Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01011989 - BOX1 KATHERINE KARPENSTEIN 137 CREST VIEW DR Y ORINDA CA 94663 C? k �- b 7Y) e 1 7 h crn-, cx 2 � RECEIVED ;JAN 11 1990 PHIL BATCHELOR CLERK BOARD Of SUPEP.YISORS CONT TACO. 0 .. Oe u cc: j�drd I�i�.vber� C47� 1 k t t n r c y 0= rrl 0 Q / O Q \ I C 1 }. AA i rV'v 714 I . ol Mrs. Richard T. Breuner 12 Brook6ank Road ori.&, CA 94563 (2/D l 1 , ii Shapell Industries I P.O. Box 361169 vT of Northern California Homes of Quality Since.1955 : 100 No. Milpitas Blvd. A Division of I Milpitas, California 95035 3 Shapell Industries, Inc. ' }.$ 408/946-1550 March 7, 1990JI 1 � a E Contra'. Costa County 'Community Development''DepartmentE�1 s ; tv �DEIR Draft } ` X651Pine., Street v r� 'Martinez; CA 94553 ''Aft .DennisBarry, Re:., Draft EIR for the Contra Costa County General Plan We find that a' number ,of' inconsistencies, -inaccuracies, omissions;' .contradictions ' and , speculation exist' . n ,the ; current':DEIR. , This :letter is'- meant.' to highlight 'a :few ,of + a ; i these -for your information and review. } .Most ' importantly', Contra Costa County'"and the lcityi of San ;Ramon' entered,,into; .a :Memorandum, o,f,,Znderstandi.ng,. for,.the - awn ; .` ' .purpose of, facilitating a joint:-" ann ng^ p'rocessf for 4, reviewing ':and t development of ;the . Dou hert Valle 'S ecfc g Y Y P Plan,.-for; ahe' approximately 6,OOOt,acres; n the study. area,of ! ;the'. specific::;plan This. ;document ;further designates 'the � ; � ! City of San 'Ramon 'as tYie ,le'ad 'agency for` the planning and development of` this' area, ;,,Finally; the :specific::plan : > AE; q"r r'sI itiff 4currently. ,underway has ',been ;designated i.by the "county as + preferred general ,plan ,amendment once it`has been completed No reference ,to the Memorandum of Understanding is made yin the DEIR'. ; The' .specific: plan ,:being.developed will address ,all of' the issues discussed in the' DEIRI 'and. wi1l� do `.so ; r ' ! comprehensively. Consequently, :all proposed; changes; ' land designations and "conclusions -made—without :the rrd+ completed specific .plan are speculative,' incomplete and subject to change' ory asi, •s ( 1 r "".7w," 44's , t ' . rit I 4a t e k s 1 A number of specific changes should be made to the DEIR. �.- The following is a partial. listing of these changes-. that we feel to be appropriate. page V-29. The reference to' EBMUD' s difficulty:° in serving the Dougherty. Valley is speculative as the district. . currently has' 'more than 20 MGD of unused ;capacity, :,an : amount that new terminal storageand the new American River. supply will only augment: While the actual demand '.for. water in the Dougherty Valley is ; still to be determined, a the need will certainly fall below .this amount now available. Concerning .water, the DEIR also fails to adequately address , the option. of the Dublin San Ramon. Services 'District for, .'- provision ,of potable water. to the Dougherty Valley. Officials of the district have been.. aggressivelypursuing this option and. have indicated their confidence that they y' ? ' Will be able to. service .the area t�.� G; .i .i, p{ •j 1 r� 'It' is also worth noting that the non-annexation policy of 'EBMUD is yet unchallenged and manY. ex ert's. question the . validity of the.-policy. Furthermore, , the `spread.:analysis ' r conclusions about infrastructure- costs' can!t be, calculated + r' ',' without a -determination of a 'service rovider. Finall P ;i + there is no reference to the concept of water .reclamati.on t - k which , is. beingstudied ..in 'the specifi.c,;;plan`_process 'Should a reclamation project be developed, '.the, cost ;of ' if ,-water -and the, demand for water would be :significantly. lessened. � �.•, .I i , � `: ,s ��, " �yiy,y��p 'r f =L'+h ' , f ' , •' : ;� 'F � C �,,,`,�li �' t%,� ! r�y;, a,' �i � ",J.��i 1 J ,�,,'�i u.V"s (z ��x�r 1 On Page VI-36. In. the last paragraph the' unit count '.;• ;� '4 0240 ''is in error_.' The specific . plan. has yet ,to .darrivew<<�,St�{333 a :unit` count although' the, number:;of .10,940 ;:has been =found a " '4 �'1I1 � ( •. I '. �� a. '• , � reasonable to ;ex ect when 'considerin the area from a P g ' � i ! } market. perspective. : This number is `meant as' a' point; of s' departure, a' number which' could increase or decrease S omewhat depending on other factors. - .On Page VII-27. In the first section, the statement the San Joaquin Kit Fox- has been located in 'the ,'Northern ;Dougherty Valley Area is in error., * To..'ourknowledge, there ' 'f' "i has never been. a sighting of 'the -Kit Fox' in....the-_Dougherty j sFC ;,Valley and we would respectfully request the source. of this ;. '-information as it is not cited in the, DEIR. iOn Page V-36. . There are many`differing acreage -amounts',,.. { .included in the .DEIR. The. amount.. on this ;page happens , to Shapell owns 2744�!�acres, t be 4,620. ' This is: in error..,: , -Windemere 2,360 for, a .total of ',S,l04 . -The., approximately '6,000 acres in- the specific plan ''studyA area' is .:arrived'''at when` adding the. nearly. 900 ,acres of ,Camp; Parks north'of county.- line. J1 N On Page VI-53.: The paragraph regarding. the deletion of the Priority General Plan amendment status should:'itself be deleted. The concept is entirely. consistentwith the M.O.U. and is also justified by comments- in the DEIR concerning the relative ,efficiency of developing ,areas that ; are adjacent to existing development, such^as the Dougherty . , Valley. Once again, . the county has already indicated it'.s intent to accept the results of . the specific plan as a ipreferred general plan amendment. It is hard •to-,understand why the authors' of the DEIR fail to consider'' this-' fact i when they make. this suggestion. We appreciate this opportunity , to :provide input on' the DEIR. •{ •Sincerely, ' ,,,� Ik SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF '.NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ;: 1"r 1 I � Thomas Koch R Forward. Planning Manager TJK:c lm cc Dan ' Hancock ; Art Lombardi I' San Ramon Cit Council ' r Contra Costa Board of .Supervisors i '_ , I JM1y, tlr 4 f .fi• 7 , r +�ti f �h.0 Herb Mohiz grit fia; � ,` { ! t', ti b ' �a 1� ii `: a d �'C ��}Ijlll�rll'�L Iij pj< '1•, .: rr z� L..- �. - {. f d � r , t �t �, z'� a ,t �t{i���,�:r �{�.a y r _ i 1 7 { S is 3 + i fi F• .E 9 'r i} I e [ I t• I f + �; I1. ] , 14. f , t IJp� .;� I �t I :-,i� ' is , :r ( I. ';I ",r 1T { 1x+'1, !('. t� �! S �� r I',v.•�'i� 1, 'Xwl t . ! r 4 a tl ,•_I �. t Tt+.;,fit �xn ', 7 til I I.. .j tSifl ,"e"Y' rya r>. '., t ' 1 :,;. ��., "�+ ' •,I r i .� fIt. '�'t I ! l �L"f tl.'•� t ����'��r1,4 ...1 I fi 1 Yf. t j,.7;�, 1I 1 � t. +flt 34 . 3.•.-, �� {':;. ti�, I,� �•� 1 i � _�� ,. �.j.. a b i � IPf)�I r'�"iC,l� J cJ���• {J1 t {. ^i .: r 6 ) ° 2, p�4`t Irti r Y1L k t 1 { f 1 -,..- �� :¢ :." .: .> •� - ..ry .., r. { gr �1, 'i�I(. $ ._rr'i ,�y.. } t? j t V y OF P1 M �D Pinole Ca 'U'ffoTlnus 2131 Pear Street, Pinole, CA 94564 (415) 724-9000 NO .EIVED January 29, 1990 FEB 51990 Nancy Fanden, Chairperson Contra Costa Count Board of Su ervisors - , c. :u�ERVISORS y p STA CU. 651 Pine Street, 1st Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: City of Pinole. Comments on Contra Costa County General Plan DEIR Dear Mrs. Fanden: The City of Pinole has reviewed the Contra Costa County General Plan's Draft Environmental Impact Report. This document indicates that the County's background assumptions concerning development trends in the unincorporated communities are based on the premises that many unincorp- orated areas will not be annexed by cities in whose Spheres of Influence they are located. Dennis Barry, the County's Plan Project Manager has assured us that these assumptions are not indicative of County policies concerning annexation of Sphere of Influence communities. However, we would like to emphasize that the disposition of the Tara Hills/Montalvin communities remains an open issue between the communities, the City, the County and L.A.F.C.O. Sincerely, 4.wv�eL rn c e&v7q Anna McCarty, Mayor City of Pinole AM/pcc cc: Dennis Barry, Contra Costa County Planning Division CC . I�i l�• n12�+►�'S CZD C+ eJOys 4131e L.., 9rJweOn.� C �� 1 � A,, ` / u j RECEIVED FEB 261990 PHIL BATCHELOR CLERK BOARD Of SUPERVISORS qe A CO. C T COST . De u Cal) Nf° Y 777 Los Palos Manor. Lafayette, CA 94549-5123 �••• February 21, 1990 �RECEIVPD Honorable Nancy Fanden FEB 2 � 1990 Supervisor, Contra Costa County 651 Pine S t. PHI(BATCHELOR ""� CLERK BOARD Of SUPERVISORS Martinez, CA 94553 co Srnco. e ............... De Dear Supervisor: We are writing to you asking the Supervisors to direct the County Planning Commission to formulate a Greenbelt Alternative to the County General Plan now under consideration. The plan as now presented seems completely inadequate to us for two main reasons: 1.it fails to protect: wetlands along the delta. 2. 