors may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the County Planning Commission with regard to a General Plan Amendment. However, any substantial modification proposed by the Board of Supervisors, not previously considered by the County Planning Commission during its public hearings, shall be referred first to the County Planning Commission. Although its debatable whether or not the modifications for the Brentwood and Pittsburg areas are „substantially different" from those previously considered by the County Planning Commission during hearings in June, staff recommended that the Commission explicitly consider them in order to remove any doubt that the County has complied with California Government Code Section 65356. Therefore, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65356, Board Resolution 20001366, and specifically the Board's declared intent to consider a separate General Plan Amendment for the Urban Limit Line boundary modifications in the Brentwood and Pittsburg areas, were referred to the County Planning Commission since these modifications were not explicitly considered by the Commission at their prior hearing on the matter. At their meeting on August 22, 2000, the Commission considered the above referenced Urban Limit Line boundary modifications for the Brentwood and Pittsburg areas as a referral from the Board of Supervisors and on this date conducted a hearing to accept public comment on the referral. Subsequent to receiving public comment, the Commission closed the hearing and adopted a resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt a separate General Plan Amendment for the boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line in the Brentwood and Pittsburg areas as described above under Option "A" (see a copy of County Planning Commission Resolution 13-2000, listed as Exhibit"a"to this report). Attachments.t:4l Exhibit"A": Map of the Brentwood Area (South) "Cowell Ranch Alternative" for ULL Modification (as modified under Board of Supervisors action on August 1, 2000 and supported by County Planning Commission under CPC Res. 13-2000) Exhibit"B": Map of the Pittsburg Area "Alternative"for ULL Modification (as modified under Board of Supervisors action on August 1,2000 and supported by County Planning Commission under CPC Res. 13-2000) Exhibit"C": Map of the Brentwood Area(South) "Proposal"for ULL Modification (Fig.7A excerpted from Report to County Planning Commission,June 20, 2000) Exhibit"b": CPC Resolution 13-2000 MB\PR:h:prochlboerdorderstuttbo.sept 23000.00e ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.1 September 12, 2000 Agenda On August 1, 2000, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date,the hearing to consider the modifications to the Urban Limit Line boundaries for the Brentwood and Pittsburg areas. Patrick Roche, Principal Planner, Community Development Department, gave the staff report. Those present included Dennis Barry, Director, Community Development Department and Silvano Marchesi, Chief Assistant County Counsel. The Board discussed the matter. The representative for The East Bay Regional Park District, Beverly Lane, 556 Indian Home Road, Danville, and the representative for The Trust for Public Land, Tim Wirth, 16 New Montgomery, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, offered comments concerning a proposed purchase agreement for The Cowell Ranch property. Following further Board discussion, Supervisor Canciamilla moved Option A, declaring the Board's intent pursuant to verifying an agreement between the Cowell Foundation and the Trust for Public Land, to adopt the final Statement of Findings and General Plan Amendment at the September 26, 2000, Board meeting. Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion. The vote on that motion was as follows: AYES: SUPERVISORS GIOIA,DeSAULNIER,CANCIAMILLA and UILKEMA NOES: NONE ABSENT: SUPERVISOR GERBER ABSTAIN: NONE Exhibit 'A' Contra Lora Regional Park d i I } I i 1 k., Legend i Marsh Creek ltd —�--- Contra Costa County fine . City limits ------ City sphere of influence line(S01) # b -- Parks L— ---- —- - -- Existing urban limit line(ULL) l r w w Change to ULL ( g C7,no Diablo Rd Area inside existing ULL Area inside existing ULL,to be removed under alternate proposal Area outside existing ULL 0 6000 ft(approximate) — —— Cowell Ranch project boundary 1 Map of Brentwood Area (South) "Cowell Ranch Alternative" Urban Limit Line Modifications As modified under the Board of Supervisors Action on August 1, 2000 and supported by County Planning Commission (CPC Res, 13-2000) Exhibit `B' t Chipps Island � `s • 14 �{ybt 1 '� •. gW Winter Island t t Browns:Ltsiand Browns island Regional Shoreline s 4 j Legend -�--- Contra Costa County line y�` 1 • City limits ----- City sphere of influence line(SOI) - Parks i Existing urban limit line(ULL) slack 1i s®rrr Change to ULL ` diamond Mines Area inside existing ULL F '"—'l Regional Area inside existing ULL,to be i- -"` - - - Preserve removed under alternate proposal L 1 Area outside existing ULL � JO?u ft(approximate) Map of Pittsburg Area "Alternative" Urban Limit Line Modifications As modified under the Board of Supervisors Action on August 1,2000 and supported by County Planning Commission (CPC Res. 13-2000) _. . Exhibit 'C' 4 I m 4 C Legend Marsh Creek Rd •— Contra Costa County kine City limits ------ City sphere of influence line(501) –– Parks Existing urban limit line(ULL) e m m m Proposed change to ULL g ; Diablo Rd ^�. Marsh Creek�a Cam Area inside existing ULL V W r-� Area inside existing ULL,to be removed under proposal V Area outside existing ULL f 0 6000 ft(approximate) �J Potential ULL.Modifications— Proposal Brentwood Area (South) (figure 7A from Report to CPC,June 20,2000) EXHIBIT "D" RESOLUTION NO. 13-2000 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA REGARDING A REFERRAL FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON MODIFICATIONS TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE FOR THE BRENTWOOD AND PITTSBURG AREAS WHEREAS, on August 1, 2000, the Board of Supervisors adopted General Plan Amendment (GP#990001) to amend the Contra Costa County General Plan, 1995-2010, modifying the Urban Limit Lane in several locations throughout the County