The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 11092015 - Internal Ops Cte Min INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE November 9, 2015 2:30 P.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Chair Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair Agenda Items: Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee 1.Introductions 2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes). 3. RECEIVE and APPROVE the Record of Action for the October 12, 2015 IOC meeting. (Julie DiMaggio Enea, IOC Staff) 4. CONSIDER the development of a policy on the sharing of costs with other local jurisdictions for annexation feasibility studies. (Julie DiMaggio Enea, County Administrator's Office) 5.The next meeting is currently scheduled for December 14, 2015. 6.Adjourn The Internal Operations Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Internal Operations Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Internal Operations Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, during normal business hours. Staff reports related to open session items on the agenda are also accessible on line at www.co.contra-costa.ca.us. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. 1 For Additional Information Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1077, Fax (925) 646-1353 julie.enea@cao.cccounty.us 2 INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:11/09/2015 Subject:RECORD OF ACTION FOR THE OCTOBER 12, 2015 IOC MEETING Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION Presenter: Julie DiMaggio Enea, IOC Staff Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea (925) 335-1077 Referral History: County Ordinance requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the meeting. Referral Update: Attached is the Record of Action for the October 12, 2015 IOC meeting. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE and APPROVE the Record of Action for the October 12, 2015 IOC meeting. Fiscal Impact (if any): None. Attachments DRAFT IOC Minutes_10-12-15 Meeting 3 INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE RECORD OF ACTION FOR October 12, 2015 Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Chair Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair Present: Karen Mitchoff, Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Staff Present:Julie DiMaggio Enea, Staff Attendees: Theresa Speiker, Chief Asst. CAO Jason Crapo, County Building Official Joe Doser, Environmental Health Salvatore Evola, Garaventa Enterprises Marilyn Underwood, Environmental Health David Gould, Purchasing Svcs Manager Cliff Glickman Kathy Gallagher, EHS Director Camilla Rand, EHSD Christine Reick, EHSD Krystal Hinojosa, District IV Supervisor's Office Linda Wilcox, Deputy County Counsel Scott Gordon Carlos Velasquez, Fleet Svcs Manager Joe Yee, Deputy PW Director Agnes Vinluan, Environmental Health Janice Gayle Bart Carr, Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority Linda Lavender, District IV Supervisor's Office Deidra Dingman, Solid Waste Manager Vicky Mead, CAO Management Analyst 1.Introductions Chair Mitchoff convened the meeting at 2:00 p.m. and self-introductions were made around the room. 2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this DRAFT 4 2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes). None of the attendees asked to speak during the Public Comment period. 3.RECEIVE and APPROVE the Record of Action for the September 14, 2015 IOC meeting. The Record of Action for the September 14, 2015 Internal Operations Committee meeting was approved as presented. AYE: Chair Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair John Gioia Passed 4.ACCEPT report on the status of the development of a waste hauler ordinance and provide policy direction to staff. Chair Mitchoff invited Bart Carr of the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (Authority) to comment. He explained that his agency has one large contract with Republic for solid waste and recycling, and a separate permitting program outside of the franchise for construction and demolition (C&D) disposal, and that contractors can either self-haul or contract with haulers that are permitted under the C&D franchise. He wants to verify that what the Authority has in place for C&D will not be in conflict with the County's ordinance. Chair Mitchoff invited Sal Evola and Cliff Glickman of Garaventa Enterprises to comment. Sal Evola observed that the process to develop a waste hauler ordinance has been a 41-month effort and that some of the policy questions raised in the staff report were areas in which the IOC already provided policy direction, and were being retreaded. Of the 11 items in the report, he noted that staff is again requesting policy direction on five items. His comments on each are below (as numbered in the staff report): (1) Sheriff's Office: Staff has provided the fully-burdened cost (salaries and benefits) of a resident deputy position but that is more than what was contemplated. Instead, Mr. Evola offered to pick up one third of the cost of a Community Services Officer (CSO) (such as is employed by the City of Concord), who would be