The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 01011977 - Res 77/436 000207 BOARD OF, "'ERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY4 CALIFORNIA 1kRe: COMBINED Alk1t"t"IDMENT OF THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN IN THE ) GATEWAY VALLEY-ORINDA AND ) RESOLUTION NO. 77/436 SAN RAMON VALLEY AREAS ) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: Part I - General. Contra Costa County is carrying out a program to systematically review the County General Plan for the purpose of keeping the Plan up to date and achieving consistency with the County's development ordinances. California Planning Law provides that each General Plan element mandated by the State can not be amended more than three times in any calendar year. This Board has not yet amended the General Plan mandatory elements during the calendar year 1977. The Board has considered the proposals described in Parts II and III below to amend the County General Plan, and at Public hearings declared its intent and directed staff to prepare this resolution of adoption. This Board hereby declares the adoption actions described below are to constitute its first amendment of the Land Use Element and other mandatory elements of the County General Plan in calendar year 1977. Part Il - Gateway Valley - Orinda Area. A copy of Resolution No. 87-1976 adopted by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission is on file with this Board, in which the Commission set forth its report on the proposed amendment of the County General Plan for the Gateway Valley-Orinda Area as detailed in the Board's subsequent Resolution No. 77/42. This Board hereby adopts the amendment to the County General Plan for the Gateway Valley-Orinda Area,.as proposed in its Resolution No. 77/42, as part of this combined amendment to the County General Plan, including both the filed pian, text and map, prepared by the Planning Department. The copy of the plan map and text reflecting this amendment on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board shall be endorsed approved by the Clerk as provided thereon. Part III - San Ramon Valley Area. A copy of Resolution No. 73-1976 adopted by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission is on file with this Board, in which the Commission sets forth its report on the proposed amendment of the County General Plan for the San Ramon Valley area as detailed in this Board's subsequent Resolution No. 77/329. This Board hereby adopts the amendment to the County General Plan for the San Ramon Valley Area as proposed in its Resolution No. 771329, as part of this combined amendment to the County General Plan, including both the filed plan text and map prepared by the Planning Department. The copy of the plan map and text reflecting this amendment on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board shall be endorsed approved by the Clerk as provided thereon. Part IV - Overriding Considerations. The Board concurs with the findings of the Environmental Impact Report that the project would have certain environmental effects, but finds that the project is justified by the following statement of overriding considerations; STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The project as adopted was deemed the most favorable alternative when all impacts were considered. This plan calls for reduced development when compared to the County General Plans adopted for Alamo-Danville in 1967 and for San Ramon in 1971 and other elements of the County General Plan. Social and economic factors, the recognition of approved developments, and the emphasis on infilling of development into areas with availability of sewer and water services, render the approved plan environmentally superior to the previously adopted County General Plan for this area. The plan is in itself a mitigation measure to reduce the s05tantial impacts allowed by the adopted County General Plan. Part V - CEQA Notice. The Director of Planning is Hereby Directed to file with the County Clerk a Notice of Determination concerning this adoption and the related negative declaration and Environmental Impact Report. PASSED on May 24, 1977, unanimously by Supervisors present. CERTIFIED COPY I cFrtlfp that this 13 a full, true & correct copy of the ori;inal document which is or. file is my office. F''SDLli.'`� 7 _.�. 1 and that it was pas,-e4 F- a•'.o,.e3 D. tl:e hoard of "' -"-' 77��;3� Supenisors o[ Cor.tri Cosa Coi.ntF, California. oa the date shown. ATTEST: J. R. OLSSON. County Clerk &ex-officio Clerk of said Board of Super lsom cc: Director of Planning00020d, �L3/��y r; epol Clerk. 