as detailed in Board Resolution 2000/366. WHEREAS, in adopting this General Plan Amendment the Board of Supervisors declared its intent to adopt a separate General Plan Amendment for the "Cowell Ranch Alternative" in the Brentwood Area (as described in the Staff Report to the County Planning Commission, dated June 20, 2000), pending the sale of approximately 4000 (+/-) acres of the Cowell Ranch property to the Trust For Public Land for permanent open space, excepting 448 (+/-) acres of the property to be conveyed to a private land developer, and the "Alternative" for the Pittsburg Area (as described in the Staff Report to the County Planning Commission, dated June 20, 2000) with the exception of about 200 (+/-) acres of land area west of Bailey Road between the Concord Naval Weapons Station Blast Safety Easement Zone and the southern boundary of the City of Pittsburg. WHEREAS, the above referenced boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line for the Brentwood and Pittsburg areas are eligible for placement outside the Urban Limit Line according the criteria established under Measure C: The 65/35 Contra Costa Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (1990). WHEREAS, the conditions defined in the Staff Report to the County Planning Commission, dated June 20, 2000, Potential Modifications to the Urban Limit Line, Contra Costa County General Plan Amendment Study (GP#990001), that relate to the criteria and factors for considering whether or not land should be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line pursuant to Measure C: The Contra Costa 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (1990), Section 4.B.(3) would apply to the above referenced boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line for the Brentwood and Pittsburg areas. WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 99-112094) for POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY (GP#990001), that included the Brentwood and Pittsburg areas, was prepared and certified by the Board of Supervisors and the Notice of Determination was posted on August 1, 2000. WHEREAS, Board Resolution 2000/366, and specifically the intent of the Board of Supervisors to consider a separate General Plan Amendment for the above referenced boundary modifications to the Urban Limit Line for the Brentwood and Pittsburg areas, were referred to the County Planning Commission pursuant to California Government Code Section 65356. WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, the County Planning Commission received the referral from the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on August 22, 2000 in the form of a staff report, and on this date conducted a hearing on the referral, at which time testimony was taken and, at the conclusion of which, the hearing was closed; and after having fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted for this referral. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission: 1) HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED the information and findings in the Draft EIR for General Plan Amendment Study {GP#990001}; Potential Modifications to the Urban Limit Laine, Contra Costa County, California, prior to forwarding a recommendation on the referral from the Board Supervisors, pursuant to Section 15025.c, Contra Costa County and State CEQA Guidelines. 2) ACKNOWLEDGES THE REFERRAL FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of a separate General Plan Amendment relating to Urban Limit Line boundary modifications for the Brentwood and Pittsburg areas as described in Board Resolution 2000/366. The decision of the County Planning Commission was given on Tuesday, August 22, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners- R. Clark, Chair,L. Battaglia,C. Gaddis, M.Terrell,and H.Wong NOES: Commissioners-G. Kimber ABSENT: Commissioners-J. Hanecak 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 August 22, 2000. ATTEST: Dennis M. Barry, Secretary of the County Planning Commission, Contra Costa County, State of California page 2 t r [W,,,-tk RECE SEP 1 2 2000 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CC1. IN WITNESS of the foregoing provisions the parties have signed this Option Agreement as of the 8th day of September,2000. SELLER BUYER S.H. COWELL FOUNDATION, a THE TRUST FOR. PUBLIC LAND, a California public benefit corporation and California nonprofit public benefit private foundation .,t torpor n By: 1� : By: Its: Its: Date: C1 Date: CowellRanchOption -1 fi- 24Aug00MMC SF#479228 v1 When recorded mail to: THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND 116 New Montgomery Street Third Floor San Francisco, CA 14105 Attn: Legal Department MEMORANDUM OF OP'T'ION This is a memorandum of a certain unrecorded Option Agreement(the "Agreement") dated September 8, 2000,between S. H. COWELL FOUNDATION, a California public benefit corporation and private foundation("Seller"), and THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation("Buyer") Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Seller grants to Buyer an exclusive option to purchase that certain real property in Contra Costa County,California comprised of approximately 3,942 acres(the "Option Property")which is a portion of that real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto. A sketch of the Option Property is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The option is for a period of two years from the date the Agreement is signed by both parties. This memorandum of option is recorded to merely give notice of the existence of the option. SELLER BUYER S. H. Cowell Foundation, a California THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND, a public benefit corporation and private California nonprofit public benefit foundation corpor n By: . By: Its: ,. .... Its: i (.J4*, Date: fz ',�d t3 Date: >� ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS State of California ) )ss. County of San Francisco ) On this _ 6 "-- day of September, 2000, before me, 1,ee416 7' , a notary public, personally appeared S. &E E personally known to me (or-prov-Gd-#o-.me-on-the basis of-•satisfaztoryevidenee) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Notary Public .S T Irene T. Lodviek • 6. rClff} � My commission expires Comm.