'It fails to provide an effective plan to handle the. inevitable increased traffic flow from. the new development. Surely we can learn something from-our past failures to provide for transportation before beginning massive new housing such as occurred in Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill and Concord and more recently in San Ramon. Sincerely yours W.B. Scarborough Beatrice B. Scarborough e e . Ir CSD � EOR v February 15, 1990 RMCE1`V]ED Hon. Nancy Fanden Supervisor, Contra Costa County FEB s ��� 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 PMSAICMELOR CLERK I0AIV Of SUPERV CON STA Dear Supervisor Fanden: Thank you for your sensitivity to environ- mental issues in the past. As the pressures grow greater on you super- visors, know therels a lot of support for good. planning, and greenbelt preservation in this critical time. I feel very uneasy when I read the supervisors voting for a subdivision in an agricultural preservet I would like to see an urban limit line not be changed without a vote of the people. Maps in the paper would help t I would like to see collection of an agricultural mitigation fee on undeveloped lands inside the urban limit line, to be used to acquire conservation ease- ments and full fee title on Greenbelt land. I approve of a minimum 320 acre parcel size on grazing lands and a 40 acre minimum parcel size on prime farm lands . And define prime farm lands Broadly. I like the idea of all subdivided lands carrying deeds of restriction prohibiting further subdivisions. Our water resources are not unlimited. Oh, and while wetre in the midst of garbage dumps, and perhaps Keller Canyon the best, what are we doing about total recycling? That' s our answer. Dumps are just a stopgap. Sincerely, 111 C St. Carol N. Baier Martinez, CA 94553 NAI NT 10 N cDD f oR I a .] 0 Tassajara Now and Tomorrow 000 Z 3 1 Me rket Place, Surae # 176 San Ramon, CA 94Y83 Feb. 6, 1990 Contra Costa Planning Commission RECEIVED 651 Pine St. Martinez, CA 94553 FEB 2 0 1990 PHIL BATCHELOR CLERK BOARD Of SUPERVISORS Re: Contra Costa General Plan and E.I.R. on the General Pl •..•...... co. .. CosTA De ut Gentlemen, A number of serious issues threatening the future economic and ecological vitality of the County are raised by the proposed General Plan and need to be addressed fully. Areas Of Concern Near San Ramon. Dougherty Valley: Please refer to (attached) TNT/aua comment letter to EIR on San Ramon's Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment. The issues raised at that time remain pertinent now, and even amplified by prospects of 3600 units in an expanded study area compared to 2100 units in the smaller 'Amendment Area' addressed by the letter. We agree with the county's position at this time to keep the Dougherty Valley agricultural indefinitely while such issues as current -developments- traffic impacts are-realized and satisfactorily-dealt-with; and restrictions on large scale water service expansions are resolved. Of particular concern is the Crow Canyon Road / San Ramon Valley Blvd./ I-680 interchange. Already projected for grid-lock at peak hours in the next 10 to 15 years without the influx of tens of thousands of additional daily car trips by way of City of San Ramon development plans for Dougherty Valley. It seems painfully clear that until this and numerous other problems-primarily related to traffic - 1 FOR yOUR INFORMATIONVA I are resolved in such a way as to maintain what remains of the quality of life for San Ramon's residents, any plans to place thousands of new houses in the Valley-must.be considered premature. The County`s General Plan EIR should examine the environmental consequences of adding another 3600 or more units to the total already planned for the San Ramon Valley, since there is a reasonable probability that Dougherty Valley as a "Priority Amendment-`Area" will be allowed to be developed along the lines of San Ramon's proposal. Areas of particular concern should be traffic impacts and water service problems. Westside San Ramon: Please refer to attached TNT/aua comment letter on Westside Specific Plan EIR, and Preserve Area Ridglands Committee letter to County Planner, Jim Cutler. They enumerate quite well the vast array of problems associated primarily with the Norris Canyon Road sub-area of San Ramon's Specific P1_an.—an.area that is at this time under county jurisdiction. The. prohlems.:range from-'Williamson-Act-restrictions and Army Corp of Engineers permit requirements, to legitimacy of development planned outside all water service boundaries and without prospects of ever re- cieving such service. In addition it must be noted that allowance of construction of 450 millionaire mansions in this sub-area (vis-a-vis annexation by San Ramon) would virtually assure further destruction of the steep and scenically sensitive Westside ridges through a process of induced development. In light of the current absence of preserving safeguards, the horrible precedent set by the Norris Canyon Road plan would result in other neighboring property owners demanding the same kind of concessions for remote, high elevation.(1,300'iri this case%,.margin-Uy developable land. Again, because San Ramon is moving aggressively to develop this property, the EIR should examine the overall impacts on the region inclusive of the city's Norris Canyon Road plan. Schools 'Mitigation Inequities. Calculations in'' both TNT/aua comment letters enclosed demonstrate a shortfall of several million dollars in funding for new schools provided by the $1 .56/sq.ft. of housing floor space state imposed fees,for both San.Ramon's Dougherty Valley 2 plan and their Westside Specific Plan. In both cases it should also be noted the 26Q/sq.ft. commercial floor space fee would have only a minimal effect on the fees related funding deficiency. Ona larger scale this points up a basic unfairness in how growth related school facility expansion is funded, or - as is often the case - left unfunded. Since fees imposed appear clearly inadequate, the remaining funds necessary for school facility expansion must be taken from the current county population's tax base (whether it be federal, State, and/or county) . Effectively then, costs directly associated with growth are being subsidized by current residents. And because the extra funds needed to maintain school service levels are not always forthcoming, the general population will still 'subsidize'growth's impacts on schools anyway, by being forced -to absorb.the-cons(Bquent al.:..deterioration.:in.quality of this service.. The EIR needs to examine in greater detail both the-:.fairness and.-likely impacts on-.quality levels of-present .schools funding structure. Countywide Traffic Problems. As it relates to the county's freeway system, the General Plan seems to be nothing more than a prescription for disaster. In fact, the grid-lock projections for vital freeway arteries throughout the county represent the up side of the problem. In actuality, there will be untold thousands of additional cars- - on the roads over the time span of this General Plan as "priority" and even non"priority" city and/or developer 'pet project' amendments are attached one after the other — from Brentwood to Oakley to San Ramon. Continuation of past county amendment practices will cause an already grim traffic prognosis to turn catastrophic. Calculations done in TNT/aua's other EIR comment letters suggest that if costs to _fu11y mitigate the-maintenance. of present freeway and mass transit service levels were to be assigned to residential growth on a per unit basis, the fee would be a whopping $80,000 plus per home. The hard reality of what is actually necessary — just in the case of traffic impacts mitigation — for growth to pa its own way, has yet to be dealt with honestly by county officials. It appears to us only fair and reasonable that the causes - or, if you will; sources - of the negative traffic impacts: 1 ) certain growing county businesses, 2) residential (and to a lesser extent, commercial) developers, and 3) the new 3 residents (most of whom are moving into the new developments) be viewed also as the sources for funding full mitigation of those impacts. To do otherwise would simply perpetuate the present injustice (similarly being played out in schools and other county service funding strategies) of asking the current general popul- ation to subsidize the shortfall in growth's contribution:to necessary mitigation. And again,as with other county services, 'payment' toward- traffic`impacts -will be extracted in one,or both of two ways: By the levying of new; broad category, taxes and fees, or by forcing the .populace .to absorb further-reductions in­quality' of the_ given-service system. Difficult to administer TMS'es will prove, as in the past, to be of very limited usefulness as long as county residents percieve - quite correctly- that they are being asked to make major sacrifices because the causes of the increasing traffic are not. willing to do so. The traffic situation is made even more ominous by court ordered, environ- mentally based, freeway construction restrictions. And by present Federal plans to cut off funding for BART expansion. The net effect of the latter will be to stall indefinitely the Dublin extension.. There are at least two different