San Ramon City Council
September 27, 2022

Acknowledgements
The vision document exists in no small measure because of the contributions and support of many individuals and organizations. The information as well as insights and constructive critiques provided greatly enhanced its depth and relevance and facilitated its evolution and completion. The willingness of OSAC members, including Lorraine Kalich, Bob Peoples, Sally Scholl, Henry Perezalonso, Diana Korpi, Seth Adams, Julia Oseland and Eric Wallace, City Council Liaisons Scott Perkins and Mark Armstrong and former Chair Jon Miklos, to initiate the project is much appreciated. Their steadfast support, encouragement and understanding as the initiative evolved and grew in scope was essential. City Parks and Community Services, Planning, Engineering and GIS staff, especially Kathi Heimann, Keith Hasse, Lauren Barr, Robin Bartlett, Kira Evers and Deputy City Manager Steven Spedowfsky provided invaluable insight, information, technical support and helpful critiques. EBRPD officials and staff, including Beverly Lane, Neoma Lavalle and Matt Moore, were open to the Committee’s initiative and very forthcoming with useful information about the goals of and key role of East Bay Regional Park District in protecting, preserving and managing open space. Daniel Barrios of the County Williamson Act Program provided significant information and insight about that important protection tool and its application. Numerous residents and other individuals, sometimes unknowingly, contributed information and insight about open space and natural area values and issues, past preservation initiatives and helpful reactions to ideas and concepts under consideration as the effort evolved. The involvement and contributions of John Youngblood, Phil O’Loane, Jim Zelinski, Susan Freidman, Bill Clarkson, Doug Graver and Doug Krak were especially helpful. Apologies to others who assisted in so many ways, but are not specifically recognized.

Vision Document 8-8-2022 Page 23 of 55

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – APPENDIX A – 2013 OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION PRIORITIES
Vision Document 8-8-2022 Page 24 of 55

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – Vision Document 8-8-2022 Page 25 of 55

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – Vision Document 8-8-2022 Page 26 of 55

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – Vision Document 8-8-2022 Page 27 of 55

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – Vision Document 8-8-2022 Page 28 of 55

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – Boundary Definitions
City Limit
A city limit is the limits of the area occupied by the city or town. This boundary provides a city with ultimate control over land use decisions.

Planning Area
A planning area is the area, in which a planning agency’s judgment, bears relation to a city or county’s planning needs. This area may extend outside the city or county limit. The planning area is established as part of the preparation of a general plan or amendment for a city or county. A city has no land use authority if lands are solely located within this boundary.

Sphere of Influence (SOI)
An SOI is the physical boundary and service area that a local government agency is expected to serve in the most efficient way for the residents and property within a given area. A city has no land use authority if lands are solely located within this boundary.

Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
The UGB is the limit of urban development and services, which is established by the City of San Ramon, and serves as a tool to protect scenic and natural resources, preserve open space, and encourage infill development including efficient municipal services such as sewer and water. A city may have land use authority if lands are solely located within this boundary.

Urban Limit Line (ULL)
The ULL is the limit of urban development and services, which is established by the Contra Costa County, and has the similar effect to the City’s UGB.

ATTACHMENT A
Vision Document 8-8-2022 Page 29 of 55

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – Vision Document 8-8-2022 Page 30 of 55

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – Vision Document 8-8-2022 Page 31 of 55

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – Vision Document 8-8-2022 Page 32 of 55

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – Vision Document 8-8-2022 Page 33 of 55

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report –

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report –

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – APPENDIX B – MAPS
The four maps included in this report, including the three segment maps in this Appendix, were created by City of San Ramon GIS staff based on requirements and guidance from the Protection and Preservation Subcommittee.

GIS staff also provided consistent area estimates for parcels and other property rights. That professional assistance and advice was crucial to the relevance and effectiveness of this document and the vision it presents.

It is much appreciated!
Several factors affect the accuracy of the maps, particularly the “map projection” employed and the accuracy of the features represented on the maps. Metadata looks behind the maps and inside the black box of GIS software to identify key parameters used to create the maps and measure acreage. This includes the map projection involved and other technical specifications. If differences with other maps and acreage estimates are identified, this information allows a determination as to whether the discrepancies are the result of the technical specifications employed or some other reason assuming metadata is available for the other estimate’s source.

METADATA
● Parcel boundary data and most acreage estimates are from Contra Costa County Assessor data. ● The map projection employed is: NAD 1983 State Plane California III FIPS 0403 Feet (WKID: 2227). ● ArcMap, version 10.8, was used to create maps and measure parcels and attributes. ● Where area was calculated, the ArcMap measurement tool based on Gauss's Area formula for calculating the area of a polygon was used. Gauss’s formula is also referred to as the shoelace formula.

ACCURACY
As noted, another significant influence on the accuracy of the maps as well as parcel and other area estimates is the quality and timeliness of parcel boundaries defined and the resolution and validity of available attribute information. Parcel boundaries are derived from Contra Costa County assessment maps, the most accurate, up-to-date information available for such a large area involving many parcels. A few adjustments of Assesor data were made based on the Protection and Preservation Subcommittee understanding of and insight about a few parcels.

The Assessor maps are repeatedly scrutinized by landowners and others resulting in continual refinement thereby enhancing their validity. They are considered the most reliable universal source of information about parcel boundaries available, but are perfect. The information provided does not constitute a legal property survey! Nonetheless, that information is very useful for visualizing and understanding ownership patterns and property rights involved across all three segments addressed in the vision document.

Information about the location and extent of the numerous parcel attributes being considered is from many sources whose reliability, accuracy and timeliness is likely highly variable and often unclear. Substantial effort is devoted to obtaining and validating information about the location and extent of attributes on each parcel.

Measurement of metrics associated with the attributes using available information is feasible. Given potential limitations, however, that data is best considered a general indicator of magnitude rather than an accurate value.

It is subject to revision as better information, including ground truthing, becomes available. Despite possible limitations, measurements of parcel and property right area and the extent of attributes is very informative. It can and should be considered in decision making.

Parcel and protection status maps for the Westside Hills, Crow/Bollinger Canyon and Tassajara Valley segments are presented on the following pages.

Vision Document 8-8-2022 Page 36 of 55

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – Vision Document 8-8-2022 Page 37 of 55

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – Vision Document 8-8-2022 Page 38 of 55

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – Vision Document 8-8-2022 Page 39 of 55

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – APPENDIX C – PARCEL IDENTIFICATION, NUMBERING, PROPERTY RIGHTS Effectively communicating the increasing complexity of open space ownership to diverse audiences is crucial to the effectiveness of this vision document and a challenge. The solution adopted is to have segment maps simply display parcel boundaries along with limited information about broad categories of ownership and the degree of protection provided. The intent is to avoid clutter, confusing “noise.” Inclusion of “trails” highlights an important value, but does not add noise. The following parcel list, to be used in tandem with the maps, identifies ownership rights associated with each parcel to illustrate the complexity of ownership. The maps are “cleaner” making them much easier to understand while the parcel list provides details of ownership rights. This approach was conceived in response to difficulties encountered trying to depict the complexity of ownerships encountered in developing the vision document. Those difficulties will only become more problematic over time. This approach is a crucial and integral element of current efforts.

Base properties, i.e. the fee title, are assigned a unique three-digit number in three series corresponding to the three segments–100s for Westside Hills parcels, 200s for Crow/Bollinger Canyons parcels, 300s for Tassajara Valley parcels. As in 2013, numbers begin at the southern end of the Westside Hills segment and increase clockwise around the City. The highest parcel numbers are at the south end of the Tassajara Valley segment.

Less than fee title rights associated with a parcel are indicated by capital letters following the parcel number. Only parcels with some protection beyond that afforded by planning considerations are so identified. If more than one distinct property right is associated with a parcel it is listed separately. The following letters designate the property rights involved:

C - Conservation Easement D - Potential Dedication E - Emergency Vehicle & Maintenance Access G - GHAD H - HOA Common Area LB - Lease Back M - Mitigation Agreement O - Other (specify right) R - Right of First Refusal S - Scenic Easement T - Trail Easement W - Right of Way (ROW) WA - Williamson Act
In some instances, especially involving fee title, one or more property right letters separated by dashes are included. The dashes are minus signs meaning the first right identified is subject to the right following each dash.

All parcels owned by a single individual or other entity are aggregated. Parcels in close proximity are grouped in “areas” in addition to segments. Subtotals for each owner, area and segment as well as a grand total are provided
Initially, parcel and property right acreage estimates from diverse sources had to be used. Those varied sources included the 2013 effort, other studies and maps, deeds, surveys and tax records. Multiple estimates for a parcel often differed to varying degrees, but were sufficient to develop this vision document. Late in the process, a single method for determining area with known accuracy became available. City staff used tax assessor parcel information to develop consistent estimates of each parcel’s area and, where necessary, property right using GIS software.

This is a work in progress so parcel information as well as the totals may, are likely to, change over time as more information is uncovered, parcels are reconfigured and/or other reasons. Some parcel numbers also may change.