responsible for code enforcement not just of this ordinance but also graffiti. He noted that the new ordinance could be enforced by any police who witnessed a violation. Supervisor Gioia responded that illegal dumping knows no boundaries, so it's a countywide problem not just an unincorporated (UI) county area problem, and that the County cannot afford countywide CSOs. He suggested raising garbage fees countywide to fund enforcement throughout all law enforcement jurisdictions. The solid waste authorities can decide how to allocate enforcement funding. (2) Performance Bond: Mr. Evola commented that there needs to be some such requirement in the ordinance. DRAFT 5 (4) Building Inspection/Permit Process: Mr. Evola commented that staff's drafting of the ordinance would place the burden for resolving illegal debris boxes with the franchises rather than with County code enforcement, which is unacceptable. He wants to be able to call the Sheriff or CSO to report an unmarked debris box and have code enforcement notify the violator and, after proper notice, authorize the franchise haul the waste away. Ideally, only Republic or Garaventa (franchise) boxes should be used in the UI county area and should be clearly marked for easy identification. Evidence of proper C&D disposal needs to be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued by Building Inspection. If the permittee fails to provide the required evidence, then the County should levy a fine. The process already exists for the most part and should not be as burdensome as staff represents it to be. Jason Crapo described the building permit process, including requirements for documentation. He indicated that the local building code could be modified to include requirements in the debris recovery plan to document who is doing the hauling. The current code requires receipts showing where debris was disposed but not who hauled it. Building Inspection staff could be assigned responsibility for verifying documentation showing where debris was hauled and who hauled it. He commented that DCD and HSD each have different regulatory roles but can cooperate to enforce the building code, which includes the debris recovery plan. The debris boxes are not covered in the debris recovery plan. However, DCD can assist HSD by providing information about the location and size of construction projects, so there is an opportunity for coordination. (5) Modification of Franchise Agreements: Mr. Evola reiterated that he is amenable to modifying his franchise agreement to conform with the County's ordinance and is waiting for staff to reach out to him. (7) Source separated material: Mr. Evola commented that staff's recommendation was offensive to the franchises. Chair Mitchoff asked staff to work with stakeholders to devise acceptable language. (10) Disposal Within CCC: Mr. Evola suggested that the County try limiting disposal to local sites only and see if it gets challenged. Supervisor Gioia and Scott Gordon commented that State law currently prohibits limiting disposal to within county boundaries and Supervisor Gioia also stated that the County would not proceed with a limitation that it knows is not legal. Chair Mitchoff invited Scott Gordon to comment. Mr. Gordon observed that the ordinance still places the primary enforcement burden on the haulers but he'd like to see the County enforce the ordinance through an integrated system involving the haulers, DCD, HSD and the Sheriff's Office. He said there is no point in having a hauling ordinance unless the enforcement is viable, and to be viable it must be fully integrated to close the net around the illegal activity. He still thinks it is worthwhile to have the Building Inspectors inspect the debris boxes in the field when debris boxes are present at a construction site, since the inspectors are there anyway, rather than only verifying documents in the debris recovery plans. DRAFT 6 Supv Gioia reiterated that the illegal transfer stations (of which there are approximately 18 countywide) are the biggest issue. The problem that has plagued his district and on which his interest is most focused is the small, unlicensed "Mom & Pop" hauler who has a relationship with an illegal transfer station and who dumps what has value at the transfer station and what is worthless on the street. He said that the County spends over $1 million countywide to pick up illegally dumped waste, and we are not going to solve the problem without strong enforcement. He added that low-income people cannot generally afford a debris box. Staff commented that regular garbage service includes two bulky item pickups annually at no additional charge. Supervisor Gioia commented that this free service isn't well publicized or known and so isn't fully utilized. Chair Mitchoff expressed frustration about the number of times this has come back to Committee. She asked to see a final draft ordinance at the February 2016 IOC meeting; she preferred to address the enforcement aspect of the ordinance on a separate and parallel track. She asked staff to gather information from law enforcement countywide to see if enforcement costs could be estimated. Supervisor Gioia