11J1 f1Y Z 4 �C� E i RE CE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MAY /e 1977 PLANNING DEPARTMENT _ " R. OCSSON - CLER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS e »CONT STA CO. TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: May 17, 1977 FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesus!' SUBJECT: First Combined Amendment to Director of Plannin' County General Plan in 1977 f State law provides that the mandatory General Plan elements may be amended only three times during the calendar year. Since a number of amendments do arise from time to time, it has been the procedure of the Board in the past to collect amendments and com- bine them into not more than three General Plan amendment packages per year. Under this procedure the Board finds that certain changes in the General Plan are appropriate, and instructs the Planning Department to include these changes in a Combined Amendment to be passed formally by the Board at a subsequent meeting. The attached package represents the first Combined General Plan Amendment for the year 1977. This includes an amendment in the Gateway Valley-Orinda area approved by Board Resolution No. 77/42 on January 18, 1977, and an amendment consisting of the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan approved by Board Resolution No. 77/329. I request that the Board adopt the Combined Amendment per attached draft resolution. AAD:EMA Attachments cc - County Administrator County Counsel � � 000207 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNfY, CALIFORNIA Re: COMBINED AMEHDMt't\JT OF THE ) COUNTY GENERAL PLAN ItJ THE ) GATEWAY VALLEY-ORIt,]DA AND ) RESOLUTION NO. SAN RAMON VALLEY AREAS ) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: Part I - General. Contra Costa County is carrying out a program to systematically review the County General Plan for the propose of kevpind the Plan up to dale and achieving consistency with the County's development ordinances. California Planning Law provides that each General Plnn element mandated by the Slote can not be amended more than three fimes in any calendar year. This Board has not yet amended the General Plan mandatory elements during the calendar year 1977. The Board has considered the proposals described in Parts II and 111 below to amend the County General Plan, and at Public hearings declared its intent and directed staff to prepare this resolution of adoption. This Board hereby declares the adoption actions described below are to constitute its first amendment of the Land Use Element and other mandatory elements of the County General Plan in calendar year 1977. Part 11 - Gateway Valley - Orinda Area. A copy of Resolution No. 87-1976 adopted by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission is on file smith this Board, in which the Commission set forth its report on the proposed arnendrnent of the County General Plcm for the Gateway Valley-Orinda Area as detailed in file Board's subsequent Resolution No. 77/42. This Board hereby adopts the amendment to the County General Plan .for the Gateway Valley-Orindo Area, as proposed in its Resolution No. 77/42, as part of this combined amendment to the County General Plan, including both the filed plan, text and map, prepared by the Planning Department. The copy of the plan mop and text reflecting this amendment on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board shall be endorsed approved by the Clerk as provided thereon. Part III Son Rornon Valle Area. A copy of Resolution No. 73-1976 aclopied by the Contra Costa ounly Planning Commission is on file wi Ih this Board, in which the Commission sets forth its report on the proposed arnendrnent of the County General Plan for the San Ramon Valley Area as detailed in this Board's subsequent Resolution No.77/329. This Board hereby adopts the amendment to the County General Plan for the San Ramon Valley Area as proposed in its Resolution [`to. 77/329 , as part of this combined amendment to the County General Plan, including both the filed plan text and map prepared by the Planning Department. The copy of the pinn map and text reflecting this amendment on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board shall be endorsed approved by the Clerk as provided thereon. PASSED on unanimously by Supervisors present. cc: Director of Planning 0002.0 7 • `i+ A . • • ., f BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIVOR IIA Re: Proposed Am^ndinctit of ) RESOLUTION NO. 77/329 County General Plan For ) The San Ramon Valley Area ) (Gov. Code 5565355 & G5356) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: There is filed with this Board and its Clerk: a copy of Resolution No. 73-1976 adopted by the Planning Commission rceorrdnerding an amond- ment to the County General Plan for the San Ranron Valley Area as dcsigrnated therein. Adoption of the amendment will change all the mandated elements of the Co,.inty GI-neral Plan and, specifically, change the designations for said lands to appropriate land use -dcsi.clnations _:i thir► the Land Use Element. Further it: will change designations to achieve consistency of the General Plan-Zoninq Code and apply County policies on fut.:ure development: patterns. On I•Iv rch 29 , 1977 , this Board held a hearing on said zm�,ndment proposed by PlannincJ Commission Resolution No. 73-1976 . Notice of said h-�-arincJ- was duly given in the manner required by law . 'The Board at the hearing called for testimony of all persons interested in the matter and twenty-five persons provided testimony on this proposal. The Board closed the public hearinq on the said proposed amend- m,.nit on March 29 , 1977, certified thn Environmental Impact Report adequate and referred the Plan 1-)ac,- to the Plannincl Commission for a rchort on eleven specific items. The Board received the Report of the Planning Commission trans-mitted by rn^morandum from the Director of Planning dated April 8, 1977. '.t'he Board considered the Ilan on April 12, 1977 at a closet] hearing and referred an additional item to the Planning Commission for con sideration. The Planning Cot,-Imissiori nevort on this additional item is included in a memorandum from the I)ircr.tor of Planning dated April 15, 1.977. Cohics of the Planning Director' s r:rc'n:orandu ri:; dated April B and 15, 1977 are on file in the Office of the Clerk of this Roar.d. This Board hereby c:ertifi that the Environmental Impact Report sr•hmi.ttcd to it by the Planning C:o:nmi_;:;iort corrcernin(J the proposed General Plan am^ndment ha:; b-en c:orrpletcd in comlrli ince with th. California Envirornmt:ntu.l. Quality I\ct and that it has revicswcd and co.zsidered the information contained in said Environmental Impact i?