Available ownership information and current estimates of acreage for each parcel and property right identified is presented in the following table.

Vision Document 8-8-2022 Page 40 of 55

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – 9/7/2022
1 Parcel Owner Acres Rights

WESTSIDE HILLS SEGMENT
Laborer's Area
101 Nor Cal Laborers PFT, LLC 50 91 Fee
102 Nor Cal Laborers PFT, LLC 22 38 Fee-RoFR-TE
102R EBRPD 22 38 RoFR
102T EBRPD TE
103 Nor Cal Laborers PFT, LLC 72 77 Fee-RoFR-TE
103R EBRPD 72 77 RoFR
103T EBRPD TE
103a City of San Ramon 5 51 Fee
104 Nor Cal Laborers PFT, LLC 20 44 Fee
104R EBRPD 20 44 RoFR
Subtotal, Nor Cal Laborers 166 50
104a City of San Ramon 0 53 Fee
105 EBRPD 174 36 Fee
106 Robert J Nielson, Tre 33 23 Fee
107 Nielson Ranch Partnership 36 84 Fee
108 Nielson Ranch Partnership 85 33 Fee
108O PG&E transmission line easement
Subtotal, Nielson 155 40
Subtotal, Labors 496 79
Henry Ranch/Circle E Area
109 Jacqueline Starkweather 151 57 Fee-O
109O PG&E transmission line easement 32 11 O
110 Gary Sellani 5 62 Fee-CE
110C City of San Ramon 5 62 CE
111 Starkweather 49 29 Fee-CE-TE-O-W
111a Starkweather 1 21
111b Starkweather 40 11
111x Circle E HOA 7 97
111C City of San Ramon 49 29 CE
111T City of San Ramon TE
111O PG&E transmission line easementO
112 Starkweather 5 69 Fee-CE-TE-O
112a Starkweather 0 11
112b Starkweather 5 58
112C City of San Ramon 5 69 CE
112T City of San Ramon TE
112O PG&E transmission line easementO
Subtotal, Starkweather 206 55
113 Phillip N & Pamela G Henry, Tre 105 09 Fee-2CE
113C Contra Costa County 105 09 CE-CE
114 City of San Ramon 18 62 Fee
115 Henry Ranch HOA 4 80 CA-TE
115T City of San Ramon TE
115a Henry Ranch HOA 3 75 CA-TE
115aT City of San Ramon TE
116 Henry Ranch HOA 10 97 CA-TE
116T City of San Ramon TE
Subtotal, Henry Ranch HOA 19 52
Subtotal, Henry Ranch/Circle E 355 40
Gelderman Area
117 Thomas N Henle, Tre 142 65 Fee
118 Thomas N Henle, Tre 95 57 Fee
119 Owens Realty Mortgage, Inc 20 21 Fee
120 HOA 4 90 CA
121 HOA 2 78 CA
122 HOA 1 83 CA
Subtotal, HOA 9 51
123 Thomas N Henle, Tre 11 98 Fee
124 Thomas N Henle, Tre 27 99 Fee
Subtotal, Henle 278 19
Subtotal, Gelderman 307 91
Weidemann Ranch/Bishop Ranch Regional Open Space Area
125 EBRPD 19 16 Fee-SE
125S Norris Canyon Estates HOA 15 66 SE
126 EBRPD 3 99 Fee-SE
126S Norris Canyon Estates HOA 1 32 SE
127 EBRPD 339 27 Fee-SE
127S Norris Canyon Estates HOA 68 33 SE
128 Wiedemann Ranch, Inc 5 54 Fee
129 Russell Fields 42 09 Fee-TE-EV
129WA Contra Costa County 42 09 LCC
129T EBRPD TE
129E EBRPD EVMA
130 Wiedemann Ranch, Inc 22 26 Fee-SE-TE-EV
130S Norris Canyon Estates HOA 15 58 SE
130T EBRPD TE
130E EBRPD EVMA
131 Wiedemann Ranch, Inc 129 85 Fee-SE-TE-EV
131aS Norris Canyon Estates HOA 23 59 SE
131bS Norris Canyon Estates HOA 35 30 SE
131T EBRPD TE
131E EBRPD EVMA

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – a Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – a Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open 9/7/2022
3 Parcel Owner Acres Rights
210C City of San Ramon 101 00 CE
210G Northwest San Ramon GHAD 187 00 GHAD-CE
210a Northwest San Ramon GHAD 4 99 GHAD-CE-W
210aC City of San Ramon 2 00 CE
210d City of San Ramon 13 46 Fee
211 Jeffery Fagundes 111 94 Fee
211WA Contra Costa County 111 94 LCC
212 Faria West 16 70 Fee
213 EBRPD 110 77 Fee
214 EBRPD 55 35 Fee
215 EBRPD 8 01 Fee
216 EBRPD 196 04 Fee
217 EBRPD 126 50 Fee-LB
217WA Contra Costa County 126 50 LCC
Subtotal, EBRPD 496 67
218 7 70 Fee
219 Charles M & Lorraine P Farr 60 01 Fee
220 Michael T & Adele Warholic, Tre 71 72 Fee
220WA Contra Costa County 71 72 LCC
221 6 15 Fee
221a 8 79 Fee
222 Paul & Karlen Mueller, Tre 263 13 Fee
222WA Contra Costa County 263 13 LCC
223 Elaine R Maier, Tre 104 45 Fee
223WA Contra Costa County 104 45 LCC
224 20 68 Fee-W
225 81 26 Fee
226 22 72 Fee-W
227 21 59 Fee-W
228 Elisa Dowd & Douglas Graver 21 26 Fee-W
229 57 84 Fee
230 10 68 Fee-W
231 5 62 Fee
232 5 22 Fee-W
233 6 06 Fee
234 5 16 Fee
235 8 09 Fee
236 29 41 Fee
237 Industrial Area 23 72 Fee
Subtotal, Bollinger Canyon 1,996 36
Subtotal, CROW/BOLL. CANYONS 2,277 28

TASSAJARA VALLEY SEGMENT
300 0 86
301 Catherine Foley 69 78 Fee-WA
301WA Contra Costa County 69 78 LCC
302 13 91 Fee
303 47 85 Fee
304 16 13 Fee
305 7 17 Fee
306 45 75 Fee
307 13 31 Fee
308 40 88 Fee
309 Zia Zahiri 39 63 Fee-WA
309WA Contra Costa County 39 63 LCC
310 Owen M Schafer, Tre 54 84 Fee-WA
310WA Contra Costa County 54 84 LCC
311 Meach LLC 249 13 Fee
311D 249 13 DE
312 24 23 Fee
313 22 38 Fee
314 Phillip A & Lori L Wolfe, Tre 79 51 Fee-WA
314WA Contra Costa County 79 51 LCC
315 Phillip A & Lori L Wolfe, Tre 71 96 Fee-WA
315WA Contra Costa County 71 96 LCC
Subtotal, Wolfe 151 47
316 10 78 Fee
317 10 80 Fee
318 BI Land LLC 129 91 Fee
318D 129 91 DE
318W ROW
318a BI Land LLC 1 77 Fee
318aD 1 77 DE
319 Clausen Investments LP 41 03 Fee-WA
319WA Contra Costa County 41 03 LCC
320 30 11 Fee
321 Frank J Bonde 19 10 Fee-WA
321WA Contra Costa County 19 10 LCC
322 Frank J Bonde 36 25 Fee-WA
322WA Contra Costa County 36 25 LCC
Subtotal, Bonde 55 35
323a 17 27 Fee
323b 2 00 Fee
Subtotal, #323 19 27

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – a Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open 9/7/2022
4 Parcel Owner Acres Rights
324 TH Land LLC 238 30 Fee
324D 238 30 DE
325 Clausen Investments LP 9 97 Fee
325WA Contra Costa County 9 97 LCC
326 Rasmussen-Wheeler Enterprises 85 47 Fee-WA
326WA Contra Costa County 85 47 LCC
327 Gordon R & Karen Rasmussen 102 26 Fee-WA
327WA Contra Costa County 102 26 LCC
328 J C Rasmussen Land LLC 30 24 Fee-WA
328WA Contra Costa County 30 24 LCC
Subtotal, Rasmussen 217 97
329 7000 CMP LLC 179 94 Fee
330 11 08 Fee
331 10 37 Fee
332 Timothy Clancy 35 75 Fee
333 79 33 Fee
334 Brown Ranch 111 00 Fee-M
334M 111 00 M
335 William C Newman 126 94 Fee
335WA Contra Costa County 126 94 LCC
336 Robert & Chelsea Bonavito, Tre 79 98 Fee-WA
336WA Contra Costa County 79 98 LCC
337 Robert & Chelsea Bonavito, Tre 80 11 Fee-WA
337WA Contra Costa County 80 11 LCC
Subtotal, Bonavito 160 09
338 Martin L Sherman, Jr 115 09 Fee
339 Martin L Sherman, Tre 20 87 Fee-WA
339WA Contra Costa County 20 87 LCC
Subtotal, Sherman 135 96
340 Tassajara Associates 137 25 Fee
341 Charles & Diane Richey, Tre 303 04 Fee-M-WA
341M 303 04 M
341WA Contra Costa County 303 04 LCC
342 Charles & Diane Richey, Tre 41 51 Fee-M-WA
342M 41 51 M
342WA Contra Costa County 41 51 LCC
Subtotal, Richey 344 55
343 Windemere BLC Land Company 66 78 Fee
344 31 91 Fee
345 Ed & Wilma Shannon 23 92 Fee-WA
345WA Contra Costa County 23 92 LCC
346 Windemere BLC Land Company 19 19 Fee
347 Windemere BLC Land Company 66 59 Fee
Subtotal, Windemere BLC Land Co 152 56
348 17 07 Fee
349 Leland Roy Moura, Tre 61 17 Fee
350 Leonard J & Margaret Silva, Tre 20 00 Fee-WA
350WA Contra Costa County 20 00 LCC
351 20 11 Fee
352 11 45 Fee
353 6 01 Fee
354 5 77 Fee
Subtotal, TASSAJARA VALLEY 3,239 04
TOTAL 8,715 07
RAP:9/3/2022 OS/Protection/2022 Vision/Lists/Parcel Area 9-3-2022 gsheet