asked for a commitment from the franchises to raise fees sufficient to fund enforcement of the ordinance countywide. Contra Costa's ordinance can serve as a model ordinance for the cities to emulate. Mr. Evola reiterated his offer to fund one third of the cost of a CSO. AYE: Chair Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair John Gioia Passed 5.ACCEPT annual report prepared by the Public Works Department on the County's Local Bid Preference Program. The Committee accepted the staff report, asked the Purchasing Services Manager to provide more information in future reports about how the Local Bid Preference Program meshes with the Small Business Enterprise and Outreach Programs, and directed staff to forward the staff report to the Board of Supervisors for information. AYE: Chair Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair John Gioia Passed 6.ACCEPT follow-up report from the Fleet Services Manager on efforts to "green" the County Fleet and CONSIDER approving recommendations on modifying the County's Vehicle and Equipment Acquisition and Replacement Policy, and Clean Air Vehicle Policy and Goals. The Committee accepted the staff report with the following modification: Section IV shall be amended to clarify that in the interest of reducing cost and maximizing fuel efficiency and economy, the most appropriate vehicle will be purchased to meet the intended need or purpose. Supervisor Gioia requested staff to include in the follow-up report to the Board of Supervisors data on the number and percentage of new vehicle acquisitions that meet the no/low emission standards. DRAFT 7 AYE: Chair Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair John Gioia Passed 7.ACCEPT status report from the County Administrator on outstanding issues and information requests stemming from Phase 1 of the Board Advisory Body Triennial Review provide provide direction to staff on further action, if any. The Committee concurred with the staff report and recommendations with the special note that strong consideration should be given to merging PEHAB and the Hazardous Materials Commission. With regard to the Economic Opportunity Council (EOC), Kathy Gallagher gave a report about the functioning of the commission and allocation of administrative costs in the Community Services Block Grant (CDBG) budget. Kathy expressed concerns with the direction given by the State for doing the CDBG budget. She disagrees with the state's direction and how inconsistent is it compared to other similar revenue streams within EHSD. She plans on talking to state officials later this month to gain more clarity. In conclusion, the Committee accepted the report and directed EHSD to return in 90 days with a follow-up report after consulting the State on the CDBG budget. AYE: Chair Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair John Gioia Passed 8.ACCEPT report covering the period January - December 2014 and CONSIDER staff recommendations on the Small Business Enterprise Program. The Committee noted that some departments are still not reporting under the Small Business Enterprise (SBE) program. Vicky Mead acknowledged that while there is still some resistance to the new format, she noted that not all of the County policy/procedure documents are consistent nor are they located in a central place for easy reference. For some of the larger, high-volume departments such as EHSD, the data compilation is time intensive. Supervisor Gioia would like to see performance highlighted by staff and give underperforming departments an opportunity to communicate what factors are hindering their performance. Departmental performance, as presented, is not accurate because the ratios do not capture all subject transactions. The Committee approved the following staff recommendations: 1. CONTINUE the enclosed SBE report (for the 2014 Calendar year) for additional IOC review in the Spring of 2016, in order to address the quality and sufficiency of data that is being submitted by departments. 2. REQUEST that prior to the next review in Spring 2016, the SBE Coordinators, working with their departmental fiscal and or procurement officers, should verify that the data meets the specifications described above; DRAFT 8 or, if necessary, submit additional data to conform to the stated data requirements. 3. DIRECT CAO and County Departments also to compile SBE program and outreach data for calendar year 2015 during the first quarter (January to March) of 2016. 4. CALENDAR a simultaneous review of 2014 and 2015 data by department for the second quarter of 2016, as a basis for ongoing future review of SBE outreach and SBE program participation rates. 5. DIRECT CAO to draft a proposed Administrative Bulletin for the SBE program, to take effect 1-1-2017 if possible, reflecting guidelines as well as further program direction provided by lOC and BOS. AYE: Chair Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair John Gioia Passed 9.The next meeting is currently scheduled for November 9, 2015. 