#1112980{ *• ; NOTARYPt$sitc CnU€or�x� CRY&Couniy of Sar Frzekcixo + Comm Exp.Oct 0.20G State of California ) )ss. County of San Francisco ) On this�day of September, 2000,before me, f t F• a notary public, personally appeared (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Notary Public .- Irene T. Lodvick � Comm.*iii 2480 My commission expires '` y'""; R � CRy&county a sem Franc+�cb corgi exp.aoc�.xcao Allen Matkins Leek Gamble & Mallory LLP attorneys at law Allen Bush Street 17th Floor San Francisco California 94104-2806 Allen Matkins telephone. 415 837 1515 facsimile. 415 837 1516 www.allenmatkins.com writer.David H.Blackwell t.415 273 7463 file number.R7073.001/SF525421.01 e.dblackwell@allenmatkins.com WE[-, September 12, 2000 SEP 12 2000 CLERK BOARD OF CUPE€iViSOPS HAND-DELIVERED CONTRA COBTA CO. Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Urban Limit Line Modifications Dear Chairperson and Members of the Board: This office represents Roddy Ranch, LLC. We respectfully object to the Board's proposed actions regarding modification of the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line ("ULL"). The bases of our objections are set forth primarily in the attached Petition for Writ of Mandate, filed August 30, 2000, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth here in full. In particular, the Board's modification of the ULL, including the modification at issue for today's hearing, violate of the provisions of CEQA and Measure C, and unduly interfere with the functions of the Contra Costa County LAFC© In addition, we incorporate by reference all written and oral arguments raised at the Juiy 25 and August 1, 2000 Board hearings. We further incorporate into our objections all written and oral objections raised at this hearing. The modifications proposed at today's hearing further illustrate the arbitrary and capricious nature of the ULL modifications, and highlight the fact that proper planning and environmental steps have not been taken. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, David H. Blackwell Attorney for Roddy Ranch, LLC DHB Enclosure cc: Roddy Ranch, LLC San Francisca Los Angeles Orange County San 17iego West Leu Angeles Huu .3i1 'Oe Zbt03 Fri ALLEN x.15 e3? 2 SZ5 TO ##*2191 tt192522a r j l IALLEN IVMATKWS LECK GAMBLE&MALLORY LLP ;AM L NZE ER(BAR NO.62114) 2 I)AVID H. BLACXWELL(BAR No. 153354) ALEXANDER O, CROC TT(BAR NO. 193910) QI) AUG t _. Q 3 KAREN L DONOVAN(BAR NO. 194424) 333 Busk Street,Seventeenth Floor 4 San Francisco,California 94104.2806 Telephone: (415)837-151.5 ':'� PER LOCAL RULE 5 THIS :r: ... ... 5 .Facsimile: (415) 837.1516 CASE IS AS NED TO 6 Attomeys for Petitioner DEPT Roddy Ranch.LLC, a California 7 Limited Uability Company. 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA,COSTA 10 11 RODD'Y RANCH,LLC, a California Limited Casc No. C 0 0 — 0 ' 4 Liability Company, 12 Petitioner, 13 vs. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 14 COUNTY OF COIv4TRA COSTA, BOARI) OF 15 SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA BY FAX COUNTY, 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner Reddy Ranch,LLC alleges: 19 1. Petitioner is a California limited liability Company that is the fee owner of certain 20 property known as the "Roddy Ranch," located in an unincorporated area of Eastern Contra Costa 21 County,south of the City of Antioch and west of the City of Brentwood, and is more particularly 22 described in Exhibit One attached hereto (the"Property"). 23 2. Respondent County of Contra Costa ("County„)is a political subdivision of the !v 24 State of California. 25 3. Respondent Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ("Board") is the duly 26 elected legislative body for the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County and is responsible for 27 foxmulating and implementing the County's land use planning,includin8 the development and 28 implementation of the County's General Plan. Likl Ntikk'+a Lct4 c•"l':+r:«" 3 PE"IITION FOP,WRIT OF MANDATE 5b1 M,011$f F0'd 91STLCGSTVT 01 ozKESZ"G E # OD 00 3-11128vXUJ pfd TT:LT 000z 0S o nd 1 4. The County action that is the subject of this writ is an amendment to the Contra 2 Costa County General Plan that purports to modify the boundaries of the Urban Limit Line 3 ("ULL") in several locations throughout the County, resulting in the shift of approximately 15,000 4 acres of land area outside the ULL(the "County Action"). 5 5. The County Action shifts a portion of the Property that is located within the ULL 6 boundary to an area outside of the ULL boundary. The County Action may deny Petitioner the 7 ability to develop the Property. Petitioner is therefore "beneficially interested" in the County 8 Action under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1086. 9 STATEMENT OF FACTS 10 6. In 1969, the City of Antioch („City") included the Property within a plan for the I I City's ultimate boundary. 12 7. In 1990, the City restated its desire to include the .Property within the City's 13 municipal boundary. 14 8. In November 1990, voters in Contra Costa County approved an initiative entitled 15 "Measure C," also known as the Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan, which was codified 16 in Chapter 82-1 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. 17 9. Measure C required the adaption of a new Contra Costa County General Plan by 18 December 3.1, 1990. The new General PIan was to include a ULL that enforces the County's 65/35 19 Land Preservation Standard by establishing a line beyond which no urban land uses could be 20 designated during the term of the new General Plan (i.e., the "ULL"). 21 10. Measure C sets for the following criteria and factors for determining whether land 22 should be placed outside the ULL: 23 a. land that qualifies for rating as Class I and Class 11 in the Soil Conservation 24 Land Use Capability Classification; 25 b. open space,parks, and other recreation areas; 26 C. lands with slopes in excess of 26 percent; 27 d. wetlands; and 28 Alien Matkins leek (/amble aMalfpry ur Q •r,�t PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 524302.011SF -2- I e. other areas not appropriate for urban growth because of physical 2 unsuitability for development, unstable geological conditions, inadequate water availability, the 3 lack of appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing development, likelihood of substantial 4 environmental damage or substantial injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat, and other similar 5 factors. (Contra Costa County Code § 82-1.010.) 