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – a Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open 9/7/2022 1
Vulnerability
In UGB In ULL Ownership Other Term. Existing Protection Perm. Phys. Util. Devel. Area Imminent Trail Parcel Acres Acres % Acres % Zoning Change Activity LCC Type Acres % of Prot. Access Access Acres % Threat Gaps

WESTSIDE HILLS
Laborers Area
101 50 91 5%
102 22 38 OS X RoFR L
103 72 79 3 44 5% 6 40 9% OS X RoFR L
103a 5 51 5 51 100% 5 51 100% P E
104 20 44 20 44 100% 20 44 100% HR X RoFR L X
104a 0 53 0 53 100% 0 53 100% Det E
105 176 02 OS X Fee E
106 33 23 OS X
107 36 84 X
108 85 33 X
Henry Ranch/Circle E Area
109 151 57 OS 2%
110 5 61 OS CE E 50%
111 49 29 21 18 43% 28 84 59% OS CE, CA E 10%
112 5 69 5 69 100% 5 69 100% CE E
113 105 09 OS W 2009 CE E
114 18 62 18 62 100% 18 62 100% P Fee E
115 1 78 1 78 100% 1 78 100% OS-1 CA, TE M
115a 3 75 3 75 100% 3 75 100% OS-1 CA, TE M
116 10 97 10 97 100% 10 97 100% OS-1 CA,TE M
Gelderman Area
117 142 65 4 48 3% 4 48 3% OS X
118 95 57 79 44 83% 83 28 87% HR X X
119 20 21 20 21 100% 20 21 100% HR X 35% X
120 4 90 4 90 100% 4 90 100% CA M
121 2 78 2 78 100% 2 78 100% CA M
122 1 83 1 83 100% 1 83 100% CA M
123 11 98 OS X
124 27 99 OS X
Weidemann/Bishop Ranch OSRP Area
125 19 16 OS A Fee 19 16 100% E+
SE 15 66 82%
126 3 99 OS A Fee 3 99 100% E+
SE 1 32 33%
127 339 47 OS X A Fee 339 47 100% E+
SE 68 33 20%
128 5 54 OS X
129 42 09 OS X
130 22 26 OS X CA 22 26 100% M
SE 15 48 70% E
131 129 85 23 33 18% OS X CA 129 85 100% M
SE 58 89 45% E
132 82 37 OS
133 67 06 62 36 93% OS X
134 5 88 5 88 100%
135 5 05 5 05 100%
136 1 78 1 78 100%
137 1 87 1 87 100%
139 12 56 CA M X
140 54 33 OS X X SE 4 11 8% E X
141 74 78 A Fee E X
142 366 99 47 60 13% Fee E
143 42 59 42 56 100% 42 56 100% OS CA M
144 9 00 9 00 100% 9 00 100% OS
145 10 11 CA M X
146 1 90 D
147 36 02 14 18 39% Part CA M
147a 4 40 4 40 100%
147b 1 15 1 15 100%
Norris Canyon Area
148 116 74 60 45 52% HR W 2008
149 30 94 30 94 100% HR W 2009
149a 7 64 7 64 100% OS CA M
150 149 67 44 44 30% OS WA M
151 20 97 0 66 3% OS WA M
152 5 76 OS WA M
153 4 30 4 30 100% OS WA M
154 14 81 14 81 100% OS
155 6 41 1 00 16% OS
156 2 54 1 00 39% OS
157 5 11 1 00 20% HR WA M
158 3 55 3 55 100% 3 55 100%
159 20 10 20 10 100% HR WA M

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – a Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open 9/7/2022 2
Vulnerability
In UGB In ULL Ownership Other Term. Existing Protection Perm. Phys. Util. Devel. Area Imminent Trail Parcel Acres Acres % Acres % Zoning Change Activity LCC Type Acres % of Prot. Access Access Acres % Threat Gaps 160 38 69 38 69 100% OS WA M X
161 92 70 92 70 100% HR WA M X
162 76 09 76 09 100% OS WA M
163 17 49 17 49 100% OS WA M
164 13 28 13 28 100% OS WA M

BOLLINGER/CROW CANYONS
Crow Canyon Area
201 43 34 43 34 100% Fee E
202 8.70 8.70 100% CA M
203 5 06 5 06 100% CA M
204 27 45 27 45 100% CA M
205 194 64 60 39 31% 59 91 31% HR X X M 120 33 62% M-E X X 205a 2 67 2 67 100% 2 67 100%
205b 0 44 0 44 100% 0 44 100% P
Bollinger Canyon Area
206 6 03 X
207 175 76 WA M
208 69 90 X Fee E
209 71 28 X Fee E X
209a 3 80
210G 192 00 192 00 0 95 CE 103 00 54% X
210a 4 99 4 99 0 50 CE X
211 111 94 WA M
212 16 70 WA M
213 110 77 Fee E
214 55,35 Fee E
215 8 01 Fee E
216 196 10 Fee E X
217 126 50 A 2020 Fee E X
218 7 70
219 60 01
220 71 72 WA M
221 6 15
221a 8 80
222 263 13 WA M
223 104 45 WA M
224 20 68 X
225 81 26 X
226 22 72 X
227 21 59
228 21 26
229 57 84 X
230 10 68
231 5 62
232 5 22
233 6 06
234 5 16
235 8 09 X
236 29 49
237 23 72 X

TASSAJARA VALLEY
300 0 86 X Fee 0 86 100% E
301 69 78 OS WA M
302 13 91
303 47 85
304 16 42
305 7 17 OS
306 45,75
307 13 31
308 40 88
309 39 63 OS WA M
310 54 84 OS WA M
311 249 13 OS X Fee E
312 24 23
313 22 38
314 79 51 OS WA M
315 71 96 OS WA M
316 10 78
317 10 80
318 129 91 OS X Fee E X
319 41 03 WA M
320 30 11
321 19 10 WA M

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – a Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open 9/7/2022 3
Vulnerability
In UGB In ULL Ownership Other Term. Existing Protection Perm. Phys. Util. Devel. Area Imminent Trail Parcel Acres Acres % Acres % Zoning Change Activity LCC Type Acres % of Prot. Access Access Acres % Threat Gaps 322 36 19 WA M
323a 85 79
323b 70 05
324 238 30 OS X Fee E
325 9 97 WA M
326 85 47 OS WA M
327 102 26 OS WA M
328 30 24
329 179 94 OS X X
330 11 08
331 10 37
332 35 75 OS X
333 79 33 OS
334 111 00 OS M E
335 126 94 OS WA M
336 79 98 OS WA M
337 80 11 OS WA M
338 115 09 OS
339 20 87 WA M
340 138 25 OS X
341 303 04 OS M, WA E
342 41 51 OS M, WA E
343 66 78 OS
344 31 91
345 23 92 WA M
346 19 19 OS
347 66 59 OS
348 17 07
349 61 17
350 20 00 WA M
351 20 11
352 11 45
353 6 00