forms of economic hardship resulting from the transportation systems envisioned in this General Plan. To the extent they fail, they will impose hundreds of thousands of lost 'man/hours' and leisure time upon the county work force. The $1 ,200 per person per year already being wasted in extra time and fuel spent in traffic conjestion will be pushed close to $2,000 as the commute times are extended by somewhere between an hour, and an hour and a half per trip. Just the minimum, planned for, conjestion will add greatly to the depletion of one limited resource - oil; while further dirtying another - our air. Conversely, to the extent they succeed, future-,freeways -will encourage the draining away of even more business from already troubled inner cities in and around the county. The aforementioned factors, as wellas'-all -others-bearing on'-the-matter, need- to be made paart of a more complete evaluation-,by the-EIR of'the economic and eco-' logical ramifications'of both traffic conjestion as -envisioned by the General Plan, and conjestion likely to occur as the expected series of amendments are added. European countries, Japan, and closer to home, the state of Oregon, and now even Alameda County have taken strong steps to manage- growth,. and control Open Space encroachments. In Europe and Japan,these measures have serded-. to enhance their. economic prosperity. They have come to realize, as should we, that transit (as well as other stretched and weakened service infrastructure) problems resulting from poorly or unfairly mitigated expansive development actually drain the economic vitality of A the very region the allowance of such growth was intended to facilitate. General Plan Legal Issues. Recently local chapters of the Sierra Club and the National Audubon Society filed suit to challenge the legality of an amendment to allow a huge Oakley development. The question being; how can you amend something you don't have? But the real issues go far beyond simply installing a new "General Plan." In legal terms the county General Plan is defined as its planning "constitution" and as such should be afforded the appropriate and careful reverence such a document is entitled to. Unfortunately, past actions by the county have demon- strated they view it as little more than a kind of "bulletin board" on which to attach the latest in an unending series of narrow focus, special interest (either a particular city or landowner or developer) amendments. A good recent example of this flawed approach would be the Blackhills General Plan Amendment. Since such amendments are essentially a reaction by the county to the demands and needs of a given special interest, andare often conflicting with the best interests of the general population, the legal soundness of a "constitution" (amended-or.-otherwise) 'being made .to--serve this.purposeneeds:to be -examined more closely by the EIR. A strong case could be made that what is occuring is nothing less than the subjugation of the rights of the majority. Which brings us to the more fundamental underlying issue: How to resolve the conflict of rights between the vast majority of current county residents and a significant minority of property owners possessing lands large enough to have potential for development. On the one hand property owners should have the right to do with their land as they wish - including develop it. On the other, the people presently living in a given area have the right to the maintenance of basic environmental and service standards, and to reasonable fees and taxes reflecting their fair share of substaining funds. The basic question that applies when a toxic waste dump is proposed next to a residential community; can it be allowed if it harms the people around it(?) , still applies when that proposal - supperficially at least - is more benevolent. Such as a residential development plan that will cause grid-lock on surrounding intersections, or reduce quality of education through overcrowding, or degrade a community's scenic and aesthetic appeal. Certainly, when the rights of two groups are in conflict and cannot be resolved to the mutual satisfaction of both, the ultimate resolution must necessarily rest on the fundemental principle that minority rights (whether they be landowner, 5 commercial or residential developer, or even city officials representing these interests) be rendered secondarytothe rights of the majority. In this part- icular case the split being roughly 97% vs 3%. Where the county has failed, and continues: to fail,, is in its reliance on a proccess that allows insufficent deference-to the rights, of the.,majority. TNT/aua Solution. The General Plan as presently formulated asks that we continue to accept and suffer the consequences of an out-of-date derivative of the old "frontier mentality" embodied in residential and commercial expansion concepts that no longer work. Such concepts are the nrdeim:'reality of limited water supply; limited money and land for transit expansions; limited capacity of air, land, and water to absorb increasing levels of pollution; limited tolerance of the present population to further destruction of one of the very last attributes of the region - the scenic and recreational qualities of the rolling hills open Space; and finally-- :theit -limited willingness andabilityto subsidize the widening gap between growth generated fundsi,--and-costs. The General Plan as presented deserves to be assigned the status of simply one of the more destructive alternatives to a lead plan Which would more adequately fulfill its responsibilities to the economic and environmental well being of the countyb--,-residents. We believe; a final draft-_:that, incorporates::as its.,functional basis ,the, proposals putforwardby Mc:xk--Evanoff and­Th6 Greenbelt Alliance-:represents, such a plan. Since they are obviously the culmination of a painstaking- and: altrdistic- ally motivated effort; generally unencumbered by the distorting effects caused by over-reliance upon narrowly focused, self-enriclu-nent oriente4 special interests; and therefore betterableto'grasp, and-deal withi, harsh modern realities.- Respectfully Yours -7 James P. Blickenstaf Rep., Tassajara Now and Tomorrow / a.u.a. cc:• various city, countyl and -state officials, and environmentaL.representatives- 6 PARC ��; PRESERVE AREA 1 r!1; • / �; �, . , ,.�,� ' • 6'� ', •1, ! 1 I , N RIDGELANDS COMMITTEE 1 + 1262 Madison Aver Jan. 24, 1990 Llvem►ore,CA 94550 James W. Cutler, LAF'`00 Planning Advisor Board of Directors ?resident* MCBrien Building, 8th Floor Marjorie LaBar 651 Pine St. 11707 Juarez Lane Dublin, CA 94568 829-6096 Martinez, CA 94553 yice-President, Margaret Tracy 1262 Madison Ave. Livermore. CA 94550 Dear Mr. Cutler, 447-0115 Secretary, Harvey Scudder 7409HanCA 9Drive Would you be so kind as to keep Preserve Area Ridgelands Dublin828-4995 Committee informed as to the scheduling before county LAFM Treasurer. Susan Coburn-Yaiom' of San Ramon's proposed annexation of the area west of the 1282 Wagoner Drive Livermore. CA 94550 city commonly referred to as the Westside Specific Plan area, Doug Abbott Dublin. CA as this information becomes available? aim Blickenstaff San Ramon, CA David Eller Some issues that bear on an annexation decision, and are Livermore. CA Stuart cuedon of particular concern to P.A.R.C., since they remain unresolved Fremont, CA at this time, are as follows: 1 ) Army Corp of Engineer Permit requirements, and California Dept. of Fish and Game restoration requirements subject to the planning area. 2) Lack of definitive plans for water service hook ups in the Norris Canyon Road sub-area, and prospects of continued unavailability of a utility for this purpose. 3) Legal appropriateness and/or necessity of early Williamson Act contract cancellations (One primary-property expires 1995, and one secondary property expires 1998) . 4) Possible conflicts between the Specific Plan hillside and creekbed protection provisions and those in the city's General Plan; as well as the possibility of conflicts with :tlwe 7pIar& lei vse -degignatiolis and those of the County's General Plan. 5) Discontiguous nature of the development planned in the Norris Canyon Road sub-area. In some respects, such as topography and access, this area could actually be categorized as isolated frcm the City of San Ramon. 6) Destruction of several turn of the century structures of historic significance along Norris Canyon Road (#'s 1860 thru 1890) :-necessitated by the Specific Plans required widening of this road. The structures in question being located in close proximity to the present road on the 'Thomas Ranch' property. 7) Overall likelihood that the 450 millionaire mansions planned for the Norris Canyon Road sub-area — an area extremely difficult and expensive to develop, and of high scenic sensitivity— may not represent the "highest and best" use of the land, and may, in fact, ultimately prove not to be "in the public interest." Respectfully Yours, James P. Blickenstaff, Director Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee c/o 2410 Talavera Dr. San Ramon, CA 94583 cc; D.E. Mansfield LAFCO Exec. Officer; City of San Ramon; Sierra Club, Bay Chp. 742 Los Palos Dr. Lafayette, CA 9454.9 Feb. 14, 1994RVIE. CEIVtTM Honorable; Nancy Fand'en . Contra. Costa County FEB Z X990 651 Pine �,t A, .' Martinez, CA 94553' PHu SnTCHEIoa ` CLERK BGIA.0 OF SUPERVISORS Dear Ms. Fandlen., .. osrn CO.en:, . . , We. ask you to vote against the new County General Plan an give your support to an alternative being presente.