10.Adjourn For Additional Information Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1077, Fax (925) 646-1353 julie.enea@cao.cccounty.us DRAFT 9 INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:11/09/2015 Subject:CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT OF A POLICY TO GUIDE THE SHARING OF COSTS FOR ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDIES Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator Department:County Administrator Referral No.: IOC 15-16 Referral Name: ANNEXATION STUDY COST SHARING POLICY Presenter: Julie DiMaggio Enea Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea (925) 335-1077 Referral History: On October 20, 2015, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Internal Operations Committee the development of a policy for Board consideration to guide the sharing of costs between the County and local jurisdictions of annexation feasibility studies. Municipal government exists to provide services to urban populations and to regulate them in an orderly fashion. But an anomalous city development is that cities are ringed with urban populations that receive different or fewer services. Disparities in cost and quality of urban services between incorporated and unincorporated areas lead inexorably to incorporation or, in a few cases, to county government on a municipal scale. It is with these urban but unincorporated communities that annexation may be a solution. Careful study is required to determine whether or not an annexation is justified and feasible. Annexation feasibility studies typically involve a determination of the study area and its characteristics, an inventory of current and needed services, the cost of furnishing needed services, and potential revenue to fund those services. Planning staffs of the involved agencies are usually called to study annexation proposals, but sometimes commercial planning contractors are hired to conduct these studies. Referral Update: Need for Policy. The purpose of a policy is to apply a standard set of principles to repetitive decisions to achieve rational outcomes. As a first step in response to this referral, the Committee may wish to examine the potential need for cost sharing of annexation studies in the future, to determine if a cost-sharing decision should be made in accordance with a policy or on a case-by-case basis. 10 Most annexations are initiated by cities or districts in response to a current or future need and upon a determination that a fiscal advantage (or at least no fiscal detriment) would accrue from annexation. Consequently, costs for annexation studies in Contra Costa County have traditionally been borne by the requesting agency because the annexation is often to its fiscal advantage. However, that is not always the case. In the absence of a fiscal advantage to a requesting agency and when the County finds that annexation would best serve the welfare of a population, it may be appropriate for the County to share in the costs of the feasibility study. As a first step, the Committee may wish to examine remaining unincorporated areas to determine the likelihood that there will be future annexations that might meet criteria that would be addressed in a cost-sharing policy. Attached for the Committee’s review are two Contra Costa County maps showing incorporated and unincorporated areas, and also unincorporated “islands” under 300 and under 150 acres. Guiding Principles. If the Committee wishes to develop a policy, it should identify the goals of the policy and consider developing some guiding principles to promote rational and consistent outcomes. Some examples of guiding principles or cost sharing of annexation studies might include some or all of the following findings: The Board finds that the area proposed to be annexed is within the sphere of influence of the requesting agency. The Board recognizes an unmet need for services and/or infrastructure exists in the area proposed for annexation. The Board finds that the proposed annexation will improve service levels and/or infrastructure within the area to be annexed. The Board finds that there is not potential for economic development and stimulation in the area to be annexed. Sourcing Policy. The Board has previously adopted fiscal policies that are applicable to a cost-sharing policy for annexation studies: County Budget Policy (Resolution No. 2006/677): “The County will not directly allocate a specific General Purpose Revenue source to specific programs/communities. The policy would not apply to mitigation revenue that is derived from a project and intended to offset the environmental impacts from the project on the ‘host’ community.” “Short-term funding sources shall be used for short-term requirements, one-time uses, or contingencies.” “Revenue windfalls not included in the budget plan will not be expended during the year unless such spending is required in order to receive the funding.” County Reserves Policy (Resolution No. 2005/792): "In the event the County realizes reserves above the minimum levels defined by this policy, the first use shall be to annually deposit the funds into an account designated for capital projects and other one-time uses, up to an amount equal to 1% of General Fund revenues per year.” 11 “Reserves may be drawn below the minimum level in order to address an unforeseen emergency, to fund a non-recurring expense, or to fund a one-time capital cost; but only following the adoption, by a four-fifths vote, of a resolution of the Board of Supervisors specifying the circumstances that justify the invasion of the minimum reserve level.” Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB), Statement 54: Paragraph 18: Classifying Fund Balance Amounts. "Fund balance classifications should depict the nature of the net resources that are reported in a governmental fund. An individual governmental fund could include nonspendable resources and amounts that are restricted, committed, or assigned, or any combination of those classifications. Typically, the general fund also would include an unassigned amount. A government should determine the composition of its ending fund balance by applying its accounting policies regarding whether it considers restricted or unrestricted amounts to have been spent when an expenditure is incurred for purposes for which both restricted and unrestricted (committed, assigned, or unassigned) amounts are available. Similarly, within unrestricted fund balance, the classification should be based on the government‘s accounting policies regarding whether it considers committed, assigned, or unassigned amounts to have been spent when an expenditure is incurred for purposes for which amounts in any of those unrestricted fund balance classifications could be used. If a government does not establish a policy for its use of unrestricted fund balance amounts, it should consider that committed amounts would be reduced first, followed by assigned amounts, and then unassigned amounts when expenditures are incurred for purposes for which amounts in any of those unrestricted fund balance classifications could be used ." The GASB 54 excerpt above generally states that funds should be expended in the order of the most restricted to the least restricted funds. Therefore, any restricted, committed, or assigned funds that could be used for an expenditure should be used in that order prior to spending unassigned amounts. Potential revenue sources other than unassigned general purpose revenue that might be allowable for annexation studies may include the the Livable Communities Trust and, depending on the area, community benefit funds such as the Keller Canyon Surcharge and Crockett Co-Generation revenues may also be available funding sources. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): REVIEW remaining unincorporated areas/islands to ascertain the need for a general County policy on the sharing of costs for annexation feasibility studies with requesting agencies. 1. If a policy is needed:2. IDENTIFY the goal(s) of the policy.a. CONSIDER what principles and criteria should guide the decision to share costs for annexation studies.b. CONSIDER what policies should apply to the source of funding for the County’s share of annexation study costs. c. PROVIDE direction to staff on the preparation of a policy for consideration at a future Committee or Board of Supervisors meeting. d. Fiscal Impact (if any): The fiscal impact of a policy to share the costs of annexation studies would depend on the circumstances under which the County would agree to share costs and what the sharing ratio would be. The costs for annexation feasibility studies can range from $20,000 - $100,000. Attachments 12 County Map of UI Areas County Map of UI "Islands" Description of Unincorporated Islands in Contra Costa County 13 ANTIOCH CONCORD OAKLEY DANVILLE PITTSBURG LAFAYETTE RICHMOND ORINDA SANRAMON WALNUTCREEK MARTINEZ BRENTWOOD MORAGA PINOLE HERCULES CLAYTON PLEASANTHILL ELCERRITO SANPABLO Byron DiscoveryBay Alamo BayPoint BethelIs. Rodeo Crockett Blackhawk Diablo Saranap Pacheco Brent ElSob VineHill Ant Ant &Brent Pittts Pittts& Ant Cnc Cnc Cnc Cly Cly Ant Oak Ornd SanRamon Dan Walnut W.C.Cnc CncCly CncCly CncPitts San PabloBay SanFranciscoBay SuisunBay San Joaquin RiverO l d R i v erSacramento River Map created 9/3/2015by Contra Costa County Department ofConservation and Development, GIS Group30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756W Incorporated Cities, Spheres of Influence and Planning Areas City Planning Area ® Developed Land Outside Cities & SOIs Incorporated CityCity SOI 14 Antioch Concord Orinda Oakley Pittsburg Lafayette BrentwoodRichmond WalnutCreek MartinezPinole SanRamon Hercules PleasantHill Clayton ElCerrito SanPablo }þ4 }þ24 }þ160 }þ13 }þ242 }þ29 }þ80 §¨¦80 §¨¦580 §¨¦780 §¨¦980 §¨¦580 §¨¦80 §¨¦680 K : 276 P : 195 G : 190 M : 189 U : 151 T : 140 A : 132 B : 97 S : 108 H : 104 Q : 78 R : 73 N : 58 F : 55 J : 54 D : 51 O : 48 E : 37 I : 10 C : 5 L : 0.13¯0 2 4 Miles This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation andDevelopment with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization'stax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility forits accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Map Created 01/19/2012by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, GIS Group651 Pine Street, 4th Floor North Wing, Martinez, CA 94553-009537:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384W