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – a Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open No. Comment/Concern/Suggestion Issues Reponse Resolution EBRPD Staff Discussion--1/27/2022
E-1 Plan is impressive and unique Support Perspective Feedback appreciated No change required E-2 Concern about public identification of parcels of
interest EBRPD Master Plan only identifies
generalized areas of interest, but have internal
priorities Recognized that the City identified
specific parcels and priorities in the past OK if just
for the City
Advisability of maps,
parcel lists
Recognize EBRPD dealing with much larger and more complex geographic area so not publicly revealing priorities works best for them No pushback when City displayed parcel maps and priorities previously and that has not caused problems for EBRPD Adds credibility to City efforts
No change required
E-3 De-emphasize focus on eminent domain and
condemnation, including "friendly condemnation "
Eminent Domain Agree Deleted references to "eminent domain" and "condemnation" while indicating a more assertive approach to acquisition may be warranted in extenuating circumstances
Language changed
E-4 Assume crude maps will be replaced in final
document
Map quality Yes! High quality maps developed by City
GIS staff
E-5 Does EBRPD use of criteria and attributes? Priorities Lorraine Kalick question Response: EBRPD addresses priorities property by property
No change required
E-6 Why isn't Iron Horse Trail addressed? Geographic Scope Not in area of interest for this effort Focus is on open space contiguous to/surrounding the City Nonetheless, IHT use and issues are important the City! No change required
E-7 Would the vision document or ideas and
recommendations presented adversely affect
ongoing or future relationships and negotiations
with landowners?
Affect on acquisition
efforts
Bob Peoples question to EBRPD and senior City staff Avoiding interference with relationships and acquisition negotiations was stressed by Bob No response
No change required
Public Works Department document markup and list--2/4/2022 PW-1 Inclusion of adjacent HOA common areas should be
evaluated by the Planning Division
Geographic Scope Purpose of evaluation not clear Concern about inclusion and, perhaps, excluding this open space is not cited
No change made
PW-2 Better maps needed Map quality Agree! High quality maps developed by City GIS staff
PW-3 How are geologic hazards considered in evaluating
attributes
Priorities As indicated in Table 2, the focus of these attributes is on hazards avoided if a parcel is not developed Agree the presence of hazards on a parcel reduces likelihood it will be developed while simultaneously increasing its priority for protection
No change required
PW-4 Cost of open space ownership should be considered Economic analyses This is an important issue that should be addressed in the document In response to the specific comment, the City is unlikely to incur costs associated open space ownership as it will not be acquiring properties Ownership will remain in private hands or the property or rights to it would be acquired by the EBRPD or other conservation organization The cost of municipal services associated with incorporating the Planning Area into the City is an unrelated issue There is another, perhaps more important, aspect to this issue Open space management costs are only part of the broader question of the economic effects of the vision presented Comprehensive economic analyses quantifying open space ownership costs as well as costs associated with development of the open space must be addressed at some point Such costs would have to be compared to the benefits and values provided by maintaining the open space in its natural state Who, over time, would incur these costs as well as who would realize the benefits must also be considered While such broader analyses might be informative, waiting years for the results of necessary studies is not required for the City Council to consider the vision and recommendations outlined in the vision document
Discussion of economic effects of
protecting open space and potential
analyses has been included in the
document
PW-5 Detailed review of development risk, access
opportunities, public involvement necessary prior to
acquisition
Threat assessment This is established procedure when considering a specific acquisition which should not change The vision document provides insight about and enhances understanding of factors affecting priorities and issues involved when deciding to pursue an acquisition
No change required
PW-6 10 editorial suggestions (pages 2,3,5,6,9,10,12 of 1/5/2022 draft)
Wording Thank you! Suggestions addressed
Community Development Department memo--2/8/2022
CD-1 Report of aspirational, long-term vision for open
space that builds on 2013 effort intended for
establishing methods to establish open space
priorities
Perspective Concise summary of original intent of the effort No change required CD-2 New policies and implementation strategies and
actions proposed that may have General Plan
implications
General Plan Ideas and recommendations are presented for the City Council consideration, not proposed changes to the General Plan If evaluation by appropriate City entities through established processes determines any are desirable, the City Council can modify the General Plan accordingly
Document clarified to emphasize
proposals are only for City Council
consideration through established
decision processes
CD-3 Development of document would benefit from a
broader approach to property owners and public
engagement
Outreach Partnerships Agree, but broad distribution of drafts was discouraged initially Eventually many individuals and entities were made aware of the effort and availability of drafts Only one comment other than those by EBRPD, staff and the Commission was received Development and effective implementation of a comprehensive and systematic continuing process for involving residents and landowners developed in conjunction with City staff would be desirable, is essential, but is not needed before presenting the vision document to the City Council
No change required
CD-4 Effort needs to be rooted in facts and technical
studies, not subjective statements and opinions
Information
requirements
This very general statement does not specify which facts and technical studies are lacking The document recognizes additional studies and information could be be developed and might be informative, but concludes they are not crucial before Committee ideas and recommendations are presented to the City Council As the basis for subsequently adopting, modifying or rejecting the proposals, studies and other evaluations determined to be necessary to document and corroborate the ideas and recommendations presented can be undertaken In any event, the document indicates the Subcommittee will continue to collect or develop and evaluate relevant information
No change required
CD-5 Need to balance competing objectives for areas
proposed for preservation such as economic
constraints and liability of ownership
Economic analyses Protecting and preserving open space contiguous to the City has been pursued for many years and that broad intent has been repeatedly evaluated in a variety of contexts Under established requirements and procedures, proposed uses of specific parcels will be evaluated individually to balance competing objectives No change required
CD-6 Need to consider costs and staff needs associated
with long-term ownership of open space Costs,
budget, staffing are an afterthought
Economic analyses In the near-term, City costs aren't likely to increase significantly as a result of the ideas and recommendations in the vision document As/if the City's role and involvement shifts over time, cost and staffing requirements will be addressed through normal City budget or program processes
Discussion of economic effects of
protecting open space and potential
analyses has been added to the
document

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – No. Comment/Concern/Suggestion Issues Reponse Resolution CD-7 Goals do not align with General Plan priorities General Plan The ideas and recommendations in the vision document are generally consistent with the intent of the General Plan regarding open space Where proposals and emphases differ, that should be understood as proposals to the City Council that those aspects of the General plan be changed through established processes No change required
CD-8 Condemnation using City funding should be
specifically authorized by the City Council
Eminent Domain Agree The discussion and recommendation are in the context where the City Council has authorized use of funding by EBRPD or other entity to acquire or otherwise protect designated open space
Language clarified
CD-9 Use of eminent domain should be a last resort Eminent Domain Completely agree Deleted words "eminent domain" and "condemnation " Instead, when key parcels or rights are threatened and protection attempts tare not productive a more assertive response may be necessary Language modified
CD-10 Implementing Transferable Development Rights is
easier said than done!
Transferable
Development Rights
Another sensitive subject as increasing density has been an issue for the San Ramon community OSAC can and should help encourage acceptance of inevitable increased density as a way to prevent sprawl into open space to facilitate its preservation As almost all open space to be protected is in unincorporated Contra Costa County, there may be more opportunities to transfer development rights to a greater array of receiving sites, some of which may be less controversial than in San Ramon or even non-controversial Language clarified
CD-11 Open space from which development rights would
be transferred is outside the City's jurisdiction
Transferable
Development Rights
Agree Any transfer of development rights would most likely occur within Contra Costa County, a key reason effective partnerships with the County is essential However, the City may want to explore the possibility of receiving at least some development rights in a spirit of cooperation and as an incentive to the County to employ this tool
Language clarified
CD-12 Roles of OSAC and staff Roles Nothing is changed regarding City costs OSAC is fulling it's advisory role fully recognizing that implementation is the responsibility of City staff based on City Council direction and budget allocations
No change required
CD-13 Additional factors should be considered in assessing threats
Threat assessment The factors identified must be considered when reviewing development applications when specific information about developer capabilities and site conditions is available However, developer capabilities are not always apparent when the decision to sell a property is made Whether there is legal access to a site can be assessed, but it must be assumed any development would involve creating physical access A rough cut of water and sewer access is readily observable based on EBMUD policy that it's services aren't provided outside growth boundaries Unless such information readily available when assessing threat, timely and effective evaluation of vulnerability to development does not require all that detail Insisting on such detailed analysis well before the planning approval process is initiated would create "paralysis by analysis " A vulnerability attributes related to
legal access has been included
CD-14 Addressing liability issues and maintenance
concerns as part of the decision to allow trail and
other access to a property is the responsibility of
EBRPD, other landowners
Access Economic
analyses
Agree, but City can express the desire that such use planning for properties in it's Planning Area be given priority and/or expedited and can explore the possibility of helping fund necessary studies, analyses and planning No change required
CD-15 Ongoing communications are key to managing
expectations and timing for public access
Outreach Access Agree such communication is necessary, but its effectiveness wanes rapidly when promised access is not available years after a property is acquired No change required
CD-15 Plan should acknowledge where growth is needed,
feasible and desirable as well as the possibility of
alternative development standards
Economic analyses Protecting and preserving open space in the City's Planning Area has been evaluated for many years and that intent is incorporated in the General Plan Presented is an aspirational vision that seeks protection of open space, but does not prohibit development Under established requirements and procedures, proposed land use changes in the area of interest would be individually evaluated to balance competing objectives Is this comment an argument for development of open space?
Discussion of economic effects and
potential analyses has been included
Meeting with Planning Services and Engineering Services staff--2/25/2022 MS-1 Emphasize ideas and recommendations presented
are for consideration, not approval, by the City
Council
Perspective Good suggestion Ideas and recommendations in the document are presented for City Council consideration
Language modified
MS-2 General concept OK Perspective Appreciate the positive feedback No change required MS-3 Document appears to be a General Plan
implementation strategy and actions
General Plan The document is not intended to be an implementation strategy with specific actions requiring much more detail and public input Instead, it is intended that the City Council consider the ideas and recommendations presented and determine through normal City processes what changes to the General Plan, if any, are necessary or desirable Suggestion that what is being presented are tools available for the City to consider is very useful
Document clarified
MS-4 Implementing transferable development rights
would require a lot of work
Transferable
Development Rights
Understood, but that does not prevent consideration and implementation of a useful tool if it is a viable means for protecting or preserving at least some parcels of open space
No change required
MS-5 Values identified and opinions expressed are not
based on data nor General Plan goals and intent
Values Generally recognized values and benefits of open space and natural areas are cited, but no attempt was made to quantify their magnitude Opinions about protection concepts and tools are based on long experience informed by empirical evidence Those values and opinions are subject to debate, but can not be dismissed as without citing specific shortcomings or issues No change required
MS-6 Maps are of poor quality Map quality Agree Was waiting for better maps to be provided by City staff High quality maps developed by City GIS staff
MS-7 HOA common areas are a form of land conservation HOA common areas Agree Contiguous or connected HOA common areas are included in the scope of this effort because they function as natural open space No change required
Community Development Department memo--3/10/2022
CD2-1 Several comments and concerns expressed
previously have been addressed
Perspective Thank you for acknowledging changes were made No change required CD2-2 There is a disconnect between priorities in the vision document and General Plan policy direction
General Plan To the extent the vision and ideas and recommendations presented may conflict with the General Plan, they are changes proposed for consideration by the City Council In the case of the example cited, this would include possible roll back of the urban growth boundary to resolve any disconnect It is unclear if acquisition by EBRPD, a land trust, other conservation organizations or even individuals to preserve open space within the City (UBG) or County (ULL) growth boundaries would be seen as a disconnect with the General Plan No change required