&,by the Mount Diablo Audubon Society (Greenbelt alternative), In par-ticular,, we beli=eve that the strongest measures possible should be `'taken to -*preserv.e prime farm land!,. Two recent events prompted me to write this letter.. First was a trip to Brentwood, where I saw that subdivision of land into building lats. has already, started'. Secondl, at the February meeting of the Mount. Diabl.o.� Audubon Society I. Searne:di that the proposed County General Plan wouldf le=ad- to: the. loss of much more agricultural, l=and.'. I feel that this,, issue goe=s far beyond, whether or not, we try to ensure that. people can continue, to watch bird's and:. to see scenic ridge:-- line.s from their homes,,:. though. these are important fa=ctors- in our quality of life. Also at stake: is our County's contribution to the. balanc=e of nature and': the maintenance of a strong agricultural e=conomy in oux^ State, and our Nation.. Thank you for your service to all of us here: in District Z. Sincerely, Thomas H. Schultz Florence Schul`.tz CC : lard- /Y►e c0� FOR YOUR INFORMATIINFORMATION. 1c4c •i of trl oa%dl RECEIVED I- RECEIVED �_ost nt a —�,Board of Supervisors rs 651 Pirie Stre.-t 1990 p .:RFEB 2 0 PHi? a�.TCHaOR _; _; 3_ C4 FRK P,OAR,)Q7 SUPERVISORS co Oe u I ,.i7:1 writing;C'#7,j'• yii'S!3 to de.ve.lop t'i1: its t�-A,�t %.3`_'° ti'Ct Eit;'-t�.o t�^.y.�-a c-t8�-i�'•_3iEi lis - -c 'r,_' 7 ytI :i land.ly l _ C r 'i -tq :y` rsti yy-- ; 3� >it- �} i'`I Ll�.t.:i'i. %iZ li dt.%�._.. t .i+i r�.ii�.:i it 1 _t_F= •l���a%or�.% eta.taI r~• s �r,e. �:•.. •nvati oln 01.open sCie. i'cei'• beco L% t;-�. r `_ds '_lo a .-•}!t a_ it { 1-3aIi.=p -Hv-1 a t Li�..r ,' a= r•-ssrarie?the e a'O f it } 3i"6.1 ,•�i balance, � }i p - r,- pt "'Vt- y to health,i, t3� ;__4•.i ij"�ai l•, 3�tLi�13 •ta'1£•14--Cli�l�:�5 dli• sYrs�.i '}a.�'i?.ii L3ti'.3 i�4.y lE.L•1 3i•'•�i.s�y a•Ltal.i. `3�Li'1.2 aiv+j.Et..af a L 1 n tui:�'i I o.a- riot i clequatel-i s>_'-%`case these;i,yoall=, i uiT,;p you to develop coherent and cc,J:iV.i_�%e-hertz v is planning t.i..i�i%'L-_tiles that j,-o l d�betterprotect ct thL",ple-Cli US.t;Yi:_f � o-.. ; � Le.l�.{•�LiW B�•u�`__L.recl a2•:'ri: • ir---y-,ours, - : 13 ull7't1�1a�� Si�a3_�rs, FOR � OUR INFORMATION CC d 11emhers CD RECEIVED ,,lav4 , C4 4&13-s FEB 2 0 1990 PNlt BATCHELOR ClF.Rk f1JARgC SUPERVISORS COSTA 5TA CO.. g ....... 0e ut food r" ,,Cd�i� Gam/-st,�Crx.,, � ► +�� yam- ¢. a4f 76 a �0'G�C' B�'t �yt�-�C��'� ,��'�. ► �,k,�{! �r ,ftp�.�,,�, ,,�� �a►�yo r;�o � y,�� rte"`' G�'rc.�o . cc, board MernAers C Z)o FOR' YOUR INFORMATION � j f REFI FEB 2: t f$2 I CtER $OAStO ! CC f / 41 al His}oc[a$�+a i JahN,�1u � vo 1 V r i CEIkED it FEB 16 1990PWt I 6 w I �! CLERK BOARD OF�SUPERY�SORS Fw d v7 A I (A vy) w r i bn I V) Yf cord o C i LV-OJ Pl rte �! Y--lei ,Cl tfr V)601 U-eJ Y) D vd-- r �v j V� t CA.,b (-C-,, 0�,0,OVA&V f a/u j hGi�-eG! Gym b Vo) m ►�l�Vw�'lA t/� No W vai � d i�� fro v� -U=VI I-�Gt Co 1�e-q CaA/-1 P),u M+ P� tKt 'J�CktVyto r� d/vc via� ode oa4—cl v\/el M( hwv-e� m t (i fvm ( l *1& "-2 0 wild (I�{ wh tp I6 FOR-YOU R-1-RF R T101 - ` ' THE LEVANBER'S 3142 INDIAN WAY LAFAYETTE, CA. 94549 February 5, 1990 - , A PLEA for the GREENBELT ` Contra Costa PlanninCommission 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 FEB 61990 !ECE'VEDFEB 61990CL PHi BALTCHELOPsop]CLERK BOAR�D OF SUP%6SORS' *tOSTA CO. Dear Members: We request that you develop a GREENBELT Alternative as7an alternate to the recent E7R that in our, opinion does NOT adequately mitigate the excessive loss of wildlife habitat, ridgelines, and prime farmland that still remains in our county. ` � ^ We have lived in Contra Costa for over, 26 years and have memories of better days with regard to quality of life and the environment. We both realize that "time marches on" and that progress requires c` anges and some resulting losses. However, Alameda has adopted a Greenbelt Alternative and certainly this county can do as well or even BETTER. ' Considering the problems we currently have with excessive traffic, garbage disposal , and housing on every scenic rise - please conserve as much open space for as long as possible. ' , ` ' Rod Levander Barbara L e v a n d e r, ` �M cc - ' Uy��K �� ���K�y���p8N8 ��8�� K�K �&� �� 8� ��� 8k�� ��8�XVuxxu °`~ - ` ���K� ^ v���" " ., - 1 - , MEG PALJILETIICI�P z 4- ✓,,��,—e .-�.-�..�-<-•cam,• .EC Sandra & Richard Smith FEB 1 1990 f 3238 Driftwood Drive Lafayette, Calif. 94549 PH CLERK?6A:'R Or SUPE.'i: Gi:S j Supervisor Nancy Fanden o co STA co. Ceputy Dear Supervisor, As a Supervisor you will have a crucial role in adopting a new General Plan for the county. As 25 year 'residence of Lafayette, we have seen an enormous deteriation in the quality of life in the Bay area in general and Contra Costa County in particular, es- pecially in the past 10-15 years . our area is becoming another San Fernando Valley and the Bay area another L. A. Basin, which is great if your main purpose in life is to accumulate as much money wealth as you can and concrete is an acceptable alternative to trees and grass. We prefer clean air and water, uncrowded free- ways, no more growth, extensive open space for people and wildlife, strict-limits on building sizes , etc. , etc. We vote (and support) , for those people who are most likley to agree with *this "vision" of civilization and pray that those that don't will qttbckly leave far L.A. , Mexico City, Tokyo etc. PLEASE, think about where we are rapgid.ly heading and vote on a General Plan for Contra Costa County that will stop this continuing short-sighted rush to human and enviromental disaster. Is it so hard. to see what is happening? Are you politicians , who are suppose to be our "leaders" , unable to say NO to the growth addicts ? We implore you to lead the fight to stop this insanity and educate/support/lead the fight to adopt a General Plan that looks beyond the next dollar and next election to a healthy, sustainable, ' - and desirable enviroment for today and for future generations . Sincerely, '0000Y cc: or4 ✓hem CDo 2/12/90 RECEIVED ED FEB 141990 Nancy Fanden cce¢x " U o cia°�Av,soas Supervisor- District 2 c ..q OSTACO. Q ....... .. De- Ms. e Ms. Fanden: I am concerned that the new County General Plan recently proposed will become- reality and thousands of acres of open space and agricultural land will be lost. The recent Environmental Impact Report identifies no adequate mitigation for the loss of wildlife habitat, scenic ridgelines, and prime farmland. Please consider adopting a Greenbelt alternative such as the one recently adopted in Alameda County which includes: 1. Designation of an urban limit line that will not be changed unless approved by a vote of the people. 2. Collection of an agriculture mitigation fee on undeveloped lands inside the urban limit line to be used to acquire conservation easements and full fee title on Greenbelt land. 3. 320 acre minimum parcel size on grazing lands and a 40 acre minimum parcel size on prime ,farrnlanc�s. All :subdivided lands will carry a deed restriction prohibiti�►g further subdivisions. The proposed general plan does not adequately mitigate for loss ;of agricultural lands. Traffic problems are not adequately dealt with. Other issues involve infrastructure, such as water and sewer facilities. Schools, libraries, police and fire protection are inadequate as- proposed. Let's protect our greenbelt. Our birds and wildlife have to have a place to live if they are to continue to exist in this area. TR-iank you for your consideration of these issues. - Yours truly, Mrs.76be (Mary) Greathouse 1485 Pacheco Blvd. Martinez, CA 94553 Or N, CZ: &Ora M&"6eW5 OWN C,DD RECEIVED FEB 1 51990 PN!L BATCHELOR CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C04Ti TA CO. G De ut I kourr �.. I OL ti ca: FOR YOUR INFORMATION l�v.cam� (',caU.n� (�tnr.�ctiSt. Pla.� �„nu�.nOnmt�l� �'^Povt P Y1� 0.da.Fcv-a�-. mv�i ovC�.�icr�. 4s�o wsAe� hc+Xi CA J�)cen« tU d S.Q...10.�c4 09 U1�c� Se R a S�St `ice kv Cari��nxut. 11? 2.xt,cat � ,�¢�„rl,el�fi- Urns+.. auL uv �'..4.,. `mCl�s. U�4M �0.C9 vC1n c� l CCS N@ f3t7 i { UuouAc}- lxt<x. lv � ems, Cxf�'Q`+.Ue�-k 0.Qle..lnc�kw� -vv.�l w x.X no t- bL c.Z,a,,yao\. tr, t� .fix v�rcil� t3�Cl- Vo Vo CLc a ccros�uo� cm, eara Yule l� cv..ci. ew" a G�ak& 31-koku.ckac^t yak A-0 t su o,,ssl�CLA, . tv. d_ SC K. OL 'Lo l osv-.,cs o SZ.c a 'La 11u �1 0.,, 1 aas GI cw C� �c��l noa C cv eti� __ C©r►tra Costa �oa,r Su�erv/sors Savt F►� S � /U crtn C y Fa L►d e v+ !os r Ovte Sfreef deb ( 2� q9a RECEIVED /A a r-+lIn e,zr CA Re ', .A 4,1 oV a Coup+y 6reeobe-If FEB 1 51990 Degr/Vavi ex Fa ti de k? PH!i.BATCHELOR CLERK BOARD OF SIiPERVt CONTRA COSTA C De u B fgar/freq (Gv► d wse ©6serV2r) C�nfu CoSt0 Is e_ Arrev►fly kl- COLIMI-y 0< ' COOCern, -T* /s My WidePe-f-OMIlhj -f-6f -Ii-h-�P- E-1 - vi- +�e. Piai4 sows "coh versl oth d-f -l,oysah ds o- �cre5 a� -�uem /00W 00 PrIme soils and lar NQneties /� ��� J,tl f is WG+lch pre . Vtfial G�c�bitcrt -I?Or- f Q local wl�ol h'-�e,i t►!s �folc►hheo/' Ur bay �fOc2�w.