6 11. On January 29, 1991,the County adopted its General Plan and established the 7 ULL. The General Plan included the Measure C provisions relating to change in the ULL. 8 12. According to Measure C, properties that are located outside the ULL may not 9 obtain General Plan Amendments that would redesignate them for urban land use, and such 3 10 properties may be subject to various agricultural and open space preservation measures identified I 1 in the General Plan. 12 13. The Property encompasses 2,100 acres, with approximately 1,000 acres that lie 13 outside of the 1991 ULL and 1,000 acres that lie within the 1991 ULT.,. 14 14. In reliance on the establishment of the ULL, Petitioner, in cooperation with the 3 15 City, commenced development proceedings for a 540-acre portion of the Property that lies within 16 the 1991 ULL but outside of the City's Sphere of Influence. Petitioner has expended in excess of 17 $2 million dollars on development of the Property. 18 15. Measure C specifies that the L'LL can only be changed without a vote of the people 19 only if: (1)the change does not violate the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard; and(2) a 415 vote of 20 the Board is reached after holding a public hearing and malting one or more of seven specific 21 findings based on substantial evidence in the record. (§ 82-1.018.) 22 16. As discussed below, the specific finding relied upon by the Board to justify the 23 County Action requires that "a five (5) year periodic review of the urban limit line has determined, 24 based on the criteria and factors for establishing the urban limit line se forth in Section 82-1.010 25 above, that new information is available (from city or county growth management studies or 26 otherwise)or circumstances have occurred, that warrant a change to the urban limit line." (§ 82- 27 1.018(a)(5).) 28 Allen Matkins Leak Gamhie6MatllotoPETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE w ante&M a 524302.(}i/SF -3- 1 17. In 1993, the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") 2 initiated its Third Decennial Countywide Sphere of Influence ("SOI")Program. At that time, the 3 City,during a noticed public hearing, advised LAFCO that the Property was considered an 4 important part of the City's future and was an area where the City anticipated expanding its SOI. 5 within the "next 10 years." 6 18. In response to a LAFCO "SOI Questionnaire," the City stated in November 1999 7 that it proposed to extend its SOI boundary to encompass the entire Property. In November 1999, 8 LAFCO's Executive Officer recommended amending the City's SOI to include the Property, but 9 thereafter the matter was set aside pending completion of an environmental impact report ("EIR"). 10 19. In April 2000, the City submitted to LAFCO a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of an 11 EIR for the development of 1,000 single-family homes on a 540-acre portion of the Property 12 located within the 1999 ULL. 13 20. In July 2000, the County caused to be prepared an initial study and draft 14 Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") relating to the County Action. Petitioner submitted 15 comments to the draft EIR, and various governmental entities, including the City, submitted 16 comments pertaining to the effect of the County Action upon the Property and objecting to the 17 adequacy of the draft EIR. 18 21. On July 24 and 25, 2000, the Board conducted a public hearing on the County 19 Action. On July 25, the Board certified the EIR as adequate and complete, and found that the 20 County Action would not have a significant direct or indirect impact on the physical environment. 21 22. On August 1, 2000, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2000/366. This Resolution 22 found that the ULL modifications were supported by "new and substantial information and data„ 23 that "provides compelling evidence of significantly changed circumstances that warrant changes to 24 the Urban Limit Line," as required by § 82-1.018(a)(5). The Resolution did not describe any 25 specific new information or changed circumstances,however, or explain how they warranted a 26 ULL modification. 27 28 A116n Malkin*Lock GamtateaM�llaryua PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE aeomaya at taw 524303.41/SF -4- 1 23. On August 1, 2000, the Board approved the County Action, and posted a Notice of 2 Determination. This action is commenced within 30 days after the date of that filing as required 3 by Public Resources Code section 21167(c) and as discussed in CEQA Guideline 15112(c)(1). 4 24. Petitioner has performed any and all conditions precedent to filing this writ petition 5 and has exhausted any and all available administrative remedies to the extent required by law. 6 Petitioner and other members of the public presented orally and/or in writing all factual and legal 7 objections asserted in this Petition. 8 25. Petitioner has compiled with the requirements of Public Resources Code section 9 21167.5 by timely mailing a written notice of this action to Respondents. The proof of service of 10 the notice is filed herewith. 11 26. Petitioner has compiled with the requirements of Public Resources Code section 12 21.167.6 by concurrently filing a request for preparation of the administrative proceedings relating 13 to this action. 14 STANDARD OF REVIEW 15 1 27. The County Action was an adjudicatory approval that was made after a hearing 16 required by law, and is therefore reviewable under CCP § 1094.5. Public Resources Code § 2.1168 17 therefore applies with regard to judicial review of the County Action under CEQA. To the extent 18 that the County Action is not reviewable under CCP § 1094.5 because no hearing was required by 19 law or because the County Action is considered a quasi-legislative approval, Public Resources 20 Code § 21168.5 applies, and the Board's CEQA determination is reviewed under CCP § 1085. 