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – No. Comment/Concern/Suggestion Issues Reponse Resolution CD2-3 The objective of "maintaining current land uses"
may not be sufficiently precise Suggestions for
alternative wording, such as "intensification of land
use," "guard against intensification of use" and
"promote the status quo" are suggested
Wording Useful suggestions Land use is not what is authorized by zoning; it is the present use and management of the land The crux of the document is that any significant change in that use or management altering open space values would be of concern The alternatives suggested reinforce the intended meaning, especially when used in connection with or support of the original language What needs to be made clear is that the community would want to prevent such changes by dissuading the proposed changes or purchasing the property if necessary
Suggested terms used in lieu of or to
reinforce the original language
CD2-4 HOA common areas contiguous to open space
would not be a priority for acquisition unless a
distinct public benefit exists
Priorities Inclusion recognizes these lands are, in fact, natural open space worth maintaining Acquisition is not contemplated unless these areas are under imminent threat of development or other adverse change A distinct public benefit would be created if, for instance, a trail connecting public open space could be developed on an HOA common area (e g , Parcel 143, a Bollinger Hills HOA common areas)
No change needed
CD2-5 Subjective statements of opinion and belief are
included that do not relate to OSAC or General Plan
objectives
Wording Concern expressed about the use of threats in setting priorities, including how to be aware of threats and what can be done about them Useful alternative ways of referring to threats such as "potential intensification of use" suggested The commenter acknowledged that some of this concern is the result of different writing styles and purposes of the documents addressed
Suggested alternative language as
well as other terms used in the
narrative to reinforce ideas
CD2-6 Better maps and parcel information is needed for
decision making at parcel level
Map quality Agree Both maps and parcel attribute information is needed Expected capabilities to measure attribute metrics had yet to be made available High quality maps and consistent
acreage estimates have been
developed by City GIS staff
CD2-7 Acknowledge EBRPD process and potential
limitations
Access EBRPD desires to provide access to Parcel 127 which they acquired in 2015, but has not yet been able to obtain the necessary right to cross private property to reach the parcel Difficult terrain between Parcels 127 and 142 would require costly construction of a trail and bridge that will not be necessary if the gap in the Calaveras Trail can be closed The Parks District recently perfected an easement through most of the Norris Canyon Estates development which would also provide access from Norris Canyon Road if the trail gap can be closed OSAC has ongoing discussions with EBRPD staff to stay abreast, and encourage prompt resolution, of such issues In addition, we have explained the need for, process employed and limitations of use planning by EBRPD, or any land manager, to those seeking access
in the vision document
CD2-8 Need broader, formal approach to property owners
and public engagement
Outreach Partnerships Agree OSAC's vision and the document are highlighted during OSAC sponsored hikes and during the San Ramon Art & Wind Festival in May as well as at every other opportunity Meetings involving city residents as well as landowners and residents in the Planning Area are under consideration, perhaps as soon as an OSAC field meeting in Bollinger Canyon later this year A more comprehensive and systematic continuing process for involving residents and landowners developed in conjunction with City staff would be desirable, but does not need to be in place before the vision document is presented to the City Council
No change required
Parks and Community Services Commission comments--5/11/2022 PCS-1 City staff recommended refinement of the vision
document by a land use consultant with additional
resources and expertise to ensure accuracy, vet
concepts presented and gather further pertinent
information
Implementation The document recognizes that the City has processes for reviewing ideas and recommendations presented to the City Council The City Council can determine the extent to which additional review and refinement of the ideas and recommendations presented is warranted and cost-effective before adopting or rejecting those proposals
No change required
PCS-2 If 90% of open space is outside City limits, how is the City involved?
Geographic scope The open space is important to the City and its residents for the vistas, hiking and other benefits provided The City works in conjunction with partners to protect that open space
No change required
PCS-3 Is the 90% of the open space outside the City within its Sphere of Influence?
Geographic scope West of the City is within the Sphere of Influence while the Tassajara Valley to the east is within the City's Planning Area, but not it's Sphere of Influence No change required
PCS-4 As San Ramon Valley, not City, open space is
involved, clarification is needed on how this will be
implemented and where are the actual influences
Partnerships The document recognizes that cooperative efforts are required to protect the City's interests in maintaining contiguous open space Suggestions for how the City and OSAC might go about encouraging actions by partners are provided Additions and clarifications included
PCS-5 Will a land use consultant's input be incorporated before submitting the document to the City Council?
Implementation Staff recommended review by a land use consultant when the document is presented to the City Council, but indicated during discussions no funds are currently budgeted for such consultation
No change required
PCS-6 How many City FTEs currently address open space? Implementation Staff from the City Manager's Office and the Public Works, Parks and Community Development and Parks and Community Serves Departments currently address various aspects of open space
No change required
PCS-7 Who is tasked with monitoring open space
properties of interest to the City?
Implementation Staff from the City Manager's Office and Planning Service Division are involved in open space preservation activities OSAC's Protection and Preservation Subcommittee also tracks the status of properties of interest No change required
PCS-8 What City document [or programs] addresses
maintenance of open space?
Maintenance Within the City, trails maintenance has been added to the CIP while GHADs conduct various open space maintenance activities Beyond the City limits, landowners, including EBRPD, are responsible for all aspects of open space maintenance
No change required
PCS-9 What does "acquire open space" mean? Acquisition tools Fee purchase, transfer as required by planning approvals, donations, Williamson Act contracts, easements, rights of first refusal, etc
No change required
PCS-10 What is the basis for open space acquisition
priorities?
Priorities The current effort initially intended to build on the 2013 approach employing biological/ecological and physical characteristics as criteria and attributes for establishing parcel priorities Additional criteria and attributes as well as attribute metrics were identified Eventually it was concluded that most criteria and attributes did not adequately discriminate among parcels, but that vulnerability attributes and trail connections were definitive and relevant This evolution of the basis for priority recommendations is described at length in the document
No change required
PCS-11 As more than 90% of open space of interest is
outside the City limits, is collaboration with with
other agencies necessary?
Partnerships Definitely! The need for extensive and effective partnerships is a major focus of the document
No change required
PCS-12 What are Transferable Development Rights (TDR)? Acquisition tools Based on the Bundle of Property Rights Theory, development rights are transferred from a property to increase the development density of a receiving property This approach for protecting open space has been applied effectively through cluster development on parcels zoned "Hillside Residential" (HR) It can also be applied to entire open space parcel IF a receiving site can be located, a daunting challenge
No change required