• �.�or t Thr. 13oard havi.nq Full,, conr;i.dor�-d tho amenrlm.nnt and l"he r.f;:�reircrtcrl r� ca�mrrnud,rLic,rr:: of t_Irr. J' 1•innirrl c,cmnni �:::.i.c�rr Ilc•r.�rby 1lrrnrnrnc;��:; t:ii•..i: it i nt:eId:s to crdoi,t_ t.:rn S:ui Rippon Valley Arc!a Plan tollowin,J ainon(Imcnts. -1- 1J VOt,tJ'II.OJJ NO. 77/. 00OZ0 r • - 1 . Accepts t'.i o recU:;:mr,ndaL.lons of it:=tff and Lho Plartn!.n<r , Col...miosion pertaining to the refe.r:r:tl of March 29 , 1977 from the iloarrl a--i discusscO in the April 8, 1977 memorandum of the Dir,.ct-or of Planning dealinc1 with: Item 1 - Cancer_nincJ Agricultural Preserves Item 2 - Concer.nincT modification of Ar.t:ero property consi;Lent :with approval of subdiv.Ision 494E Item 4 - Concerning rcclesic,nricion fr.ow Comtnr_rcial to Idedi.um dcn i.+-.y Single Family Residential on the corner. of Old Orchard Road and Sycamore Valley P.oad Item 5 - Concerning modification of Blackhawl: P.anch boundaries Lo .reflect actual permanent open space accurately Item 7 - Concer-nine; of Pared. 208-7..50-38 from Limited Of-ficc to Controlled Manufacturing Item 8 - ConcQrninc; reelassif-icaLiort of lands in San Ramon. Subdivision 4943 property should chan�le frota Lo-w Density and Country I,sLates to Medium Den nit:y. All land to the south of _.ubdivi:.ion 4943 on the gest: side of San Rarnon -Valley Boule- vard :should be classified as Cottnl:ry r_,tatcr3, Agricultural Preserves and General Open Space as shot-:n on Hap 9 of the April 8 mernorandtun. Item 11 - Concerning a number of textual changes as delineated in the April 8 memorandum. 2. Retain the current General Plan designat-ion of ConLrollnel manufacturing for the Harper and Davidson prop^rt:ics south of Crow Canyon Road and east of the Southern Pacific Railroad. 3. Reclassify the Vernal Ileights area proper. t:ics as shown on map 2 of the memorandum of April 1.5, 1.977 from Planning Dirc:cL•or twiL•h the exception that the lo-..i Density catngory be moved one parcel north- ward along Austin Lane. Place the Pander, Williams, and Doras I.:aton properties- in a specific Plan category. 4 . Accept all further te:-:tual chantjcs as presented in thn April 15 memorandum from the Director of Planning referred to as Itera 3. .7- L RESOLUTION iFO. 77/329 00020 y • ' Ir 5 . reclassify the lands cast of Alcosta Doulevard bcrtwe,m th•, P.G. E. right of tray and t1le Weido.-Tiann AgriculL-ural Prc!scrvcsto sho:•r I mds currently zoned I1-7 and R-10 as Medium Density Sing to Family rnsi.dont.ial and those lands dositrnat:r_c1 for d�veloimont and von_-Id I1-40 as Country Estates as ShOV,n on Map I of the April 15 memorandum. Finally, this Board fur.thcr Lhe Director of Planning to i.ncvrporato this propo:3cd Iam-: ndm2n(- into a combined ramendmrnt+ Lo Lhe Gencral Plan which this Roared ...ill consider for adoption during the 1977 calendar year as, one of Lhc three permitted amendments to the mandatory elements of the County General Plan. PASSED on April. 19, 1977 unanimously by Supcarvisors present. -3- REIS0t/trT1011 no. 771329 0002-07 r E C. t'"ll'-FD .IAN Z5 4 38 PH 177 Cr PLhtr1,1t1_ r:at.:l1;r'111 IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUN'T'Y, SPATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Proposed Amendment ) of County General Plan for the ) RESOLUTION NUMBER 77/ 142 Gateway Valley-Orinda area ) (Gov. Code 6S3SS & 65356) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: There is filed with this Board and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. 87-1976 adopted by the Planning Commission, recommending an amendment to the County General Plan for land located in the vicinity of Gateway Valley in the Orinda area as designated therein to change the Land Use and Circulation Elements in the area by placing; the westerly portion of the area referred to in the Orinda General }'tan as "Study Area", including all East {}ay Municipal Utility District lands and all other lands generally westerly of the 1,000- foot elevation level , in the "Major Open Space" land use category and delete from the Plan all Collector roads sholm in the westerly portion of the study area which is to be designated as Open Space. On January 18, 1977, this Board held a hearing on said amendment pro- posed by Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-1976. Notice of said hearing was duly given in the manner required by law. The Board at the hearing called for testimony of all persons interested in the matter, whereat no one appeared to speak either for or against the proposed amendment. The Board members having fully considered the amendment determined that the recommendations as submitted by the Planning Commission are appropriate. This Board hereby finds that the proposed amendment will not have a sig- nificant impact on the environment and that a negative