( -fy�ahs�'ers w�f11/�h j o� cl�llgrS ac�ciy �'vazv� -exlsf�h� cl4-►°e5 �f-�o+f' t122 a 4+15 M.c)H-ey ?& Pro vlde_ servl ees -Poe 4-Ae/r ci t"zeh�, CC�''v�Sf d, +AJ!; w►atle y worA (d k used Ito bLAjjj Mo;-P, SG(�oofs� �-!re Sfa1-fc)hS/ �a7 fr�i115/fig wader 44 sewer AockyPs !h tie w s�.burb s, wAi l e 44e Itipler elfles will 5e- skor-i- et,.ayeW, MGhQY .l-S -Mee- e(1 !h c/fles lake Olf-t5 W►� civ, d X/cl,m0m4 -)4zs 69434 ct-lune ecv, j glue schoolCAtldreh cam -e �-eh etignce, Planned j�row*A hi •exlsfilhy ctl-/es wild by/h-9 �0,S1h� e to ;se r 'tD jobxv hod- �ur�Inev-awe y, T�is will r-e ea l t m Jess AIS f0fto-Hoti Ghd be+ter- heo/*4 4r area resiiem4s, 14 rec-eri-�-- lawswl?c �rovlyAl' -(Ap 4-4e 'polv?+-J- m -- +A-e Qlr /r, *4.e So, Area uwa s hd- ril ComPllailce WI*A '/-<7e C(4rreMf laws,-,A ll. of 4/5 call die GccOmpllsl,ed by adupf0*oyt o6reQ►nbelf lAlavl . -5wor� — aii Ur bail /1Mlt l/h e. e011ecf'loh o' o;l eijrlcullure mdoyoflorl -�ee oto . rvf�d e ve lu�-eel l a v► d !a Sld� f�� U r�cr� ✓✓I!w►!�`- /l h e/ i h iuf icA -dee will be ysecl -�v acpylre cov)-se rva+Yloh 124Semem4 oiiJ -f'�4 -re-e 0k too d s o�tslWe `1-4 e 11H e'!h f�e ire eve be hj'ih/wtt4;4, prcel gIZes ,, Grcrz/r►7 -- 320 4cres� /°y/fie Fa,-w, lcnof— yDgcres,14ll Stibd/✓lal20l wl/l Carry a deed res�rlclloh 4vevevt-f10, -� ur4er ScA bdlvlslah s, �"Lte Greev► belt P/qh wlll ylve t-�,e ea�rvt�Y cc �iX a-f' sae-litrclb/.e clfiits, PwduCtive Farm avtid rahctie5 erv►d PVvfeC*Cli., 04 ke.00A-CN/ ope.h hlll s (rad vcrl/ey S, Xti cf cr e/fcht�h e� rLrte/!>�y o 11 {'e -7-14at4k you r yG Nr ct-f" em-flbii �ft;> 4-k s N-e, e re�'}! CoD FOR YOUR INFORMATION 1 i+ ED FEB 151990 `t CIFRt �1 C COST.CO. De o �. I ju. a -t,4- �� f .�,,E,,.�, ,�f-C< .L'�``'L.t•-GL./i� �G�Z2.c��-c��t.-Q-�� a yqd- ' ION FOR YO', FCr y W czj> R RECEIVED EC JDFE8 1 51990 -: BATC"E.CLERK BOARD OF.SUPFRV15COSTA CO. If D .......... aC)p Q n d 0 i p i Q•iI Alaki p`,/ w/ * a 4 �a Get..-&W, Gam, bd P'kll a �► v, G-h° % 0&ecc 11.111 o4e- ow4cdwi�(7 taAz6 ma�- n .8 +7 e / ' i � G�'Irj��.Itr%�t�' &7v i p O C , Sy' 4 cr ©Hallmark Cards,Inc. i GCs B o&td J'ti'It'A%J*6 1..Z O Mr.&Mrs.Timothy J. Ryan 258 Augustine Drive Martinez,CA 94553OR It OR AT 'S I YOUR 1 DONALD E. YODER 2021 PTARMIGAN DRIVE NO. 1 ' WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595 415 937-5974 I 0 February 13, 1990 937-5974 ECEI 9 ED • I Honorable Nancy Fanden, Supervisor District 2, Contra Costa County FEB 1 *1990 651 Pine Street OR Martinez CA 94553 PHA BOARD PER CiERK HOARD Or"SUPERVISORS CON STA CO. LOX .......... De ut Re: Vision for a Better Contra Costa Dear Supervisor Fanden I sincerely hope that the Board of Supervisors will enact sterner measures for the welfare of Contra Costa County than those present- ly proposed by the General Plan and its EIR. There is already so much semi-developed land available within the corporate limits of towns and cities that it seems blind and unthinking to take addit- ional tracts from open areas for additional development. It is probably much nicer for developers to work on 'clean' unclut- tered land when they lay out new housing and business projects— easier than dealing with whatever may exist on urban land that will have to be built around or cleared before they can proceed. Whether they take new agricultural land, fill in wetlands for construction, or clear cut timber--what do they do when those assets are gone? They can't pay any sum of money to replace ridges--or farmland-- or wetlands. Money won't buy such things because they are simply irreplaceable. It is past time for the County--THE SUPERVISORS--to draw a line on developable areas at the edge of urban confines, and to keep the Greenbelt green. As a member of our Board of Supervisors I ask that you support the goals of A Vision for a Better Contra Costa--to preserve what is left of the reasons we came to this County. Sincerely, MEMBER Donald.E_,E_., Yoder qov cc: bo rd 1Qn. ber5 (00041ded) �® GD D The North American Bluebird Society 4790 Venner Road Martinez, California February 12, 1990 RECEIVED Honorable Nancy Fanden FEB 14 1990 Contra Costa Count PH!LBA y OFSUPER CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 651 Pine StreetC r co CO. E De ut Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Supervisor: Please do what you can to develop a Greenbelt alternative for Contra Costa. Let us not lose thousands of acres of open space and agricultural land. Let us not lose wildlife habitats, scenic ridgelines, and prime farmland . Not just the birds, but we, need the protection of a Greenb'&Jt. Now is the time. We can win ! Instead of greenbacks let it be a greenbelt for the peace, saftey zihealth of the land, now and in the future. Please work for the Greenbelt Alternative : Sincerely, liz eta J. Smith (Mrs. C. C. ) Member Mt. Diablo Audubon Society C� Charles C. Smith cc: m� COD AOR 1 /70 14 ccs,hc co_'�a c � RECEIVED /`�a�i,i�Q 2, �' I 9�l 5 5 3 F E B 13 1990 1 PH4 BATCHELOR CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C OSTA CO. 6 ............ T De ut �r� a C�i'V�f�il.CV I cv, . (•'7 •S Ol.�.`Ei'il t\&-h t/� `5 1-"J-c - l/1_a 6�� r) CX fU%! cy�11 Ul Gy. I (� \Jb ovy\ un t-cum- toy� 6,,L �k + unr c.-- /na f Gt. char\ ce &(1,b_ao aff Olt C( va cx Q_r �'u/L eA-0 q c,lk `cam �L cli�, 4 F Gtr TQ aC �`i/II� COYI St�IWCi QCt11P l�Y,vnks �hri CvrC. (�V1 _3_20 a CA /?-J(,Vi IYuvrn- �Wt U1. Cil% a /,/I , 1 ( r ( Cin Ge d (A C/UL 1tit M,�l l t rn 59 C✓�C -� 5;-Zz (��.- k-5,0- COvVh-I c-In - S r Ov� oKo V I ^t?/ -/2�/t`�VF/l ,�1 G + 1 J 7.�]C hA oy\ oa- 4S PCCG�2e i1(,(, ;��`�`f-�` Gtir� QA k f_nYNAJa l t 5 crw,\d__ 9 vhvL, t PIO,n1 �cL Cc* -hG C_ca4rA_ cowy, "17,cvh y /P G I f. 6A a1Y\dJL0W - CA 94S-23 CD 1) FOR FOUR INFORMATION D r 1990FEB 13 t 21-01 D OF snow, 0,4raw VIA 5 o0 W ■%' . � � � Ali["��,_�� �, � � � �!� �G -i - .� F . i J1 / j rAC - N / HOWARD STURTZ, M.D. MEDICAL CORPORATION ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY DIPLOMATE AMERICAN 1479 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD BOARD OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY SUITE 101 WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94598 TELEPHONE:14151 933-1333 February 12 , 1990 ECIV Honorable Robert J. Schroder FEB 13 1990 Contra Costa County OP Board of Supervisors PHARDOiL SUPE p CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 651 Pine StreetCON A STA CO. B .............. e u Martinez , California 94553 Dear Mr. Schroder: I am one of your constituents, living in Walnut Creek. It has been brought to my attention that an environmental impact report for the new County General Plan has been released and makes no pro- vision for reserving open space or agricultural land. Such acreage is necessary for native wildlife, as well as migrating species such as birds. The quality of life in this County is closely related to the rural character of our surroundings. If no provisions are made to preserve this , we shall become more like Oakland or, worse, Los Angeles . I therefore hope that you will address this issue adequately so that we may preserve the superb quality of life in this County. Sincerely yours , oward Sturtz , M.D. HS :dee Ca: . bond A&"6,,PT CDD Steven A. Tischler, D.V.M. 46 Silverwood Drive Lafayette, Ca. 94549 Honorable Nancy Fanden R.ECEIVEIJ Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street FEB 13 1990 Martinez, Ca. 94553 PHIL BATCHELOR CLERKCO ARD OF STA RV SORS B De ut Dear Supervisor Fanden: The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the new County General Plan that has been released will result in loss of thousands of acres of open space and agriculture land. This will greatly impact wildlife habitat, scenic ridgelands, and prime farmlands. Mt. Diablo Audubon Society has proposed to the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, and will do same to the Board of Supervisors in an upcoming meeting, a Greenbelt alternative. This Greenbelt alternative will help insure that development does not go rampant; that assurances are made for wildlife preservation, preservation of our beautiful hills, traffic problems, schools, etc. We must not let developers ruin our county with their greed. Please listen to this Greenbelt alternative and I hope you can support it. Sincerely yours, Steven A. Tischler, D.V.M. cc : L�bCird (neh C-D tD i GAc4ata amovEllon 1414 Ga91e I(Polnt 02OUZt —rafayette, eaflfotnia 94549 February 12, 1990 ECE IVES The Honorable Nancy Fanden County Supervisor, District 2 F E B 13 1990 Contra Costa County PN!i.BATCHELOR 651 Pine Street CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Martinez CA 94553 ora a�cosrnco. Deputy Dear Ms. Fanden, I understand the Environmental Impact Report for the new County General Plan has been released and offers no adequate mitigation