Unincorporated "Islands" under 150 Ac Unincorporated "Islands" under 300 Acres in Contra Costa County Unincorporated "Islands" under 300 Ac 15 DESCRIPTION OF UNINCORPORATED ISLANDS The list of islands was compiled by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development at the request of LAFCO staff. The map was prepared using the County’s GIS mapping program. The list includes 16 islands that are 150 acres or less, and meet the criteria for an expedited annexation as contained in Government Code §56375.3 listed below. Also, we have included an additional five islands that are over 150 acres but under 300 acres for discussion purposes. The criteria used for identifying small islands (i.e., 150 acres or less) as contained in the Government Code, are as follows: • Island or pocket of area 150 acres or less • Island is surrounded or substantially surrounded by a city or by a city and adjacent cities • Island is not a gated community where services are currently provided by a community services district • Island is substantially developed or developing based on the availability of public utility services, presence of public improvements, or the presence of physical improvements upon the parcel or parcels within the area • Island is not prime agricultural land, as defined by Government Code §56064 • Island will benefit from the change of organization or reorganization or is receiving benefits from the annexing city • Island was not created after January 1, 2000 The following is a brief description of each island. The letters correspond to those on the countywide map included with the staff report. A. San Pablo area B. : An unincorporated area including a neighborhood commonly referred to as Rollingwood, and a portion of the unincorporated community of El Sobrante (bounded by I-80 and San Pablo Dam Road). The area comprises 132+ acres surrounded by the cities of Richmond and San Pablo, and within San Pablo's Sphere of Influence (SOI) and is located near I-80 off the EI Portal Drive exit. Land uses are primarily built out urban residential and a small section of public land (I-80). San Pablo area C. : An unincorporated neighborhood of 96+ acres bounded by Hillcrest Road and Wildcat Canyon Regional Park that is surrounded by the cities of Richmond and San Pablo and mostly within San Pablo's SOI. Land uses in the area include residential and public uses including an EBMUD water reservoir and a small area of Wildcat Regional Park. The area is partially built out, and a portion of the area is within the Alquist Priolo Fault Zone which poses geologic issues. Pleasant Hill area: A 5+ acre area of unincorporated land off Alhambra Avenue (eastside of the road) surrounded by the cities of Martinez and Pleasant Hill and within Pleasant Hill's SOI. Land use designations in the area include low density 16 residential and agricultural. The area is not built out and there is currently a subdivision application being processed through the County. D. Pleasant Hill area E. : a 51+ acre area of unincorporated land substantially north of Chilpancingo Parkway surrounded (89%) by the cities of Martinez and Pleasant Hill and within Pleasant Hill’s SOI. Land use in the area is residential and the area is mostly built out. Pleasant Hill area F. : A 37+ acre area of unincorporated land adjacent to and east of the Contra Costa Country Club (near intersection of Paso Nogal and Golf Club Rd.) that is surrounded by the City of Pleasant Hill and within Pleasant Hill's SOI. Land uses in the area includes a corridor of the Contra Costa Canal and residential, and the area is built out. Walnut Creek area G. : a 55+ acre area of unincorporated land bounded by Pleasant Hill Road to the west and adjacent to Acalanes Open Space (to the south) that is substantially surrounded (96%) by the cities of Lafayette and Walnut Creek and within Walnut Creek’s SOI. Land use in the area is primarily residential. The area includes a fair amount of vacant and underutilized land, and is characterized by steep terrain. Walnut Creek area H. : a 190+ acre area of unincorporated land west of I-680 that is surrounded by the cities of Lafayette and Walnut Creek and within Walnut Creek’s SOI. Land uses in the area include residential, public (EBMUD land adjacent to a water tower) and a small portion of HOA open space. The area is mostly built out. Walnut Creek area I. : A 104+ acre area of an unincorporated neighborhood commonly referred to as Springbrook Road, generally bounded by Highway 24 and Acalanes Open Space. The area is surrounded by the cities of Lafayette and Walnut Creek and within Walnut Creek's SOI. Land uses in the area include residential and commercial with a small section of public (Highway 24). The area has a moderate amount of vacant and underutilized land, and is characterized by steep terrain. Walnut Creek/Pleasant Hill/Concord area : A 10+ acre area of an unincorporated land bounded by Bancroft Road and Mayhew Way. The area is surrounded by the cities of Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill and Concord. The area is primarily with Concord’s SOI with two parcels in Pleasant Hill’s SOI. Land uses in the area include