declaration has been prepared and processed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Such processing having occurred prior to new CEQA requirements pertaining to the method of public notification. Finally, this Board further directs the County Planning Department to in- corporate this proposed amendment into a combined amendment to the General Plan which this Board will consider for adoption during; the 1977 calendar year as one of the three permitted amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the County General Plan. PASSED on January 18, 1977 unanimously by Supervisors present. c1:.1M -11iD COPY 1 e�ility" that this le :► fn11, tnu� correct copir o1 th.t nrl;.inat �Inrucnrnl which L: mi file Ir. my otiir_e, ot and that IL na; t:a:rrd F. :ulopt^d l'y linarf�llifornla! on Supervisors nr r;on'_ra ('c to Coanty. Clertile k& x_o[flc•lo Clerk of said Boa.rd1of S pervisory `C./putyClerk 1977 cc: `Director of Planning Ronda Amdahl ()()0;Z07 i EIVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FmAY /9 1977 PLANNING DEPARTMENT J. R, OLSSaN L,4 10A Q1 11W1,10TERV116.00 NT Geraldine Russell TO.• Chief Clerk, Board of Supervisors DATE: May 17, 1977 FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesus SUBJECT: First Combined Amendment to Director of Planni County General Plan in 1977 Please place the attached as a Determination Item on the Board Agenda. Suggested agenda item wording is attached, as is a package of materials for the Board. A copy of the draft resolu- tion has been sent to County Counsel for review. AAD:EMA Attachment 3 Items DETERMINATION (Staff recommendation shown following the item.) CONSIDER adoption of resolution of Combined Amendment of the County General Plan in the Orinda area and Son Ramon Valley area, in accordance with previously declared Board intent. 000207 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORiIIA Re: Proposed Amendment of ) RESOLUTION NO. 77/329 County General Plan For ) The San Ramon Valley Area ) (Gov. Code 9965355 & 65356) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: There is filed with this Board and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. 73-1976 adopted by the Planning Commission recommending an amend- ment to the County General Plan for the San Ramon Valley Area as designated therein. Adoption of the amendment will change all the mandated elements of the County General Plan and, specifically, change the designations for said lands to appropriate land use designations within the Land Use Element. Further it will change designations to achieve consistency of the General Plan-Zoning Code and apply County policies on future development patterns. On March 29, 1977, this Board held a hearing on said amendment proposed by Planning Commission Resolution No. 73-1976. Notice of said hearing was duly given in the manner required by la:r. The Board at the hearing called Tor test-imony of all persons interested in the matter and twenty-five persons provided testimony on this proposal. The Board closed the public hearing on the said proposed amend- ment on March 29, 1977, certified the Environmental Impact Report adequate and referred the Plan back to the Planning Commission for a report on eleven specific items. The Board received the Report of the Planning Commission transmitted by memorandum from the Director of Planning dated April 8, 1977. The Board considered the Plan on April 12, 1977 at a closed hearing and referred an additional item to the Planning Commission for consideration. The Planning Commission Report on this additional item is included in a memorandum from the Director of Planning dated April 15, 1977. Copies of the Planning Director's memorandums dated April 8 and 15, 1977 are on file in the Office of the Clerk of this Board. This Board hereby certifies that the Environmental Impact Report submitted to it by the Planning Commission concerning the proposed General Plan amendment has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Environmental Impact Reoort. The Board having fully considered the proposed amendment and the aforenoted reco_minendations+ of the Punning Cormnission Hereby Announces that it intends to adopt the San Ramon. Valley Area General Plan with the fallowing a^endments. -1- RESOLUTIO.•: -NO. 77/329 G 0 7 _1 i 1. Accept the recommendations of Staff and the Planning Commission pertaining to the referral of !•larch 29, 1977 from the Board and discussed in the April 8, 1977 memorandum of the Director of Planning dealing with: Item 1 - Concerning Agricultural Preserves Item 2 - Concerning modification of Artero property consistent with approval of subdivision 4948 Item 4 - Concerning redesignation. from Commercial to Medium Dansity Single Family Residential on the corner of Old Orchard Road and Sycamore Valley Road Item 5 - Concerning modification of Blackhawk Ranch boundaries to reflect actual permanent open space accurately Item 7 - Concerning reclassification of Parcel 208-250-38 from Limited Office to Controlled Manufacturing Item 8 - Concerning reclassification of lands in San Ramon. Subdivision_ 4943 property should change from Loc• Density and Country Estates to Medium Density. All lard to the south of subdivision 4943 on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boule- vard should be classified as Country Estates, Agricultural Preserves and General Open Space- as shown_ on 24ap 9 of the April 8 memorandum. Item 11 - Concerning a number of textual charges as delineated in the April 8 memorandum. 