21 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION(CEQA VIOLATIONS) 22 28. Petitioner incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 27 23 above as if fully set forth herein. 24 29. Respondents' approval of the Urban Limit Line project constitutes a prejudicial 25 abuse of discretion in that the Respondents failed to proceed in a manner required by law and 26 failed to act on the basis of substantial evidence. Respondents violated CEQA and relied upon an 27 EIR that is legally inadequate. Respondents' actions failed to comply with CEQA in numerous 28 respects, including, but not limited to the following: Allen Matk1n3 Lack Gamble 6Mallory ur PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 522302.0 1/S F I a. The EIR fails to adequately and accurately describe the purpose and 2 objectives of the Project, which are solely growth-control in areas throughout Contra Costa 3 County, including the East County area, As a direct result of this failure, there is no discussion of 4 alternative means of accomplishing the Project's objectives. 5 b. The EIR fails to describe adequately or analyze adequately the "no project 6 alternative" required by CEQA. 7 C. The EIR fails to adequately discuss and analyze the Project setting and 8 inconsistencies with applicable general plans and regional plans, including the Contra Costa 9 General Plan and LAFCO's spheres of influence and plans by local jurisdictions. 10 d. The EIR fails to adequately and accurately discuss foreseeable impacts of 11 the Project, including impacts to existing, publicly-noticed plans to annex lands and adjust spheres 12 of influence on areas directly impacted by the Project. The EIR unjustifiably finds that 13 development cannot be assumed to occur on lands, including the Roddy Ranch lands, that will be 14 affected by the change in the ULL. Based on this erroneous finding, the EIR incorrectly conclude, 15 that the Project will not affect growth patterns or development in the Project area and surrounding 16 regions or result in displacement of new development to other areas. This erroneous finding 17 results in an inaccurate and inadequate discussion of the significant Project impacts, including 18 impacts on traffic congestion, and air pollution, noise, and sewer and water services, resulting 19 from forcing development further east in the County or into surrounding jurisdictions. The EIR 20 fails to measure any purported benefits against the significant effect the Project has on growth 21 patterns as of the date the NOP was released. The EIR fails to study or analyze the changes 22 induced in population distribution, population concentration, and human use of land by the project 23 and the limitations it imposes. 24 C. The EIR,fails to study or identify the cumulative impacts of the Project, 25 including the combined effect of the Project and other proposals or existing measures to restrict 26 growth in the Project area and surrounding regions and displace growth elsewhere. 27 28 Alen Matkim Lock Gamble&MV,3ryuv PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE -6- I f. The EIR. fails to propose or study any mitigation measures that could reduce 2 the impacts the displacement that a shift of development would have. Such mitigation measures 3 include, but are not limited to 4 (1) mitigating the project's impacts on City of Brentwood and City of 5 Antioch's sphere of influence and planned extension of urban services by encouraging LAFCU to 6 allow annexation of the cities' spheres of influence notwithstanding the Urban Limit Line 7 designation as LAFCO is the sole agency enabled by the Legislature to determine urban service 8 boundaries; and 9 (2) mitigating the project's impact by providing a policy to allow 10 transfer of development rights within adjacent cities' sphere of influence to other areas of the 1.1 county and thereby provide some compensation to effected property owners; 12 (3) pursuing a cooperative process, involving representatives of local 13 communities, designed to provide both short and long term solutions to growth issues in the East 14 County, through measures such as regional economic development, open space preservation, and 15 growth metering among others. 16 g. The County failed to respond adequately to comments regarding the DEIR, 17 and made no effort to correct significant factual errors and erroneous assumptions that were noted 18 , by the commenters. 19 h. The County failed to recirculate the EIR with that substantial new 20 information. 21 i. The County failed to override or mitigate the significant impacts it failed to 22 study before approving the project. 23 j. The County failed to adopt written findings supported by evidence in the 24 record explaining its conclusion that the Project would have no impacts. The County failed to 25 adopt other findings required by CEQA, including the finding that the Board reviewed and 26 considered the Final EIR, and that the EIR.reflects the Board's independent judgment and 27 analysis. 28 Allen Matkins tack Gar tlacmeyale&mattaw lr7 LL' PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE sb 5243010l/5F -7- 1 30. Petitioner is therefore entitled to a writ of mandate directing the County to vacate 2 and set aside all decisions related to modification of the ULL that affects the Property. 3 WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for relief as hereinafter requested. 4 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION(VIOLATION OF MEASURE C) 5 31. Petitioner incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 30 6 above as if fully set forth herein. 7 32. Measure C restricts ULL amendments to certain limited situations. The Measure 8 provides that, upon a four-fifths supermajority vote of the Board of Supervisors, the County may 9 amend the YJLL if(in addition to certain other circumstances not relevant here): (1) it has 10 undertaken a five-year periodic review of the ULL based on the criteria and factors for 11 determining whether land should be included within the ULL, and(2) it has concluded that there 12 is new information available or a change in circumstances that warrant a change in the ULL. 13 33. The County has not undertaken a five-year periodic review of the ULL based on the 14 criteria and factors for determining whether the land should be included within the ULL. The 15 General Plan Amendment Study and Final EIR relied on by the County are insufficient to satisfy 16 Measure C's requirements in this respect. 