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – No. Comment/Concern/Suggestion Issues Reponse Resolution PCS-13 Appreciates collaborative/partnership approach with external partners
Partnerships Thank you No change required
PCS-14 Support review by land use consultant Consultant will be impressed Smart way to avoid overlooking
any aspects of open space protection
Implementation The document recognizes that, if desired, the City has processes for reviewing ideas and recommendations presented to the City Council The City can determine how much additional review and refinement is warranted and costeffective before adopting or rejecting proposals The vision document had been clarified to emphasize proposals are for City Council consideration through established decision processes
No change required
PCS-15 Proactive, long-range approach creates a guiding document with a long reach that sets a tone for
addressing open space issues to which the Parks and
Community Services Commission should be
sensitive
Perspective Well said! No change required
PCS-16 Articulate that acquisition from willing sellers regardless of priority to take advantage of
opportunities differs from focussed acquisition
based on priorities, i e , a "two-tier" process is
involved
Wording An interesting and possibly useful way to understand that the vision document recommends two distinct and important, complementary actions be pursued simultaneously
No change required
PCS-17 Strengthen collaboration with [City] residents Seek input from the public
Outreach Partnerships Support of residents for, and their involvement in, protecting contiguous open space is essential if the City is to continue and enhance protection and access initiatives Many varied opportunities for public input are desirable and necessary Residents of the Planning Area outside the City limits are identified as partners The important role of City residents as key partners in protecting open space in and contiguous to the City should also be noted Greater opportunities for public input by all must also be provided Document clarified
PCS-18 Trail access parking and safety concerns should be addressed
Trail access These important issues are recognized in the document for contiguous open space, but also apply to open space within the City They must be further defined and addressed as the vision and recommendations outlined are further developed and implemented
language and a recommendation
added
PCS-19 Several aspects of open space maintenance were
raised, especially who has responsibility for this task Maintenance Landowners are the short answer to the question of responsibility A variety of open space maintenance and operational activities, and associated costs, are required or desirable Such responsibilities and costs are acknowledged in the vision document, However, as the City will not control much, if any, contiguous open space, this issue is not addressed in detail It is an issue, however, for open space in the City and for our partners who control the contiguous open space Most designated open space in the City is controlled by GHADs which have established mechanisms to identify the need for, finance and conduct maintenance activities Maintenance needs and costs do not appear to be well established and funding requirements are not fully understood for the remaining open space within the City Partners controlling contiguous open space, including EBRPD, have maintenance capabilities which are frequently (always?) constrained to a greater or lesser degree
No change required
PCS-20 Good relationships with landowners is important Acquisition Partnerships Agree! Engaging landowners of contiguous open space is essential No change required PCS-21 Consider creating an "Open Space Coordinator"
position
Implementation Such a position could focus attention on and coordinate and facilitate efforts to protect and maintain open space in and contiguous to the City Given the involvement of several City agencies, where such a position would be located in the organization might be an issue Whether to establish such a position and where in the City government to place it would be a City decision It is not related to submission of the vision document to the City Council No change required
PCS-22 Monitoring legislation [as well as planning efforts and programs] potentially impacting open space is
needed How do we become aware of legislation
[and other initiatives or programs] that affect open
space?
Monitoring legislation &
programs Threats
In addition to economic forces, many governmental initiatives affect open open space Such governmental activity can threaten, as well as provide opportunities to protect and manage, natural open space, Identifying and monitoring the full range of these activities is an important function which OSAC's Protection and Preservation Subcommittee has begun addressing City agencies routinely monitor legislation impacting their activities, but potential effects on open space are usually not the focus of that review so such effects are not always recognized or appreciated Those efforts need to be enhanced Language and a recommendation addressing this role has been added in the Protection and Preservation section of the vision document
Language and a recommendation
added
PCS-23 Identify, continually monitor and take advantage f open space funding opportunities, especially grants
Fundin This is another important function that should be pursued during consideration and implementation of the ideas and recommendations in the vision document OSAC has addressed this issue in fulfillment of its responsibilities and should expand those efforts once the vision document is presented to the City Council A recommendation to more aggressively seek funding for open space protection as well as use and management in conjunction with partners has been added c Recommendation added
PCS-24 Establish firm timelines for presentation of vision document to City Council
Timing Timing is dictated by schedules and workload of the Planning and Parks Commissions, City Council Policy Committee and full City Council Move forward as rapidly as feasible
given review requirements
PCS-25 Define more fully how the City will interact with partners
Partnerships Substantial interaction by City entities with the broad array of partners interested in or involved with open space presently occurs through a variety of means and venues A priority for OSAC is to expand the nature and extent of its involvement with partners, including landowners and residents of the City itself as well as its Planning Area Current interactions with partners and the general public as well as the desirability of increasing and broadening such interactions are described in the the vision document No central program or coordination for such interaction nor a comprehensive description of current efforts exists, but continuation and broadening such efforts is desired and appropriate No change required
PCS-26 Neighboring cities and their agencies and residents in the Tri-Valley area and beyond may be impacted
by and/or interested in the vision presented in the
document A broader group of entities, including
EBRPD, local county and city agencies, land trusts
and interested organizations and residents, should be
involved in the conversation through an open space
gathering such as a summit or conference
Partnerships A Tri-Valley, or broader, open space summit would inform and involve that broader audience in the vision and recommendations articulated in the document It would also be an effective beginning for ongoing exchange of ideas and experience protecting and managing open space OSAC has been attempting to organize such an event for several years A recommendation addressing the need and desirability of such forums has been added in the Partnerships section of the vision document
Recommendation added
PCS-27 After presentation to Planning Commission, return the document to Parks and Community Services
Commission for further review and comment
Follow up A revised document will be provided to Parks and Community Services Commission prior to submission to the City Council
revised document to be provided
PCS-28 Staff was asked to indicate if a land use consultant is a viable option
Review by consultant Staff had indicated no funds were currently budgeted for such consultation Not aware of staff response
No change required
Planning Commission comments--7/5/2022

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – No. Comment/Concern/Suggestion Issues Reponse Resolution Plan-1 Provide examples of HOA common areas of interest Geographic scope HomeOwner Associations in the City control at least 20 parcels involving more than 300 acres of natural area within the geographic scope of the vision document All are identified in the document's Appendix C Those common areas are adjacent or connected to open space parcels The Bollinger Hills HOA owns several parcels connecting the Morgan Drive entrance to EBRPD's Bishop Ranch Open Space to the City's Memorial Park on Bollinger Canyon Road In addition to encompassing natural open space, those parcels were identified in the 2013 Trails Master Plan as the location of a trail connecting the two recreation areas
No change required
Plan-2 How does the open space vision document relate to the Open Space and Conservation Element of the
General Plan? Will it ultimately be referenced in
the General Plan as a guide for how the City
addresses open space issues analogous to how the
Parks Master Plan guides the evolution of parks in
the City? Or will the ideas and recommendations be
used to refine and/or add guidance as well as
implementation policies to the General Plan?
General Plan The desire is that the vision and recommendations proposed in the document be reflected in future City plans and policies As suggested by the questions, several approaches for achieving that result are available The draft vision document had been clarified to emphasize proposals are for City Council consideration through established decision processes After the document with its ideas and recommendations are presented to the City Council, staff and the Planning Commission will likely have the opportunity to recommend how to proceed consistent with guidance from the City Council
No change required
Plan-3 Document is respectful of and builds on past open space preservation efforts, involves a wide-reaching
analysis of what needs to be done, identifies
preservation priorities and recommends key actions
Supports
Perspective Well said No change required
Plan-4 Provide examples of "more assertive approach" to acquisition referred to to in Recommendation P7
Eminent domain The willing seller approach for purchasing open space or property rights has been remarkably successful in large part because of the long-term nature of acquisition efforts If, however, key parcels are in imminent danger of being lost or if a property right such as an easement necessary to connect key trail segments can not be obtained by any other means after many attempts, bold use of condemnation should be seriously considered as a last resort Acquisition of essential property or rights in this manner would be undesirable, but that has to be weighed against irreversible resource loss or indefinite delays in connecting key trails "Assertive" is now used in lieu of "aggressive " Recommendation notes clarified
Plan-5 In view of the high value of the property to be
protected, funding available in the City's Open
Space Fund is inadequate for any meaningful
acquisition Did OSAC consider recommending
that the City Council make an annual appropriation
to the Open Space Fund to accumulate sufficient
funding to be able to make a meaningful
contribution toward acquisition of properties
Funding Not previously The observation that the amount in the Open Space Fund is inadequate is valid Whether the City could make a meaningful contribution to protect even the highest priority properties is a cause for concern that should be addressed soon! Independent of the vision document development, OSAC had begun identifying and exploring opportunities and tools for funding open space protection and management Prompt development of a range of options for ensuring adequate, readily available funding, as well as non-financial arrangements, for quickly responding to acquisition opportunities or needs is essential The suggested annual appropriations to grow the Fund at a faster rate should be evaluated and, if feasible and warranted, implemented in the next year or two A number of other approaches should also be considered This might included identifying grant programs and opportunities as well as preparing to seek such funding should also be a major focus That could be buttressed by arranging to borrow funds on short notice to purchase property until grant applications are submitted and processed Alternatively, arrangements could be made for other organizations to purchase the property and hold it for limited periods until acquisition funds become available Acquisition not requiring funding such as using transferable development rights should also be considered Additional financial or other mechanisms should be identified and evaluated for inclusion to create an array of means or tools for the City to finance open space acquisition A recommendation has been added to the vision document suggesting prompt development and preparation of a range of options to fund open space acquisition In fulfillment of its responsibilities, OSAC will continue to monitor the adequacy of funding for open space protection and management and seek additional financial tools and other arrangements and explore funding options
Language and a recommendation
added
Plan-6 Increase public understanding of the importance and values of open space as well as the difficulties, its
high cost, of ensuring its protection is essential to
gain public support for necessary City expenditures
This might include specifying the area of open space
and other metrics protected the previous year in
OSAC's required annual report to the City Council
Those accomplishments should be widely publicized
through online and other media Organizing one or
more well advertised joint City Council-OSAC
public forums to review recent accomplishments,
explain difficulties encountered including funding
requirements and how those problems were
overcome was also suggested
Outreach Reporting Agree wholeheartedly These are important and relevant suggestions that OSAC and the City Council can pursue The vision document summarizes the substantial progress protecting open space of concern achieved since 2013 and provides insight for measuring progress in coming years Direct City Council involvement reviewing protection efforts with feedback from the public would focus attention on and substantially enhance the community's understanding of open space protection opportunities and issues
Language and a recommendation
added
Plan-7 Without divulging privileged information,
discussions with property owners should be
reviewed annually to inform the City Council and
public of progress and problems
Partnerships Reporting This suggestion could be useful Continual contacts and involvement with landowners directly or with or through our partner organizations is essential to negotiate acquisition of properties or property rights Such interactions with landowners and residents of the Planning Area outside the City limits also recognizes them as full partners and facilitates protection efforts now and in the future In addition to not revealing privileged information, any information provided should respect the privacy of landowners and residents contacted Language and a recommendation
added
Plan-8 The amount added to the Open Space Fund should
be reported annually in a comprehensive report
made available to the public
Funding Reporting Another useful suggestion Such information is of great interest to OSAC which can include it in its required annual report to the City Council The amounts added to the Open Space Fund each year by source categories as well as disbursements for specified purposes would be included That data along with metrics about protection accomplishments and other pertinent information could be included in a comprehensive report for public distribution and should be in widely publicized through online and other media
Language and a recommendation
added