2. Retain the current General Plan designation of Controlled Manufacturing for the Harper and Davidson properties south of Crow Canyon Road and east of the Southern Pacific Railroad. 3. Reclassify the Vernal Heights area properties as shown on Map 2 of the memorandum of April 15, 1977 from Planning Director with the exception that the Low Density category be moved one parcel north- ward along Austin Lane. Place the Ranger, Williams, and Dorris-Eaton properties in a Specific Plan category. 4. Accept all further textual changes as presented in the April 15 memorandum from the Director of Planning referred to as Iters: 3. -2- RESOLUlIOPi ::0. 77/329 6-CF020 5. Reclassify the lands east of Alcosta Boulevard between the P.G.&E. right of way and the Weidemann Agricultural Preserves to show lands currently zoned R-7 and R-10 as Medium Density Single Family Residential and those lands designated for development and zoned R-40 as Country Estates as shown on Map 1 of the April 15 memorandum. Finally, this Board further directs the Director of Planning to incorporate this proposed amendment into a combined amendment to the General Plan which this Board will consider for adoption during the 1977 calendar year as one of the three permitted amendments to the mandatory elements of the County General. Plan. PASSED on April 19, 1977 unanimously by Supervisors present: CERTIFIED.COPY cc: Director of Planning I certify that this is a full, true & correct copy of the original document which is an file in my office, County Counsel and that it n:1s nasso(l & ,dontrd by the Bgard of Supervisors of Contra Costa Cmtnty. California, on the date shown. ATTEST: J. n. ot.ssox, County Clerk& ex-officio Clerk of said Board of Supervisors by Deputy Clerk AP R 19 1977 on-- ----t VJW:s -3- RESOLUTION NO.. 77/329 60020'7 6COUNTY COU SA c4 OFFICE RECEIVED CONTRA Dace: April 27, 1977 MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA APR �27 1977 J. R. O'L SON To: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors a,ERRD OF SUPERVISORS Attn: Vera Nelson, Deputy Clerk LBy— De From: John B. Clausen, County Counsel By: Victor J. Westman, Assistant County C nsel ` Re: San Ramon Valley Area General Plan Amendment In accordance with your request of April 22, 1977, we have redrafted the draft resolution previously prepared by the Planning Department for the Board's action taken on April 19, 1977. Before entering the attached Resolution in the Board' s records we suggest that you contact the Planning Department to determine if there are any further revisions or changes which they desire made in the attached resolution. Together with this memorandum and the attached resolution we are returning the Board's file on the proposed amendment on the San Ramon Valley Area. VJW:s Attach. cc: Anthony A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning Attn: Heinz Fenichel 000207 r • CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Clerk of the Board Date: April 22, 1977 To : County Counsel Attention Vic Westman _ From: Vera Nelson Deputy Clerk Subject: C Attached for your review is a draft resolutionrepared by the Planning Department with respect to proposed amen ent of the County General Plan for the San Ramon Valley area. ..circ p+ Attachment < �D 000207 IN TITE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF• CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Proposed Amendment) of the County General Plan for the ) RESOLUTION NO. 77/329 San Ramon Valley Area ) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES MAT: There is filed with this Board and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. 73-1976 adopted by the Planning Commission recommending an amendment to the County General Plan for the San Ramon Valley Area as designated therein including changes to all mandated elements of the County General Plan and, specifically, changes of the designations for said lands to appropriate land use designations within the Land Use Element. Further it changes designations to achieve consistency of the General Plan-Zoning Code and applies County policies on future development patterns. On March 29, 1977, this Board field a hearing on said amendment proposed by Planning Commission Resolution No. 73-1976. Notice of said hearing was duly given in the manner required by law. The Board at the hearing called for testimony of all persons interested in the matter and twenty-five persons provided testimony on this proposal. The Board closed the public hearing on this matter on March 29, 1977, certified the Environmental Impact Report as adequate for Board of Supervisors purposes, and referred the Plan back to the Planning Commission for a report on eleven specific items. The Board received the Report of the Planning Commission transmitted by memorandum from the Director of Planning dated April 8, 1977. The Board considered the Plan on April 12, 1977 at a closed hearing and referred an additional item to the Planning Commission for consideration. The Planning Commission Report on this additional item is included in a memorandum from the Director of Planning dated April 15, 1977. The Board having fully considered the General Plan proposed for the San Ramon area hereby ADOPTS the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan with the following amendments. 