for loss of wildlife habitat and prime farmland. We have lived in Lafayette for nearly five years now, having moved back to the Bay Area after a seventeen year absence. Four of the most recent non-Bay Area years were spent in Los Angeles, so I believe we can speak with first hand knowledge about the perils of overdevelopment. I am very concerned that Contra Costa County is rapidly beginning to look like the worst of Southern California, with the most attractive natural settings being bulldozed for houses, office buildings and shopping malls and with stop-and-go traffic congestion increasingly becoming a way of life. Contra Costa County still has attractive open space which can be saved for future generations, but only if the Supervisors exercise wise leadership now and over the next several years. It has been suggested that a Greenbelt Alternative be developed similar to what has been done in Alameda County. This is an excellent approach and I hope you are fully committed to developing and promoting such an alternative. Ample open space and a rich diversity of wildlife are high on the list of things that make life worth living. Please do everything in your power to help retain these features for those of us who love living in Contra Costa County. Si , cc: Editor, Contra Costa T' es Editor, Contra Costa Sun CC: r3oa4d Me&t6e.s �m February 12, 1990 RECEIVED Honorable Nancy Fanden FEB 13 1990 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine StreetL P1I:L6ATC"ELCR CLERK 80 OF Of SUPERV:SORS Martinez , CA 94553 Cor sraco. Deput Dear Supervisor Fanden: It has come to our attention that the County General Plan recently released will be a disaster in terms of the quality of life of our county. Loss of prime agricultural lands is, in our opinion, one of the most serious features of the Plan. This, together with traffic problems and water and sewer inadequacies , make the Plan totally unacceptable, in our view, and we urge you not to approve it We were heartened by the move by Alameda County to protect their greenbelt and feel such a direction should betaken by the supervisors of Contra Costa County in order to protect our unique semirural environment, Sincerely, Barbara Vaughn S . , Clyde Vaughn 59 Donna Maria Way CC: hoard Me her' Orinda, CA 94563 CDD FOR FOUR i FORM TION. i 4190 Irene Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Honorable Nancy Fanden Contra Costa County 651 Pine St. Martinez, CA 94553 RECEIVED February 10, 1990 FEB 131990 PHIL BATCHELOR CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OSTA CO. Dear Supervisor Fanden, e Deur We are writing to you to express our strong opposition to the current Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the new County General Plan. The Mt Diablo Audubon Society has just proposed to your Planning Commission that Contra Costa County make provisions in their General Plan for the mitigation of the loss of wetlands and undeveloped areas. We believe that this is of vital importance to both the citizens of this county and the wildlife which migrates through, and lives in,this county. Another major disappointment to us was finding out that Contra Costa County does not participate in the development of a Greenbelt Alternative. Other counties throughout the Bay Area are assisting in this development and we are upset that our county is not also participating in this program. We hope that you vote to repair the damage done by the County's EIR to the new General Plan. We also hope that you vote for the Greenbelt Alternative and also lobby with the other four supervisors for the passage of this program and the protection of our undeveloped lands. Thank You. Sincerely yours, Bonita C. Charyn and Jo M. Stafford CC: Booud rpem&rs COD on tg� JP February 13 , 1990 ������ Hon . Robert J. Schroder Supervisor , District 3 Contra Costa County FEB 13 1990 651 Pine Street PHIL BATCHELOR Martinez, CA 9 4 5 5 3 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C OSTA CO. Dear Mr . Schroder : I am writing this letter to voice my objection to the EIR for the new County General Plan . If this report becomes a reality, thousands of acres of open space and agricultural land will be lost , with no adequate mitigation for the loss of wildlife habitat , scenic ridgelines , and prime farmland . This is an outrage and a disaster for the quality of our life as we know it . I am tired of having to constantly keep a watchdog attitude towards county planners who seem to be at a loss for any creativity or willingness to compromise on a rational level . God knows we who care about the environment have enough to do in our daily lives without having to be on the alert and take action for every measure that will have a negative impact . We try to vote for people who we think will do the work of creative planning that will prevent our environment from being paved over for the sake of development and greed . Why not take a positive approach and develop a greenbelt alternative? I , and many like me, favor adopting the policy that is already in effect in Alameda County: 1 . Designate an urban limit line that will not be changed unless approved by a vote of the people . 2 . Collect an agriculture mitigation fee on undeveloped lands inside the urban limit line . That fee will be used to acquire conservation easements and full fee title on Greenbelt land . 3 . Set 320-acre minimum parcel size on grazing lands and a 40-acre minimum parcel size on prime farmlands . All subdivided lands will carry a deed restriction prohibiting further subdivisions . If the EIR is adopted as it stands , I , and other members of the Mt . Diablo Audubon Society, will be prepared to join together and take further action on these vital issues . 1 cerely, i an Sullivan 312 Garden Creek Place Danville 94526 CC ; �o lnem&'S GDD - nYO INFOR UION • February 10, 1990 Honorable Robert J. Schroder RECEIVED Contra Costa. County 551 Pine Street FEB 13 1990 Martinez, CA 94555 1 PHU BATCHELOR CLERKB0.4RDOFSTA RViSORS Q De ut Re : County General Plan Supervisor Schroder I have heard about something called a Greenbelt alternative that was adopted in Alameda County. It sounded like that alternative incorporated some important policies that will help balance their County General Plan. I am very much interested in having a similar, strong alternative here in Contra Costa County. It seems to me that having parcel size minimums and deed restrictions that prohibit further subdividing might be good ways to ensure that some green remains in our county. I have a couple of perspectives that I'd like to share with you. I've noticed the obvious difference in how the Town of Danville and the City of San Ramon seem to be handling their development. Danville has some ridge]ines and green remaining and visible from the 580 corridor. San Ramon on the other hand seems to have rows of houses on their ridge 1 i nes. i prefer the look of Danville, and hope that you and our county representatives can provide us with a plan that will give us the "Danville look" instead of the "San Ramon look". I've also been to hike and visit the Columbia Gorge many times over the last ten years. There I have found examples of deed restrictions prohibiting further subdividing in order to retain the beauty of the Gorge. in addition there is 'a Gorge Commission that concerns itself with maintaining this resource as well. Sometimes it means taking a strong stand to ensure that our future generations have some of what we who experience "progress" had occasion to experience. I'd like you to consider my position as you plot our course for Contra Costa County. Sincerely, cc B004 Member-> FOR YOUR IN ORMATIOIN February 12 , 1990 155 Sugar Creek Lane Alamo 7 Honorable Robert J . Schroder , C. EI `� S D Contra Costa County 651 Pine street FEB 1 3 �ggo Martinez , California 94553 PHiI,BATCHELOR CLERKCBOOA_RD Of SUPEP.VISORS OS[" CO. e ut Dear Mr . Schroder : ¢ As a resident of Contra Costa County , I am concerned about the impact .of the new County General Plan on our environment . I believe the plan to be irresponsible and wasteful , as well as impractical . Please , consider instead the Greenbelt Alternative being presented by the Mt . Diablo Audubon Society . The Alameda County Board of Supervisors recently rejected that county ' s plan to develop all farmland . I urge you to do the same . Thank you for your time and consideration . S ' ce ly Mark A . Amorose CC: ZoQ.