multi and single family residential and light industrial. The area is built out. Residents of this area have previously contacted LAFCO regarding annexation. J. Walnut Creek area : A 54+ acre area of an unincorporated neighborhood entirely surrounded by the City of Walnut Creek where Walnut Boulevard and Shady Glen Road intersect. The area is within Walnut Creek’s SOI. Land use in the area includes residential and the area is built out. 17 K. Walnut Creek area : A 276+ acre area of unincorporated land located south of the Diablo Hills Golf Course. The area is surrounded by the City of Walnut Creek and within Walnut Creek’s SOI. Land use in the area is primarily residential with pockets of open space on the ridge. The area is mostly built out. L. San Ramon area M. : A 0.13+ acre area of unincorporated land located west of I-680 that is surrounded by the City of San Ramon and within San Ramon’s SOI. Land uses in the area include residential and HOA common area/open space (adjacent to an EBMUD water tower). This island was created after 2000 and is a remnant from LAFCO 08-27 (Faria Preserve Reorganization: Annexations to the City of San Ramon, CCCSD and EBMUD). Concord area N. : A 189+ acre area (Ayers Ranch) bounded by Bailey Road and Concord Blvd that is surrounded by the City of Concord and within Concord’s SOI. The area is primarily residential and is nearly built out. For several years discussions have ensued between the City of Concord, the County, LAFCO, and local residents/land- owners regarding annexation of this area to the City. There is interest on the part of many residents/landowners to annex to the City. Property tax exchange discussions between the City and County are underway. Concord area O. : A 58+ acre area of unincorporated land that is substantially surrounded (71%) by the City of Concord and within Concord's SOI. This undeveloped/ underutilized area is located at the end of Kaiser Quarry Road where it becomes a private road. Land use designations include single family residential (high) and open space/agricultural. Clayton area P. : A 48+ acre area of unincorporated land that is substantially surrounded (61%) by the City of Clayton and within Clayton’s SOI. The area is located east of Mitchell Canyon Road and is primarily built out residential with equestrian use. Antioch/Pittsburg area In November 2011, the Pittsburg voters approved Measure I which amends the Pittsburg General Plan to include this 195-acre area in Pittsburg’s Urban Limit Line. The measure also prezones the land and allows for a combination of single family residential, high density residential and general industrial development. : A 195+ acre area surrounded by the cities of Pittsburg and Antioch and currently within Antioch’s SOI. The area is located just east of Pittsburg city limits, and within Antioch’s Somersville Road Corridor Planning Area. Land use designations include industrial and residential and is primarily vacant with one remaining industrial use. The land is a former petroleum tank farm and is owned by West Coast Homebuilders, an affiliate of A.D. Seeno Construction. In 2009, LAFCO received an application to remove this area from the Antioch SOI and place it in the Pittsburg SOI. This application is currently incomplete and remains pending. Q. Antioch area: A 78+ acre area of unincorporated land entirely surrounded by the City 18 of Antioch and within Antioch’s SOI. Land use designation include open space and agricultural. This island is undeveloped and is a former landfill site owned by GBF Holdings, sometimes referred to as the City Dump site, and is located north of James Donlon Boulevard and east of Somersville Road. R. Antioch area S. : A 76+ acre area of unincorporated land entirely surrounded by the City of Antioch and within Antioch’s SOI. The land use designation is public use. This area is more commonly referred to as the County Fair Grounds site, and is located where 10th Street and L Street intersect. Antioch area T. : A 108+ acre area of unincorporated land substantially surrounded (93%) by the City of Antioch and within Antioch’s SOI. This island is generally bounded by 18th Street and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks. The area is predominantly residential, with limited commercial and light industrial, some open space including PG&E utility corridors, and a cemetery. The area is mostly built out. The City, County and LAFCO are currently in discussions regarding the annexation of the entire Northeast Antioch area. Brentwood area U. : A 140+ acre area of unincorporated land substantially surrounded (98%) by the cities of Oakley and Brentwood and within Brentwood's SOI. This island is located where Lone Tree Way intersects with Virginia Drive west of Brentwood Boulevard. Land uses include residential, commercial and agricultural. Brentwood area : A 151+ acre area of unincorporated land substantially surrounded (85%) by the City of Brentwood and within Brentwood's SOI. This island is bounded by Delta Road to the north and Brentwood Blvd to the west. The area is largely undeveloped. Land uses include limited residential and active agricultural (prime farmland). 19