1. Accept the recommendations of Staff and the Planning Commission pertaining to the referral of March 29, 1977 from the Board and discussed in the April 8, 1977 memorandum of the Director of Planning dealing with: Item 1 - Concerning Agricultural Preserves Item 2 - Concerning modification of Artero property consistent with approval of subdivision 4948 Item 4 - Concerning redesignation from Commercial to Medium Density Single Family Residential on the corner of Old Orchard Road and Sycamore Valley Road Item 5 - Concerning modification of Blackhawk Ranch boundaries to reflect actual permanent open space accurately Item 7 - Concerning reclassification of Parcel 208-250-38 from Limited Office to Controlled Manufacturing Item 8 - Concerning reclassification of lands in San Ramon. Subdivision 4943 property should change from Low Density and Country Estates to Medium Density. All land to the south of subdivision 4943 on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard should be classified as Country Estates, Agricultural Preserves and General Open Space as shown on Map 9 of the April 8 report. Item 11 - Concerning a number of textual changes as delineated in the April 8 report. RESOLUTION NO. 77/329 000207 2. Retain the current General Plan designation of Controlled Manufacturing for the Harper and Davidson properties south of Crow Canyon Road and east of the Southern Pacific Railroad. 3. Reclassify the Vernal Heights area properties as shown on Map 2 of the memo of April 15, 1977 from Planning Director with the exception that the Low Density category be moved one parcel northward along Austin Lane. Place the Ranger, Williams, and Doras Eaton properties in a Specific Plan category. 4. Accept all further textual changes as presented in the April 15 memo from the Director of Planning referred to as Item 3. 5. Reclassify the lands east of Alcosta Boulevard between the PG&E right of way and the Weidemann Agricultural Preserves to show lands currently zoned R-7 and R-10 as Medium Density Single Family Residential and those lands designated for development and zoned R-40 as Country Estates as shown on Map 1 of the April 15 memorandum. Finally, this Board further instructs the Director of Planning and County Counsel to incorporate this proposed amendment into a combined amendment to the General Plan which this Board will consider for adoption during the 1977 calendar year as one of the three permitted amendments to the mandatory elements of the County General Plan. PASSED BY THE BOARD on April 19, 1977 Originating Department: Planning Department cc: Planning Department Public Works Department Assessor RESOLUTION NO. 77/329 000207 07 »7i-Bull \ (. 8501-Green • MAIM (04, - I ` Cfir►�c. + 4ev U ;u .wd yrf Y n.ccM•��-- ou i o � r— r I� 3501-Bu'i 6501-Green .• � ��• • 2 .I A- Ci J-0 t� Pte, m ,. � Lill— ase,— �L P 6 r cs 't-P �.--i _ &AL _ -Fj a 2-Lfo t ova .f ale I, — _ A 1 IA A II _ l ii a -- it i� -- 000207 I� 1p RECEIVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY APR AF 1977 PLANNING DEPARTMENT J. R. OLSSON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �—CONTRA 7A CO_ B ... DeUty TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: April 15, 1977 FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesus SUBJECT: San Ramon Valley Area Plan Director of Planni I On April 12, 1977 the Board referred to the Planning Commission the designation of lands generally east of Alcosta Boulevard between the PG&E right of way and the Weidemann agricultural preserves for review as to residential density. The Planning Commission at its April 12, 1977 meeting, following a review of the referral, determined that the density on the land zoned R-7 and R-10 be designated as Medium Density Single Family Residential and that the remainder of the area that was designated on the draft plan as Low and Medium Density Single Family Residential be designated as Country Estates (see Map 1) . This determination was made unanimously. At the April 12, 1977 hearing before the Board, the Board ordered that the designation for the Vernal heights Area be modified in that (see Map 2) : - The area along Austin Lane would be designated as Country Estates. - The two parcels known as the Williams property be designated as Country Estates. - The Ranger Ranch and Doras Eaton School properties be designated as Low Density Single Family Residential. - The Ranger, Williams, Doras Eaton School properties be placed in a specific plan area. To be consistent with the use of the terms found elsewhere in the Plan, wording should be added to the Plan text on page 25 which states that a second area is to be designated as a specific plan area. The changes to the section called Specific Plan Area are shown in italics below. "SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS There are two Specific Plan Areas designated in the Plan. The first covers a small area located along San Ramon Valley Boulevard at Sycamore Valley Road which forms part of the southern entry into downtown Danville. The purpose of this designation is to ensure that detailed studies are initiated L7,e 00 Microfifmad wish board order Board of Supervisors -2- April 15, 1977 which provide for a coordinated design of these properties and the Plan will have to be amended to designate appropriate land use categories be- fore individual