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – No. Comment/Concern/Suggestion Issues Reponse Resolution Plan-9 In addition to economic forces and other factors leading to development of open space, the threat
environment has expanded in recent decades due to
increasingly restrictive interpretations of the extent
to which government can regulate property use
Preservation of open space will likely require more
acquisition to protect open space as planning and
land use requirements become less effective than
previously, perhaps even in the near term
Threats Funding A very important observation Changing judicial philosophy definitely needs to be factored into the vision presented in the document as well as assessments of the vulnerability of open space to development The possibility of significant and rapid revision of judicial interpretations of rights and laws may create the need for substantial additional funding for acquisition, perhaps soon Such threats need to be carefully tracked and the City and its partners need to be prepared to change protection strategies and actions on short notice Language recognizing this threat and its implications as well as a recommendation highlighting the need for preparations by the City and its partners to respond on possibly short notice has been added
Language and a recommendation
added
Plan-10 The only way to fully preserve open space is
through acquisition by a conservation organization
The most feasible means to preserve open space
outside the City limits is to partner with EBRPD
Preservation
Partnerships
Agree Maintaining and enhancing The City's relationship with EBRPD is crucial to achieving the vision outlined in the document No change required
Plan-11 At present, the opportunity for the City to directly preserve significant open space and close a gap in
EBRPD's Calaveras Ridge Trail gaps is possible
because of long-term efforts leading to the
authorization of two major development projects
just north of Crow Canyon Road
Preservation Access Agree Future preservation of open space and close trail gaps contiguous to he City to achieve the vision outlined in the document depends on maintaining and enhancing the City's relationship with EBRPD Opportunities remain to expand trails within the City
No change required
Plan-12 The most fruitful work for OSAC going forward
would be to focus on providing access to open
space
Access Ensuring access to contiguous open space is a focus of the vision outlined in the report, but protection of all open space identified must also remain a priority Access for hiking and the other values of the contiguous open space will be substantially diminished or lost entirely if continued attention and effort is not devoted to a range of threats and issues affecting the portion of that open space that has not been fully preserved OSAC is also charged with addressing the use and management of existing open space within the City Last year, the Committee restructured itself into three subcommittees to more effectively recognize and address the full range of open space issues involved throughout the City's Planning Area The Trails and Connectivity Subcommittee will continue its focus on a growing array of issues regarding access to open space in the City for hiking and other purposes The Protection and Preservation and Outreach Subcommittees also focuses on aspects of open space in, as well as contiguous to, the City It would be a mistake for the Committee to revert back to only addressing hiking opportunities
No change required
Plan-13 Vitally important for the community to be informed of the work of OSAC and other City committees,
but residents are busy so information needs to be
provided in bite-sized messages online and through
other media
Outreach Agree with the need and appreciate the suggestion for bite-size messaging No change required Plan-14 Explicitly spell out that maintaining open space requires additional development be concentrated
within the developed area of the City Can not have
both open space and development! Denser infill
development is essential to achieve RHNA housing
requirements and other City objectives without
losing open space
Support infill
development
Agree! Actions by the Planning Commission to accommodate the more than 5,100 new housing units required by the RHNA within the existing developed footprint of the City rather than sprawling into open space is much appreciated The Committee recognizes and supports that the trade-off for protecting open space is denser development within the City limits We are well positioned and interested in advocating that trade-off to residents
Language added
Plan-15 Establishing trails across private land may require finding means to limit landowner liability
Access easements Agree Being able to limited landowner liability if a trail easement is granted would likely facilitate closing trail gaps and enhance access for hikers Application of such a tool may require statutory changes, the willingness of the organization receiving the easement to assume that liability and/or other changes, none of which are likely to be available in the near term Language and a recommendation
added
Plan-16 Maintaining existing land uses outside the City's jurisdiction may not be a feasible goal
Intent and goals We are under no illusions about the possibility of achieving the aspirational vision outlined It will be difficult and require dedicated effort and substantial resources over an extended period As noted in the report, however, substantial, remarkable, success has been achieved to date which suggest the goal may be much more feasible than otherwise expected Language pointing out that past successes provide hope that vision can be achieved and and a recommendation have been added
Language and a recommendation
added
Plan-17 The vision and document may be perceived as antidevelopment rather than smart growthIntent We do not oppose development, but it must occur in locations that maintain the current open space The intent of the vision and recommendations is to encourage the use of smart growth methods to accomplish housing and other important goals We agree and accept that growth with its potential impacts is coming! We also clearly recognize that to sustain a desirable environment in and around the City it is essential to accommodate that growth within the developed area sound and far-sighted planning based on smart growth principle to avoid impacts on open space with Language has been added and clarified to emphasize the desire that the City continue to allow development based on smart growth approaches
Language clarified and added
Plan-18 Legislation facilitating the development of
additional housing does not conflict with nor
preclude attainment of open space objectives
Agree Language clarified
Plan-19 Using City funds to acquire open space located
beyond the City's boundaries is a concern
Use of City funds This concern was expressed by several reviewers The document explains this external focus is not unique to the present effort Rather, that has been the focus of open space protection since the City was established, including of the 2013 effort The observation that the appetite for spending San Ramon funds outside the City limits increases as the visibility of the issue increases is important Language has been added or clarified to clearly indicate the vision's continued focus on contiguous open space based on its historic and continuing importance to the City, its residents and workforce
Language added and clarified
Plan-20 The desire to preserve open space on large lots with a single residence should not be understood as
opposing construction of accessory dwelling units
[or urban lot splits for new homes]
Additional housing That is not the intent of the vision nor the document The sentence refers to residential lots or "ranchetts" larger than four or five acres Small, but still significant amounts of open space beyond a fairly large residential lot may warrant protection Additional dwellings may be appropriate, but should be clustered As with any open space, if the purpose for subdividing a larger parcel is to convert accumulated value to cash, the community would like the opportunity to protect the open space portion
Language clarified
Plan-21 The City is working on the sixth housing cycle at present, not the second
RHNA cycle The reference was to the second cycle since the law requiring jurisdictions to meet Residential Housing Needs Allotments was enacted in 2013, not iterations of the broader Housing Element in the General Plan
Language clarified