17 34. To the extent that the County has taken actions that constitute a sufficient five-year 18 periodic review of the ULL as required by Measure C, the County has identified no new 19 information or changed circumstances that would warrant the change in the ULL in the Antioch 20 area. To the extent that the County has made conclusory findings that there is such new 21 information and/or changed circumstances, such findings are not supported by substantial 22 evidence in the record. 23 35. Elections Code section 9125 provides that "No ordinance proposed by initiative 24 petition and adopted either by the board of supervisors without submission to the voters or adopted 25 by the voters shall be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision is 26 otherwise made in the original ordinance." By amending the ULL in circumstances other than 27 those ordained by Measure C, the County attempted a de facto amendment or repeal of the 28 Allen Malkina Leek Gamble 6Mallotyaar PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE rComrys rt law 524302.01/sF -8- I portions of:Measure C pertaining to amendment of the ULL. In so doing, the County violated 2 .Elections Code section 9125. 3 36. In failing to comply with Measure C's requirements for amendment of the ULL, 4 the County has abused its discretion and failed to proceed in a manner required bylaw. The 5 County Action is therefore invalid and should be vacated. 6 WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for relief as hereinafter requested. 7 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION(LAFCO PREEMPTION) 8 37. Petitioner incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs I through 36 9 above as if fully set forth herein. 10 38, The Legislature enacted the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act, 1 I Government Code section 56000 et seq., to create a single decision-maker in the planning process 12 to balance the competing concerns of individual local governmental bodies, with the purpose of 13 discouraging urban sprawl and encouraging the orderly formation of local government agencies. 14 To this end, the Act grants the County LAFCO plenary power over annexations and other changes 15 I in local agency organization, and provides that LAFCO is the sole authority with jurisdiction over 16 ; such matters. In creating this LAFCO framework, the Legislature preempted the field of 17 regulation of county organization and preempted any local authority over such matters. LIFE. 18 j Committee v. City of Lodi, 213 Cal. App. 3d 1139, 1143 (1989) ("[I]n matters of statewide 19 concern, where the Legislature has exhibited the intent or purpose to occupy the field to the 20 exclusion of municipal regulation, [the local governmental body] lacks authority to legislate under t 21 the preemption doctrine . . . . There is no question but that the Legislature intended to occupy the 22 field with regard to annexation.") (citing Ferrini v. City of San Luis Obispo, 150 Cal. App. 3d 239, 23 246-49 (1983)). 24 39. The City has long planned to annex the Property and has begun the initial steps to 25 do so through the LAFCO annexation process. The City has included the Property on its plan for 26 the City's ultimate boundary since 1969. It has advised LAFCO since at least 1993 that it 27 considers the Property an important part of the City's future and intends to apply to LAFCO to 28 Alien Matktns deck Gambieble aMat4tatyu� PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE e &Mat baa F 52430101/SF I incorporate the Property into the City's "Sphere of Influence,"which is the first step in the 2 annexation process. On August 26, 1999, the City formally applied to LAFCO to amend its 3 Sphere of Influence to include the Property, although it subsequently withdrew its application to 4 allow time to complete an EIR for the amendment. The City continues to believe that it is in the 5 community's best interest to have the Property annexed into the City to provide for custom-built 6 housing on tots of a half-acre or greater, to fill a void in the City's current housing inventory and 7 offer homes that are attractive to executives of job-producing companies the City is attempting to 8 attract. 9 40. The County Action amending the ULL has improperly interfered with the 10 annexation process the City is currently engaged in before LAFCO. LAFCO has adopted a policy 11 whereby it generally honors the ULL set by the County and discourages annexations beyond the 12 ULL. LAFCO of Contra Costa County General Policy Statement (Adopted Feb. 10, 1999). 13 Amendment of the ULL to exclude the Property thus creates a significant impediment to inclusion 14 of the Property within the City's Sphere of Influence and ultimate annexation of the Property. The 15 Legislature has made clear, however, that such matters are exclusively within the jurisdiction of 16 LAFCO. The County Action is thus an unwarranted attempt to interfere with the LAFCO process 17 and is an intrusion by the County into an area of regulation where the State has preempted the 18 field. Accordingly, the County Action is preempted by LAFCO's jurisdiction and is null and void. 19 WHEREFORE, Petitioner demands entry of judgment as follows: 20 1. For a peremptory writ of mandate directing Respondents to: 21 a. Vacate and set aside the approval of the County Action to the extent it 22 affects the Property's inclusion within the ULL. 23 b. Prepare, circulate, and consider a new and legally adequate EIR and 24 otherwise to comply with CEQA in any subsequent action taken to approve the County 25 Action. 26 2. For its costs of suit. 27 3. For an award of attorneys fees. 28 Allen M]tkina Letk amU.—Y ti°i�`"' PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE attomaya of law 524302.O PS F -IO- 1 4. For other equitable or legal relief that the Court deems just and proper. 