projects can be approved. The second Specific Plan Area is found in the southerly portion of Vernal Heights area north of Stone Valley Road and east of Interstate 680. While the maximum allowable densities are shown on the plan map as Country Estates and Low Density Single FcuniZy Residential, the project allowed in this area must be developed in a manner which maintains the characteristics of the Vernal Drive area to the north: that development of this area shall be based on reasonable locations of building sites as limited by existing topography. The grading plan shall recognize this consideration. The pur- pose of this designation is to ensure detailed studies are completed prior to the approval of a tentative subdivision map or preliminary development plan. A third area of concern was that minor wording changes be considered for purposes of clarification. For this reason the wording on page 2, third full paragraph should be changed as recommended below with changes in italics. "This Plan is part of the County General Plan and is set in the framework of the policies of the countywide General Plan elements, but it concentrates on the special concerns of the Greater San Ramon Valley area which dif- ferentiates it from the County generally. Thus, the plan modifies the County General Plan, but is not separate from it. Findings and policies for the subjects discussed in this document are further explored in the General Plan elements for the County. In the event of inconsistencies between this plan and other elements of the County General Plan this latest adoption shall govern as required by State law. Within this plan, the more specific should control over the more general. The Plan should be con- strued as a whole - the policies, principles and purposes set forth in the text should not be taken out of context. " Also, rewrite the third full paragraph on page 1 as follows: "This plan revises, combines and amends the existing General Plans for the area, which include the Z963 Land Use Element, 2973 Open Space and Conservation Plan, as well as the Z967 AZamo-DanviZZe and the 1971 San Ramon plans which are parts of the County General Plan. Since those plans were adopted a number of changes have oc- curred, including State requirements for new General Plan elements, the formation of new regional agencies, revisions of federal and state laws and plans, economic changes, and new trends in residential project proposals. As a result of all these factors, new responsi- bilities and possibilities for General Plans exist." AAD:ENIA MicroJirrmcd wvdh uopi-d �(Je( , AOL 7 �cZRICULTUCAc.. • �� PQ�sE>z�E AQ P-1 cu \ • r v. ra a�.rµr - i r is 0 � . rr i MIEDIU►1? t $ t ' psi : DE145ITy v 7s_ DE1.JT/A� h •r� � a _ 5PAcE Change row t �. s Low d Medium �CIi4L Densi+i j 5in Ie r +r- FA m i I • 4 CIOUNTRv y` MEnlum vim• ESTATE s r: _;, McUTIPLE fir\ 7n, .r ' •`, 0 t5 ,r•\ . r � ► ♦ •7 ( a \ ....DI . ; •',a • alt �•• 4 c '. PIK c ore `t• � a. � �� 'C i• Sr .SVS et r�.,i _ t ` � • � ' = '� oat : � A „ v,. . � � ': �, t � •• � .�, n��` .� •n moi . . rqEB y — ♦ ; . ' KSC"t0• �iGy DEiVs�.ry 11 P' tt �c C .'•1• '• 't i �r A► C t � 7P �` ` . s `,tit .:. _� „ `� �;. . _ .,• .♦ \�`/ � � �� k a3•> � t M' . , ' •.J y�•%• ,Y•n r � /�•:1 J ' r t' PU(j4•I� �• d � { a••'=' r �,[ �f: :1 •ii a SF.lai' —Yv�BL/ ''� • +. '.•�Pi 7\ y it a to: OPEPI • C 4�' SPACE Microfilmed withboard order, � ' 1 I � ✓1 Trn � r...S',��^T�Fk MAP 2 VERNAL 14EIGHTS AREA t,. .......... • t: .��: .� :::::: .:; : :: ... :�:::• Cl 7y Or WALNUT CREEK '�1� : .... ............. .. rr•• JT •••.••••••••• ••• • •. •.•••••.•••..••- ...... .��::.. .. . CREEK .. .. ... .............. ... : S "a. .......... ... is .... .... ............. ..... .. . ::• .: . .�.�.. ... . ...... .. - ..... ..•. .. •........•• �. .:� i: s,. .. ... .... .... .......... ..... ..:.. ...... ... ........... . ... ... ...... ......... •.•.• ••• i• •••••• •�.•••..: ..••C. •.• •••• ••....••. •••••• • •• ••••• •fG0 O O )0,4',p > > 7_ { • ..•.•! ......u• •.••••. ••.•• •••r• ,t.• •:..•• 0000 B O �QD .0 Y41 ♦�},.: •�•r►li y��i��r•� .. • •• .•• .......... : • 00 DODO O O O 00 • N �� , • •• •�R►.iy/rIa•.• t•••• •. •.•• - ••.•• •• 00 000 00 .O O • • a7 �i♦Yi•i.•.,�,•�.�� •fa.•••••.• . �•.•• • •• •• •.• a ►+ 1•• ••• • 1 ,•.... •.•• 0000 00 00 00 0 00 nrse • _•••• •.• 000 000C OOQ O O zol �jQO!]t! .•• ♦( •• !•J.• u ••• r •�}, 00 OOOL 0000. Q �O °'ONr, •••••��.►♦l•. �.p • iv•Jf• •• :� o 00000 oto nt°•• •I:►••`•••Z• SINGLE K'1,:f ;. . ... O O ,O Q p000 O Q Op Pi'.....�. .1.•• .e FAMILY +'sf►,�t•,1 • • ti boo ) o° CrD .! 1 rn00 or/j�7y4%...of)X)�� •a'•'•.♦.••ii.�•we. ::•►••: • t�y�f .. . S O 0 9 O (Jf)Oh 0f1()Y;O. •af•I••.i♦�.1 t•1• f•T •I• ■• .(l // �1 t, / R�sI�FNrraz y* O t0( COUNTRY 0 0 til:u`��j��•/• i.�••.il,..i•�.p•• 0 Q o cTe 1 Gtc\°�, Al Al LOW DENSITY •►••:••ii +• ESTATE •�t►.. i�.k. .tf. ..}1/.l.•... \•. 00 .Of 00 000 t.• ~`.•. C O QOO 00 ,. .u... 4 .••Nf•y..a ♦Syl.r.�.:•r•,{ii�•,•♦•• •.a• 1.1.•••. •• uOG Ot" )q ►u•}• af•wy,i' ..•.•N•r••,•1:fli •'ii•t•}}}}}}f�•.Jt.••T :\ O 00 u•0 l 000 , r ••••T.�.v.••.i' •••a♦11•.••_W.JSN�.I�♦iu11•N:•,•••• .•• • flJ• •••:'F••••J..•Y♦♦Xf•irf'►••f ly•.• 1'..•• •� U 00000 �o a .00000° ..... .. a; • •...••`.•1.••r•!d•..-•.••�rl••♦ •tt i�•.••y.i• �•, �'•\ 000 t10 Or 000000 •• iy .�•♦f• •.yY•♦•J tiiL•tr,.♦ ti:Y u• ••�t• ••4 s�♦ "` O O 00 00000, µµff.• • • •r• •• �i:.i..1•ay• 1 .