-d /hem'x6 February 11, 1990 RECEIVED FEB 13 1990 PHIL BATCHELOR CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CO STA Dear 14.s . F aln d e n, Is, ._...... DegutX It has come to my attention that a new County General Plan has been released, a plan Which Will cause the loss of wildlife habitat as well as scenic ridgelines . I I thin',, you ' ll agree With me that Contra Costa County is a wonderful. dace to live for many_ reasons,, not the least of wbich is the visibility of undeveloped bills in all directions. As a 20 year resident of Martinez, I ' ve seen ,ianv beautiful hills covered with houses, many ridgelines encrusted with condominiums. It seems that if we want to retain our standard. of living, we have to stop development and now. I went to school for 3 vears in the Los Angeles area, where wildlife is almost nonexistant. There Were perhaps 3 different species of birds seen withany regular .frequency around where Ilived. In Martinez, the number is immense. I dOTI ' t want to see the Bav Area turn into another L.A. I The T,,It. Diablo Audubon Society has develor)ed ideas for a Greenbelt alternative to the nronosed -olan, including tie designation of an urban limit line. Please consider the beauty of the Diablo Valley, and --,lease consider their pro Sed alternatives to the new Count- General Plan. T11,ank you. .Z Sincerely, ))4y ,� �t�4 Jennifer 14. Harniter cc &0dZ4 Me,^Jw-^ czv, -�- From: DOC: :STROMGREN "THE PHANTOM" 10-FEB-1990 00:39 To: STROMGREN Subj : GREENBELT ' HONORABLE NANCY FAHDBN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 PINE ST. MARTINEZ , CA. 94553 AT ROGER STROMGREN 4765 DUARTE AVE . OAKLEY, CA. 94561PH!L BATCHELOR CLERK BOARD OF SUPEMSORS (415) 625-0755 DEAR NANCY FAHDEN, I MOVED TO OAKLEY TWO YEARS AGO. IN THAT TIME I HAVE SEEN MANY HOMES CONSTRUCTED WITH ALMOST NO REGARD FOR THE LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THIS AREA. ALSO, LAGGING FAR BEHIND DEVELOPMENT ARE CONSIDERATIONS FOR ROADS, WATER, SEWER, SCHOOLS, PARKS, LIBRARIES, POLICE AND FIRE . AS A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY AND THE MT. DIABLO AUDUBON SOCIETY I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT A GREENBELT ALTERNATIVE . I DREAD THE THOUGHT OF LOSING THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AND SCENIC RIDGELINES. PLEASE GIVE THE AUDUBON'S RECOMMENDATIONS SERIOUS CONSIDERATION. AS YOU WELL KNOW ONCE AN ENDANGERED SPECIES BECOMES EXTINCT NOTHING YOU OR I DO CAN BRING BACK THAT RICHNESS IN OUR LIVES. SINCERELY' pov9t�- 44,lrn� ROGER STROMGREN 1�oaKdMe0mbIluwNp"o ~-/ =D4D �ku�� February 10 , 1990 Honorable Nancy Fanden Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine StreeRECENT" Martinez , CA 94553 FEB 13 1990 Re : Contra Costa County General Pl.an PHILBATC+'.'``;�ViSORs Environmenal Impact Report QERCC). O , co. De g Dear Supervisor Fanden : The recently-released Environmental Impact Report for the new County General Plan provides no mitigation whatsoever for the thousands of acres of open space and agricultural land which will be lost under the General Plan . Wildlife habitat , places that birds and other wildlife need , will be lost . Please don ' t let this happen . We need to develop a Greenbelt alternative such as the one adopted by Alameda County . Specifically , this should include designation of an urban limit line that will not be changed unless approved by a vote of the people ; collection of an agriculture mitigation fee on undeveloped lands inside the urban limit line , to be used to acquire conservation easements and full fee title on greenbelt land ; and a 320-acre minimum parcel size on grazing lands and a 40-acre minimum parcel size on prime farmlands . All subdivided lands will carry a deed restriction prohibiting further subdivisions . Other issues which should be addressed are traffic problems , infrastructure (water and sewer facilities ) , and adequate provision for schools , libraries , and police and fire protection . The new county General Plan is an opportunity to plan for growth in a responsible and farsighted manner. Don ' t let the opportunity pass by . Please see that these issues are addressed , and that an adequate greenbelt alternative is developed before the General Plan is adopted . Thank you . Sincerely , Laura C. Penniman OR 3053 Mayhew Court Walnut Creek , CA 94596 cc: Board members (p�rovidedl cow c/ • February 10 , 1990 Honorable Nancy Fanden RECEIVED Contra Costa County County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street SEB 1 3 1990 Martinez , CA 9455.3 PH!L BATCHELOR CLERK BO' OF SUPERVISORS Re : Contra Costa County General Plan B CO STA CO. De U, Environmenal Impact Report Dear Supervisor Fanden : The recently-released Environmental Impact Report for the new County General . Plan provides no mitigation whatsoever for the thousands of acres of open space and agricultural land which will be lost under the General Plan . Wildlife habitat , places that birds and other wildlife need , will be lost . Please don' t let this happen . We need to develop a Greenbelt alternative such as the one adopted by Alameda County . Specifically , this should include designation of an urban limit line that will not be changed unless approved by a vote of the people ; collection of an agriculture mitigation fee on undeveloped lands inside the urban limit line , to be used to acquire conservation easements and full fee title on greenbelt land ; and a 320-acre minimum parcel size on grazing lands and a 40-acre minimum parcel size on prime farmlands . All subdivided lands will carry a deed restriction prohibiting further subdivisions . Other issues which should be addressed are traffic problems , infrastructure (water and sewer facilities ) , and adequate provision for schools , libraries , and police and fire protection . The new county General Plan is an opportunity to plan for growth in a responsible and farsighted manner. Don ' t let the opportunity pass by . Please see that these issues are addressed , and that an adequate greenbelt alternative is developed before the General Plan is adopted . Thank you . ' ncereIy , s r S . M. Babbitt � 3053 Mayhew Court Walnut Creek , CA 94596 cc: Bard �=&.mbers (provided) CDo qc, o M \jtorr , vim. ao DAD 6ax-Q ." r S ajorab �Sand, Sandra Stites 2069 Lupine Rd Hercules CA 94547-1104 RECEIVED CC : Bodra (riemket-5 FEB 13 1990 VvD PH!L BATCHELOR CLERK BOARD Of SUPERWSORS C T COSTA CO. ICY . •.... De ut �I RECEIVED FEB 12 1990 PM!71 RAfC4El,?It CLERK BOARD,'�F SU?E^.YISURS C COST�.CC. a Ge^uh I A-d- -0-0.e� v� - Jl • �1D i M `1c3zt,2 livf0 4050 Poplar Ave. Concord, CA 94521 February 9, 1990 Super-:visor Sunne Wright McPeak RECEIVED Contra Costa CountyFEB 12 1990 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 PH:L BATCHELOR CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CO' RA STA CO. e ut Dear Sunne: D Contra Costa County has always been a desirable place to live with its open space, scenic ridgelines, wildlife habitat and prime farmland. These amenities give us breathing room and spiritual renewal. We are greatly concerned that the Environmental Impact Report for.-.the new County General Plan would allow thousands of acres of open space and agricultural land to be lost. How can the biological diversity be maintained if the habitat is not adequate to support golden eagles, mountain lions and other species? Where will we get our food if the prime agricultural land of East County is lost? We go to Brentwood every year to get fresh wonderful produce. How will we have clean air to breathe if all this development takes place? We urge you to develop a Greenbelt alternative by: 1. Designation of an urban limit line that will not be changed unless approved.. by a vote of the people. 2. Collection of an agriculture mitigation fee on undeveloped lands inside the urban limit line. That fee will be used to acquire conservation easements and full fee title on Greenbelt land. 3. Setting a 320 acre minimum parcel size on grazing lands and a 40 acre minimum parcel size on prime farmlands. All subdivided lands will carry a deed restriction prohibiting further subdivisions. cc, Boor d m eovbevs C�� p 1 Page 2 The proposed general plan does not adequately mitigate for loss of agricultural lands and goes not adequately deal with traffic problems. Other issues involve water and sewer facilities, schools, libraries, police and fire protection. We urge you to protect our County and preserve a healthful environment both for ourselves and other species. Sincerely yours, { ISRECEIVED FEB 121990 PH:LaATCrfF IOR - • � CLERK BOARDSUPERW. CO A- TACO. De ut c1 A Alo" 3, .3 67 6 A/ � . • i CCs l3,oa Ld m/ S '� _ . r f -•f"'..S' a..L^-SKLS.�l.1F.. ._` .. ... ._ ... �.'{J K✓iJ{�. . .�C"�VdJ _. _ .1J`�;l�e�"�Z��/'U�/✓�.c. 'yN� V`. _ 09 96, L 0// PC`_�" ALI- ` � �,` 1 , ���'�' ._•-- ,fir,,�,t,.�.•�-.'' � f� q ow � �►��.�y � �`-fie -.' �, -�-'� , cut 0. ":.ECEIVI" FEB 12 1990 PHIL BATCHELOR CLERk BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C OSTA CO. cc ! GDID RECEIVED February 10, 1990 FEB 12 1990 Supervisor Nancy Fanden c�Fax„HIL 3TC EL EevIsozs Contra Costa Count CO. .. TCU. y a ........... 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Nancy, I am concerned that. the EIR for the new County General Plan does not offer adequate mitigation for the loss of wildlife habitat, scenic ridgelines and prime farmland. Nor does it deal adequately with traffic problems. The degradation of our environment can be slowed by limiting urban sprawl ,,and zoning grazing lands to 320 acre minimum parcels and prime farmland to 40 acre minimum parcels. I Ask that you work for the development of a greenbelt alternative like that in Alameda County. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, �fTl.v.2,A - Louise Harvey Clark 6 Blackthorn Road Lafayette, CA 94549 CL Gm February 10, 1990 RECEIVED To: Supervisor Nancy Fanden, District 2 FEB 12 1990 From: Mrs. 1"ary Jeanne Will � PRIM BATCHELOR CLERK BOARD F SUPERVISORS Subject: Environmental impact Report for the new e C OSTA CO. puty County General Flan The EIR for the new County General plan must be revised. As written the EIR does not adequately address the problems of loss of agricultural .lands, traffic problems, infrastructure, loss of bird habitat and wetlands, loss of scenic ridgelines. It is imperative that a positive alternative be written. This alternative should include the following three points: 1 ) Designation of an urban limit line that will NOT be changed unless approved by a vote of theep ople. 2) Collection of an agriculture mitigation fee on undeveloped lands inside the urban limit line. That fee will be used to acquire conservation easements and full fee title on Greenbelt land. 3) 320 acre minimum parcel size on grazing lands and a 40 acre minimum parcel size on prime farmlands. All subdivided lands will carry a deed restriction prohibiting further subdivision. Please note that the above points are desperately needed to protect what little green space is left in Contra Costa County. Thank you for your time and consideration. Mrs. Mary Jeanne Will 105 St. Mary' s Ct. Martinez, CA 94553 415/229-0175 W r Board Members (provided) C.DD I ]EEVED 2 1990 / CHELORCf$UPERv.soesO$TA CO. t 5 - --� 7 cc . ffioe ,loeo 1 �Q��yam_ ��:•�'�� �� Clot) C` L /57�� RECEIVED -JI :PVED JAN 30 1990 DN BATCHELOR _ CLERK BOARD D OF SUPERVISORS CO STA CO, D.J. Contra Coate County Planning Commission Jan 29 1990 651 Pine Street Martinez, Ca. 94553 Re: Draft General Plan Dear Commissioners The Greenbelt Alliance informs me that the Draft General Plan EIR has been released and still lacks mitigation for I the lose of open space and agricultural i6nds: I have Written twice before (Aug 1 1989 & Sept 19 1989) concerning these losses and the impact on our quality of life' j I again ask youto consider a Greenbelt alternative as a mitigation measure. The highlights of the Alameda ,plan pointed out by the alliance are very appealing. Sincerely DougnBu gle 39 Fountainhead Ct. Martinez, Ca. # 94553 Copy: Nancy Fanden CC: 3100.V,4 fiWpaxr. 1 C-DD A) RECEIVE JAN 3 0 1990 ML BATCHELOR CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS day COF;Tf STA CC, 9 e ut ?_ A/a 1 4 a1�Ic 9 f c c�m �cv� A0---z>aeAA*4� r est L,.� RECEIVED F E 8 6 1990 plia e4'rc"f'02 CLE"BOt$u6Y1504S cogpsta a oe u . res John Fredericks 1145 Glen Rd Lafayette CA 94549 1242 Redlands Way Concord, CA. 94521 12/26/89 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors c/o Clerk of the Board 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA. Dear Chair Torlakson and Members of the Board: As residents of .Contra Costa County for the past 17 years, we are greatly disturbed about what may happen to our county. The proposed County General Plan is unacceptable. By opening up vast tracts of open land to development, this plan will destroy our county as we know it. We support A Vision for a Better Contra Costa. Please incorporate it as an alternative in the Environmental Impact Report on the General Plan. You hold in your hands the future of county residents and their children. Please have the courage to take the bold steps to preserve our open space. Thank you. Sincerely, RECEIVED Rami Kahlon � DEC-2 81989 ( ,-,", " - PHIL BATCHELOR Ravinder Kahlon CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Q COSTA CO. iVijlr ?�^ C�x'Id►1� I B .......... Brij finder Kahlon Cc : a oCerd rht4jW v,5 y�� ul' OCT 3 Q 1989 S RTS1'r_;.GF' SUPEFY;SORS co, CO. Lis.. f DOROTHY ADLE 3526 Boyer Gircle Lafayette, Califgrnia 9454 11 7 SQ I/�uu K �. CZZ) h 0 4012 Clinton Ave. Richmond, CA 94805 October 25, 1989 TREP CE 1V E. Mr. Tom Powers "OCT,2 71989 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 100 37th Street 6/,T HEL0R Richmond, CA 94805 D OF OSTACUSORS De u Dear Mr. Powers: I am writing to urge you- to set definite and conservative urban limit lines in the County General Plan now under consideration. Development of the areas proposed to be annexed to various east County cities will create worse congestion on the roads, increase air pollution, destroy valuable farmland, and exacerbate all the other problems associated with urban sprawl . The minimum acre parcel size should be set high, similar to the 640-acre plan proposed for Alameda County. The General Plan should encourage development within existing cities and urbanized areas. There is land in most communities which could be developed without serious adverse impact on the environment. Revitalize Richmond. Keep, people close to service areas of public transit so they can reach their jobs without adding cars to the freeways. Preserve our open space for clean air, recreation, farming, and visual appeal . The County General ; Plan should be a _true county-wide, coordinated plan, with one Environmental Impact Report, rather than a series of individual city plans. It's time for the inter-connectedness of all county communities to be recognized. And time to plan forhousing and jobs that won't encroach on our greenbelt. Sincerely, rr � U (Mrs. ) Clem H. Underhill cc: lerk, County Board of Supervisors Cc: 3 -d mgrs CID D% REFiE 1 IEF I V E D 1008 Willow Drive SEP 2,0 1989 Lafayette, CA 94549 NA!1 35ATCHE'.CR CLEPK,.DsR0 OF SUPERI:�ORS September 18, 1989 (-U �D Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Chair Torlakson and Members of the Board: We want Contra Costa to be a pleasant place to live in the year 2005, even more so than it is nowt Therefore we urge you to adopt a general plan with: I Specified priority growth areas and corresponding regulations that direct growth first to incorporated areas with adequate services and then to areas contiguous to incorporated areas where adequate services exist or can be efficiently provided. Protection of the Greenbelt,including but Aot limited to sensitive wildlife and plant habitat areas, agricultural lands, scenic ridge- lines, recreation areas, wetlands, and lands unsafe to build upon such as flood plains and landslide areas. City centered growth patterns which make transit feasible and eliminate the need for any new major highways. Provisions for affordable housing close to jobs. The Oakley Plan and the Bethel Island Plan should be evaluated with the County General Plan in one EIR. Unless the above provisions are firmly incorporated in the new General Plan, our county will suffer in many ways, in our schools our libraries; money for r0 dway improvement will be lost, drinking water quality will deteriorate, growth will be chaotic, public health and safety will be threatened, wildlife will be gone, and homegrown produce no lon%r will be available. 4 Wouldn't it be better for us all to share in compensating the East County farmers and owners of wetlands who may want to sell out for big bucks to the hungry developers?, We should be especially leery, I think, Of Wastq­­Mana gemep't, the Chicago firm which is the largest scavenger in the nation'.---They'want to make the millions from our garbage and care little about the livAbility of our countyp as shown by their pressure for the Marsh Canyon site. When all the EIRs are in, I hope you will choose the Keller Canyon site as the most economical and best for the environment of all the pro- posed landfills. This would be in accord with a desirable General Plan. Sincerely yours, X, Bob and Dorothy Headley L4 � ' t4 RECEIVED i=P �_10 1989 PHIL BATCHEL0 LBy ERK[i0ARD OF SUPERV150R;, CONTRA COSTA CO. Deputy Sept. 19 1989 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors c/o Clerk of the Board,, 651 Pine Street Martinez, Ca. 94553 Dear Chair Torlakson and Members of the Board: On Aug. 1 1989 I wrolte you that I felt the new Draft General Plan for the county missed the mark. On Aug. 29 I received a response from Mr. Harvey E. Bragdon of the Community Development Department. Mr. Bragdon's reply assumed my source of information was a Sierra Club publication - this is wrong. Mr. Bragdon's reply assumed I had not read the Draft Plan -this is also wrong. And so on. I think the Draft Plan does not adequately assess our current conditions. Realistic assessment is the first step in adequate planning. As one of many possible examples of the plan's shortcomings, I suggest we consider traffic. I think any central or west county resident can describe the traffic jams and grid lock that we encounter mornings, nights, Saturdays, Sundays, mid-days, off hours, etc. On page 128 of the Draft Plan, this nightmare is casually referred to twice as "weekday peak period congestion" under the heading "Existing Travel Demands. " This sort of ostrich attitude can only aggravate our current problems. And so on. Like Pangloss, this plan assumes what we have is the best we can get. I think we can do better. Just because this plan is "General" doesn't mean it can't be tough minded. I again ask you to reconsideralternatives. Sincerel , !otlgess� 39 Fountainhead Ct. �_ Martinez, Ca. 94553