2 3 Dated: August 30, 2000 ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE & MALLORY LLP 4 JAMES L. MEEDER DAVID H. BLACKWELL 5 KAREN L. DONOVAN ALEXANDER G. CROCKETT 6 j . _j 7 By. f ,�.�"�...._.� JAS L. MEEDER 8 Attorneys for Petitioner Reddy Ranch, LLC, a California Limited 9 Liability Company 10 11 � I 12 13 14 � i 15 161 171 18 19f x 20 21 rr 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Alien Matkins Lack ca�nlrlsaMa:tcryufi)dw PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, BttCTeyS 8i 5243010 uSF -II- Sent By: w PIERCE; _ I �fl�b �1 u I tion, _v ..,,<« At113 30 2W0 11;2.2 FR ALLEN-MATK I NS 415 837 1516 TO 4#1139 #19252iOl P.13/13 2 3 STATE OF CALTORNIA • } ss. 4 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA � S 1 have read tho foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandate`an•d know its contents. 61 1.am the managing member of Roddy blanch,L .C, a patty to this action,and am 7 authorized to matte this verification for and on its behalf,and Y make this verification for that 8 reason. I am informed and believe and on that around allege that the matters stated in the 9 foregoing document afire true. 14 Executed on August 30,2000,at Pleasant Hill,California. 11 1 declare undcT penalty of petury under the laws of the State of California that the 12 foregoing is true and correct. y � 13 � 14 15 Wayne P.pierce 16 17 18 j 19 20 21 22 23 4 251 26 27 Z8 AI PETrrION FOR WRIT CrF MANDATF ywo�.otrs�r * TOTAL, PAGE.13 AUG 30 100 11.55 W 1 925 210 1665 PAGE.02 Ut5/.$U/UU 13«1 rt" vj:4 1oi 2o4i ` Order No. 162240 - B EXHIBIT "ONE." PARCEL ONE: Area Description Area R-1: Being a portion of Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20, Township North, Range 2 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, Contra Costa County. State of California, further described as being a portion of Subdivision 6402, filed November 26, 1985, Map Boob 296, page 47, Contra Costa County records, described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 1 of said subdivision (296 M 47);thence from said point of beginning alone the lines of Empire Mine Road as shown on said Subdivision Map north 890 30' east, 2640 feet; thence north 010 West, 30 feet; thence north 89° 30' east, 1340 feet; thence north 560 45' east, 137.94 feet; thence north 770 30' east, 776.16 feet, thence south 8211 15' east, 378.18 feet; thence south 280 15' east, 671.22 feet; thence south 0111 10' west, 859.32 feet; thence south 4411 west, 427.68 feet; thence south 000 04' 50" east, 550 feet to the northeast corner of Lot 9 of said subdivision; thence along the lines of said lot north 896 21' 42" west, 1452.103 feet; thence south 000 39' 09" west, 1199.47 feet; thence leaving the lines of said subdivision south 8913 west, 655 feet; thence north 140 40' 33" west, 79.11 feet; thence north 201, 33' 01" east, 400.00 feet; thence north 351 15' 58" east, 551.18 feet; thence north 191 28' 12" west, 297.48 feet; thence north 68° 28' 12" west, 275.00 feet;thence south 700 31' 48" west, 2801.00 feet; thence north 000 28' 12" west, 300.00 feet; thence north 23; 28' 12f, west, 240.00 feet; thence south 820 31' 48" west, 520.00 feet; thence north 2911 01' 40" west, 52.3.83 feet, thence north 680 28' 12" west, 629.55 feet; thence north 140 31' 48"" east, 205.18 feet; thence north 100 28' 12" west, 249.24 feet; thence north 800 38' 06" west, 912.96 feet: thence north 61 0 36' 54" west, 659.45 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL TWO: Area Description R-2: Being a portion of Sections 18, 19, 20, Township 1 North, Range 2 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, Contra Costa County, further described as being a portion of the "remainder" parcel of Subdivision 64032, filed November 26, 1985, Map Book 296, page 47, Contra Costa County records, described as follows: Commencing at the southerly corner of Subdivision Map (296 M 47);thence from said point of commencement along the lines of said Map (296 M 47) north 31'° 06' 21" east, 105.48 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing along the lines of said toddy parcel north 31 ° 06' 21" east, 1650.7.2 feet; thence north 491 19' 35" west, 1099.78 feet; thence south 140 58' 48'* west, 417.34 feet; thence south 250 25' 51" west, 220.22 feet; thence south 310 06' 21" west, 1218.99 feet; thence south 431 30' 07" east, 241.,24 feet; thence leaving said Subdivision north 640 west, 262.0 feet to the vilest line of said Section 19;thence north 010 east, 1.450 feet to the northwest corner of said Section 19; thence north 01° west, 2656 feet to the west 114 corner of said Section 18 and the south line of Lot 7 of said subdivision; thence along said south line and its prolongation north 89° 43' 49 east, 1000 feet; thence leaving said south line south 220 04' 52" west, 287.91 feet; thence south 400 31' 46" west, 910.40 feet; thence south 000 28' 12" east, 160.0 0feet; thence south 720 46' 27" east, 686.94 feet; thence north 75" 31' 48" east, 311.69 feet; thence south 24* 28' 12" east, 220.00 feet; thence south 771 28' 12" east, 345.00feet; thence south 630 38' 40" east/ 607.10 feet' thence south 400 56' 46" east, 154.91 feet; thence south 600 42' 011" east, 116.79'feet; thence south 421 06' 49" east, 297.43 feet; thence south 630 24' 54" east, 765.02 feet; thence north 80° 35' 06" east, 700.00 feet; thence south 800 24' 54" east, 716.20 feet; thence south 42" 43' 28" east, 191.87 feet; thence south 820 43' 55" east, 153.54feet; thence south 60° 24' 54" east 358.97 feet; thence south 850 24' 54" east, 160.00 feet; thence south 601 59' 41" east, 654.0)0)feet; thence north 89° 31' 48" east, 144.38 feet; thence north 2 RUG 30 20eo 14«20 925 75? 