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – No. Comment/Concern/Suggestion Issues Reponse Resolution Plan-22 Plans that stand alone from the General Plan and Specific Plans are confusing to those implementing
them and residents Any changes and
recommendations developed in the current effort
should be integrated into the General Plan
Integration in General
Plan
This is, in effect, what is being proposed The City Council is asked to consider the ideas and recommendations presented through normal City processes with the intent that goals and actions deemed desirable be incorporated into the General Plan Because part of this and similar concerns may be that the document has been referred to a "Plan," the Committee retitled this document as "A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space with Recommendations " This rebranding better reflects the actual nature and focus of the document that has evolved over the past year The document does not establish goals with strategies and actions to achieve them Rather, involved was a review of past efforts to understand the vision regarding contiguous open space and identify accomplishments as well as problems encountered The clear conclusion is that past and current efforts have been remarkably successful, yet threats remain and efforts, including additional steps, must be taken if the vision is to be realized That insight was used to assess what, building on and enhancing ongoing efforts, is required today and into the future to achieve the vision Broadening the scope of efforts to address access to open space and the need for partnerships was also recognized and incorporated A variety of recommendations for near-term actions is provided for consideration by the City As Planning Commissioner Marks observed, the vision document, building of past efforts, is a wide-ranging review and analysis of changes and additional effort needed to ensure preservation of contiguous open space The vision document is more properly considered a program evaluation than a plan of action or master plan No change required
Plan-23 Be as specific as possible in "the ask" to the City Council
The ask A very helpful suggestion The City Council is asked to read and give serious consideration to the ideas and recommendations presented in the document and then employ normal City review and decision processes to decide what to include in the General Plan The document conclusion that much of the approach employed previously remains valid and effective should be readily accepted In effect, the concept of encouraging private landowners to maintain existing land uses, i e , not intensify land use, is the basis for the success to date and should not be difficult to grasp and explicitly adopt Most information presented was generated by the City or is from publicly available sources so it should be easily verified Hiring a consultant is a staff, not OSAC, recommendation and may not be essential If staff do not understand or feel they have the ability or expertise to assess some or all aspects of the ideas and recommendations outlined in the vision document, it is incumbent on them to justify the need to hire a consultant As suggested in the comment, a detailed scope of work that will generate information on which decisions of how to modify the General Plan can be made will be essential
No change required
Plan-24 How does the recommendation to expand
partnerships with outside agencies [and others] turn
into action?
Partnerships Outreach Good question Substantial partnerships and cooperative efforts already exist Senior City staff and other City leaders have established relationships and maintain contact with landowners They are also aware of at least some efforts by organizations involved in acquiring open space The NGO/environmental organization position on OSAC is filled by a Save Mount Diablo staff member OSAC sponsors six hikes annually that attract many participants and contacted many others at the Wind and Arts Festival in May The goal is to broaden and deepen those partnerships so all of the community affected by or with interest in open space protection and use is involved Reaching out to and engaging the full range of partners identified to a greater extent than previously will be required Additional organizations such as Contra Costa County entities and other local land trusts and environmental organizations must be included Organizing and hosting forums involving open space agencies and advocates would be useful Routinely interacting with landowners and residents of the City as well its Planning Area beyond the City limits, including participation in or presence at broader community events such as the Wind and Arts Festival, will be essential Such partnerships will improve or provide early notice of opportunities to protect to open space as well as early identification of threats The discussion of partnerships in the document has been revised to emphasize the actions envisioned and three recommendations added
Language revised and
recommendations added
Plan-25 No discussion defining urban open space which is of greater importance as development density
increases
Urban open space Open space in the city itself is not the focus of this document, but is a responsibility and concern of OSAC A sense of openness in the City, especially its urban core, is an essential component of the quality of life here Extensive and ongoing research has documented the significance of open space, particularly when vegetated, to our well being Maintaining and enhancing the urban forest decades in the making is a key element of that green space We all benefit from recurring, daily, "green fixes " To our knowledge, no comprehensive information currently exists regarding the amount and location of open space, broadly defined, in the City This includes the type of open space involved, who controls it, the nature and extent of its availability to the public, whether it is at risk of being lost and other factors As efforts related to this document wind down later this year, the Protection and Preservation Subcommittee will begin defining what constitutes open space and how to gather information about it in preparation for inventorying the City's open space, broadly defined, next year
Language revised and a
recommendation added
Plan-26 Access to open space is an important issue, but users must be able to easily reach entry points
Trailhead access This comment raises an important issue On first blush, addressing this issue might seem straightforward, but on reflection considerable thought and creative solutions will be required As pointed out, pressure is building from several directions to reduce parking requirements Part of the difficulty may be the apparent presumption that automobiles will be the principle means for reaching trailheads into the future Like highways, there will undoubtedly be a "circularity of demand" for trailhead parking--widening a highway or creating or enlarging trailhead parking to increase capacity generates more traffic that builds pressure for further widening or enlargement Much will be lost if open space is converted into ever growing parking lots Creative planning along with educating and encouraging users to walk, bike or take mass transit to trailheads will be essential to resolve this conundrum
No change required
Public Comments in several forums
Pub-1 Oppose trails on Old Ranch Summit Open Space Fire hazards Crime Privacy Motorcycles
Concerns do not specifically address vision and recommendations in document, but are indicative of issues raised by residents living near open space Awareness of such concerns and issues is reflected in the document No change required
Pub-2 Non-local decision making, crime, homeless use of open space
Local decision making
Crime Homeless
Concerns do not specifically address vision and recommendations in document, but are indicative of issues raised by residents living near open space Awareness of such concerns and issues is reflected in the document No change required

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – No. Comment/Concern/Suggestion Issues Reponse Resolution Pub-3 Lack of voice for non-City residents of the Planning Area in developing vision and recommendations
Involvement Concern highlights the need to reach out to and involve as full partners residents of the Planning Area who are not City residents Commenters not necessarily oppose to ideas presented, may support vision and some recommendations, in the document
Discussion and a recommendation
added

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: A: Open Space Advisory Committee - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space Report 2022 (DOC-2022-3 : OSAC Report – City of San Ramon
Open Space Advisory Committee
Report to the City Council
A Vision for Preserving
Contiguous Open Space
with Recommendations
September 27, 2022

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: B: Presentation - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space 2022 • Who are we?
• Lorraine Kalich, OSAC Chair
• Bob Peoples, OSAC Vice Chair and Principal Author, 2022 Vision Document • Why are we here?
• To present this Vision Document to the City Council
• Where did the Vision come from?
O p e n S p a c e A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e 10.1.b Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: B: Presentation - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space 2022 3 EVOLUTION OF INITIATIVE
O p e n S p a c e A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e
• Initially focused on updating 2013 priorities
• Reviewed efforts undertaken over the decades
• Vision emerged
• Subsequently recognized need for access and partnerships • Past efforts effective, successful, but protection incomplete • Building on, enhancing efforts, not replacing with new initiative • Recommend near-term actions to respond to growing threats

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: B: Presentation - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space 2022 4 THE VISION
O p e n S p a c e A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e
• Aspires to preserve 8,700 acres of open space, natural vistas surrounding City • Achieved by maintaining existing uses, rural character in contiguous Planning Area • Builds on, extends previous initiatives, achievements • Concludes acquisition unnecessary if no changes in or intensification of current use
• Ownership of
property is not
essential, but…
If change is
contemplated,
community
should seek
to acquire
instead

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: B: Presentation - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space 2022 5 ACCOMPLISHMENTS & NEED
O p e n S p a c e A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e
• Significant protection achieved
• 8,700 acres in three segments idenitified for protection • 5,800 acres/67% have some protection
• 2,300 acres since 2013
• Substantial area remains vulnerable to development
• Only 2,600 acres/30% permanently
preserved
• Existence of unprotected open
space is tenuous!

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: B: Presentation - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space 2022

PROTECTION & PRESERVATION
Key findings:
• Maintaining current use effectively protects open space Major conclusion: Detailed priorities not essential
Vulnerability to development, trail gaps establish relevant preservation priorities
O p e n S p a c e A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e 10.1.b Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: B: Presentation - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space 2022

PROTECTION & PRESERVATION
• Key Recommendations:
• Acquire available properties regardless of priority
• Focus on most threatened parcels, trail gaps
• Include HOA common areas contiguous to open space
• Explore additional funding sources
• Continue focus of infill development
• Strengthen open space protection in General Plan
• Support Contra Costa County’s Williamson Act Program
O p e n S p a c e A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e 10.1.b Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: B: Presentation - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space 2022

PROTECTION & PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE
• Protect HOA common areas contiguous or linked to open space • Clarify the City’s “willing seller” policy
• Explore additional funding sources
• Accomplish RHNA requirements through infill versus in “greenfields” • Continue to strengthen open space protection in General Plan updates • Encourage partnerships with local agencies and landowners • Support Contra Costa County’s Williamson Act Program.

O p e n S p a c e A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e 10.1.b Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: B: Presentation - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space 2022

ACCESS TO OPEN SPACE
•Inseparable from protection
• Landowner and neighbor concerns, public land use
planning requirements, other factors limit use
O p e n S p a c e A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e 10.1.b Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: B: Presentation - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space 2022

PARTNERSHIPS
O p e n S p a c e A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e
• Vision involves area beyond City limits
• Support, cooperation of multiple partners is essential • East Bay Regional Park District
• Contra Costa County agencies and officials
• California Department of Fish & Wildlife
• Land Trusts (SMD, JMLT, TVC)
• Landowners
• Plan area & City residents
• Others

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: B: Presentation - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space 2022

HOW YOU CAN HELP
O p e n S p a c e A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e
• Consider preserving Open Space identified, and approach outlined in Vision
• Long-term perspective and commitment essential
• Consider adopting goals articulated
• Count adjacent HOA common areas as open space
• Continue smart growth polices – accommodate growth in existing developed areas
• Enhance involvement with
and support for partners

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: B: Presentation - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space 2022

CONTINUING EFFORTS
• Protection and preservation of open space
• Enhance access to preserved open space
• Strengthen and broaden relationships with partners
O p e n S p a c e A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e 10.1.b Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: B: Presentation - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space 2022 Thank you!

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: B: Presentation - A Vision for Preserving Contiguous Open Space 2022