932? PAGE.02 08/30/00 13.13 kAl tlza rbt h • Order No. 162240 - B 37° 05' 32" east, 300.70 feet; thence north 140 40' 33" west, 20.84 feet; thence south 89* west, 658 feet to the southwest corner of Lot 9 of said subdivision;;thence along the lines of said subdivision south 890 21' 42" east, 1492.10 feet; thence south 01 a west, 75 feet; thence north 640 21' west, 34.91 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 9701 feet, a radial line to the radius point bears north 860 14' 26" west; thence southwesterly along the arc of said curve 83.36 feet, through a central angle of 040 55' 26" to a point of tangency;thence south 080 west, 951.95 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 1030 feet; thence along the are of said curve 57.83 feet through a central angle of V 13' 00" to a point of tangency;thence south 05° 28' 00" west, 658.97 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 670.00 feet; thence along the arc of said curve to the east-west 114 section line of Section 20; thence north 890 west, 2414 feet to the east 114 corner of said Section 19;thence along said section line south 010 west, 1369 feet; thence north 6411 west, 2435 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL THREE: Area description Area R-4: Being a'portion-of Sections 13 and 24, Township 1 North, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, in the County of Contra Costa, State of California, farther described as being a portion of the "remainder" parcel as shown on Subdivision 6402, filed November 26, 1985,in Book 296 of Maps, at page 47, Records of said County, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 13; thence from said point of beginning along the west line of said Section north 010 east, 2396 feet to a point on a barbed wire fence: thence leaving said west line and along said fence line south 66° east, 676 feet, thence south 790 east, 645 feet; thence north 600 east, 343 feet; thence south 651 east, 594 feet, thence south 260 east, 436 feet; thence south 780 east, 339 feet to the east line of the southwest 114 of said section: thence leaving said fence line and along said east line south 01 d east, 1331 feet to the south 114 corner of said section; thence along the north-south 114 section line of said Section 24, south 01 0 east. 784 feet; thence leaving said 1/4 section line north 570 west, 1429 fee to the north line of said Section 24; thence along said north line south 890 west, 1477 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL FOUR: Area Description Area R-6: Being a portion of Section 13, Township 1 North, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, in the County of Contra Costa, State of California, further described as being a portion of the "remainder" parcel as shown on Subdivision 64012,filed November 26, 1985, in Book 296 of Maps, at page 47, Records of said County, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 6 of said Subdivision 6442 (296 M 47); thence along the line of said subdivision, north 23?8 59' 42" east, 424.67 feet; thence north 0911 07' 15" west, 63.91 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing along the lines of said subdivision, north 090 07' 15" west, 567.41 feet to the beginning of a non- tangent curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 400.00 feet, a radial line to the radius point bears north 150 31' 11" west;thence northeasterly along the arc of said curve 157.08 feet. through a central angel of 220 30' 00" to a point of tangency; thence north 510 58' 49" east, 380.00feet;thence north 380 01' 11" west, 100.00 feet;thence north 510 58' 49" east, 100.00 feet; thence south 380 01' 11" east, 401.00 feet; thence north 080 22' 32" west, 400.00 feet; thence north 610 41' 20" west, 509.37 feet; thence north 0100 25' 47" east, 399.95 feet to the southerly line of that certain parcel of land described in the Gleed to the East Say Regional Park District, filed in Book 6890 of Official Records at page 918, Records, of said County; thence leaving the lines of said subdivision (2,961V1 47), and along said southerly line north 890 west,'2858 feet; thence leaving said southerly line, south 070 east, 1443 feet; thence north 880 east, 930 feet' thence south 570 east, 529 feet; thence north'890 east, 884 feet; thence south 270 east. 256 feet; thence south 740 east, 423 feet to the point of beginning. 3 AUG 30 2000 14:21 925 ?E7 9327 PAGE.03 Order No. 162240 -B PARCEL FIVE: Tentative Tract Map Parcel. Lots 1 through 8, inclusive, as shown on the Map of Subdivision 6402,filed November 26, 1985,Map Rook 296, page 47, Contra Costa County Records. EXCEPTING FROM PARCEL FIVE: That portion thereof lying within the parcel of land• described as follows: Beginning at he approximate southeast corner of Lot 1 of said Subdivision (269 M 47); thence from said point of beginning north 610 36' 54" west, 276.66 feet; thence south 531 31' 48" west, 232.39 feet; thence north 33 o 58' 12" west, 710.32 feet; thence south 891 31' 48" west, 338.10 feet; thence south 5511 31' 48" west, 314.04 feet; thence south 22° 04' 52" west, 732.21 feet;thence south 40° 31' 48" west, 910.04 feet; thence south 000 28" 12" east, 160.00feet; thence south 770 46'27" east, 686.94 feet; thence north 750 31' 48" east, 311.69 feet; thence south 240 28' 12" east, 220.00 feet, thence south 770 28' 12" east, 345.44 feet; thence south 63" 38'40" east. 6017.14 feet; thence south 400 56' 46" east, 154.91 feet; thence south 801 42' 031 " east, 116-79 feet; thence south 421 036' 49" east, 297.43 feet;thence south 630 24' 54" east, 765.02 feet; thence north 8011 35' 036" east, 100.00 feet; thence south 601, 24''54" east, 716.20 feet; thence south 4211 43' 28" east, 191.87 feet; thence south 8212 43' 55" east. 153.54 feet; thence south 60311 24' 54" east, 358.97 feet; thence south 85° 24' 54" east, 160.003 feet; thence south 600 59' 41" east, 650.00 feet; thence north 890 31' 48" east, 144.38 feet; thence north 3711 05' 32" east, 300.74 feet; thence north 14" 44'33" west, 100.00 feet; thence north 201 33' 01" east, 400.00 feet; thence north 350 15'58" east, 551 .16 feet; thence north 191 28' 12" west, 297.48 feet; thence north 681 28' 12" west, 275.00 feet; thence south 7030 31' 48" west, 2.80.04 feet; thence north 000 28' 12" west, 300.00 feet; thence north 230 28' 12" west, 240.40 feet; thence south 82° 31' 48" west, 520.04 feet; thence north 2911 01' 40" west, 523.83 feet; thence north 681, 28' 12" west. 629.55 feet; thence north 141 31' 48" east, 205.18 feet; thence north 10° 28' 12" crest, 249.24feet; thence north 8011 38' 06" west, 912.96 feet; thence north 61 ° 36' 54 west, 659.45 feet to the point of beginning. 4 AUG 30 2000 14:21 925 757 9327 PA3E.04 98/30/00 13:21 FAX 918 757 �J3Z!:; ri�+eiyr ivriaxvrrit TT ~" ! m sr d .� " � ho i ar o � i � ! in } Y 7s tr , u a r > 0 m ! 0 o C)r- } t > r ca 0 s. m r ! DEEREY ROAD o x AUG 30 2000 14:22 925 ?5? 332? PAGE.O5