• ..Sv,•�•- f.W 000 ') O )O 0000°! •r;•.+.mfr. K.•..L.• ••i+•f.�,►.t.'N►i ••• /• ••i�ij ..•.• ;`d„ 00 O O OC 00. 00 00 ♦••.••)� •...• � f,t•.•y'►a•••t•.yT'. ••�� •• • • •.•••i O 00 00 00 r0 O- i•.•• • \...• ��. •t•. Jl7•`..,.1{ft •.•,t•• j,1. C. ..-.• 0 O 0000 QO 60f] v.�uiV�•�• 1G i.Kis• i.. s •. ••,�♦...j► l .(.- ib :�� 0000( ,O 00 O 1� •• .. JA•••••J N.• • • ! .( .a•:••�. • • • • O 0 O )000 00 OGO •i•!l•l+.!.• .J•. Y •a••♦••`i•�:•J.•J+i••s.f.• •j •• • •• `� O 00 O QOQa ••••rt.J t.i•..' /j a. hs+.• .•S•i/r •l•.1•f•�t•t•• '• `�" •.• y�,-.r •• •• ••tslii.•l•.a.: ♦i liA J♦• ►•• •Ya fY.•.� NM.i�.• Q' yrti• 00 r .• )000(I • •••►•• �i•rf... •}• ♦ r • lJ Qp 1w•... • ••• �.� �. .. J • Y At+• • �••• N••• •• • •• ` 1 OOC 00 •.• J—��( •• itun.J►a. }:•ui.•f•.•)t.J t •�••.•• 4•l.,l:iZJ. • •f•. )` •..• 1ti• _40."_4 Nsi�w fJIrJi R.I.!}1.:�•�••'i••• ••� •.i •• •./ �..• •�•.i� v i5'• )O on •u• OGO ,,yy •�+•♦{if • •.• ►'X �i �RR;f..... •.• • 1. .♦,j(,i • `•• �••�s• L - •1�L•t•t••,• 1•�iaSR)l+?\•t• •.i•lIt ♦it '0rfr t+••• i,`rsZlri `• 00G ••.•• �1fJ00 ..�`•a•►N� L' "Y♦�uvf N•'•••Ji i••.�r•.:�•r•f -0 iy f`.N.t• Y♦i• .� • a• Onnnr •.••• ,0000. ♦y 1:•• `,� •+..Y..••.•sit�• •►♦1.1i iii.+li D, T•a•.:4.. M :•, 2 } •� • .` ► • p sr, • pvD �' �tt•i.:tsiC•i.•i.11(i i.•♦r:'•ILI•.• .� •'.11•�.•• i•�•�. .r i )t Sf FCIFIC: ©tt-tz11a�--� •.�1,• : f '�i� a.w+�*�i:..r.a.•. .04 . a..- �••.. i .••�f�J'f !T •• 0 ••• '� U ' J ••.•! 1�j LC ►•r/.0••i)i..;•1(i 14.'r •tifi� J 7� i t••�i• • i•> • is ..,,• �• UO ( ula.. =t .• •.i.••••r'i ••\•t• • • a•• N i �•.• . 7..• n° PLAN... . �t) .... P�0 �a':l •Y "�`..`.�::�: �i:`v:l. r:' •♦•la• • J.►: ^ AREA ••• O C=�!� •..4•ya.►•.•.•V'f f. .(\•,•�• We Ttr•riaa•�• •r..y if •A .►'t MY•• •..►. �_�t :l►� f • <. •a•.'r a�•iaY....s' i.VVrr"6ir�{♦• • ••tiW• �,r T•..l• .w:y♦�,� S•• •►• • ��• )O (1 •• C.rf♦•.•••ryi•*.r.•YT• Nsl i.• • • ♦ -H • •.:: • J`+ •_.. ....• • :.r•.►•:a•o•f.y i•• •(aa♦'•�• •�J� •.•••• T• .tp t`aa • • J4G• •• • +•••••• • ..r . •.�.i•.•}.r •l.♦. •tr. ♦••a+ ita• •.••••`` •..yAi•. •ee ...•••• •.. • •f • • •q• '1.�• •..• ••..• _)0000 UO .•...t•i•,a ''►f if• r.•J••••1• � r• �fw, i• f • • `,� •••• •.••• 0000 •N• JN• : 1 { •.• ,itT7 J •• •••.• .�. ♦ ♦ l a►1••ill •• •••••• ti`f.YY�•II.��s�:iIf.f.+Jl.yia�i'7•►•/�i.��ft••��.. -��`.', •r:�.••..a•.•�•/•••..•••••I•iap►..:.♦`.•.�•fi..rt!�`as•.••�!ir)1••i.►..•.•••.yi.\.f•J•!.••.h•rtiJJi7 qVi.N.•+♦iir'RJ•.�`l}.+•iu•.•••a•••a•�.•a,•••••f.•.•1•..�.1t��!A•�/�,7MX}.'T••.'..••••N••r••ti•••rM`•i7•.•�••i•1�jrpop. rC•• • •f i• t •. •11N `'.•• t - + Ti •.•• y• •.r '.'t•a7fiOcoee. Vyv� �i TS i•? •y• • •• u •'I1V1�11(�• _ ♦ O! ••• t •...• ••u •u•••T•i.•o•..Y�.1i. ♦r•u••• : i/fl•(i• ��'•• 1•• if/r0 0000 ...• 00 Qi••:• f •ri •.�i.•• N•R.T�i COMMERCIAL :a'" ( 0 t Goo G , ;;••• •• ....•; ,: •' .z , �"r 000 000000000000 0 1 0 00000 00000) •'• _ OPEN 0 0000• COUNTRY 1000 0 , U C ••�+'t ••• SPACE ESTATE io00oo0 0 00( ••• .•'i••.♦ 0000000 0 o FA loon 0 ••••• y••J•• QES• ••r••, Ou uvuu.,.,.,.,.,0000000 O 0000 ••• f•t...• �''•a ♦ r• LAW 000000000000000000 O 0000000 O 00000000000000or.,n LEGEND ..••••.. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL- LOW DENSITY 0000U OC °"°O°°°r00000oc SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-COUNTRY ESTATE =f3;�f}f SPECIFIC PLAN AREA BOUNDARY Microfilmed with board order Page 16 -- Cgntra C( SR. Pla' n* . l . Is Liked ilAaMer h�lews IslurM . MARTINEZ - Nine- ty4ne per cest of dw San Ramon Valley General Plan has been tentatively appeaved by the Bond Supervisors, but won't reach formal adoption.for_ annih weak. Board members say they're satisfied with all of the document except a pro. vision calling 1br estate" zoning a'a ppreel -of land on Stone Valley Road next$a interstate M. While moat of the ReW dents of the area bei aired for that zoaii g: --- �t one-acre minimum lot site that allows the boarding of ' horses--tee beopel'ty OW; er head mW bb W dev lrss < eaoM 1 Su .ate tine, tic that to tile, PistRinga mentfssrdrt'tinw' - Otherwise,- do'pian; pasged wets scrnttny An amendment to the ms's tloveral plant,the San Ramos plan was 4kvel- oped ear a two!sacVsrirrd to dMe YPalk . ryesi�nq�•, ra�rsi- �fo. #sr at" of the am Raises Valley to be mWexchinif*44 8201- , n onlel Le or GPM i : n order m h lines in t e area —..a •'corneratwse" of tip accardis to ply IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Recommendation ) of the Planning Commission on ) Proposed Amendment to the County ) April 12, 1977 General Plan for the San Ramon ) Valley Area. ) The Board on March 29, 1977 having closed the public hearing on the proposed amendment to the County General Plan for the San Ramon Valley area and referred said plan back to the Planning Commission to review specific items of concern and submit its recommendations thereon; and The Board having received an April 8, 1977 memorandum from Mr. A. A. Dehaesus , Director of Planning, transmitting the staff and Planning Commission report in response to the aforesaid referral; and Supervisor E. H. Hasseltine having recommended that the following actions be taken: (1) Refer back to the Planning Commission for report the change of the density of land located east of Alcosta Boulevard from the Pacific Gas & Electric property on the south to the Wiedemann agricultural preserves on the east and north; (2) Request Planning staff to develop minor wording change to provide for further clarification of the plan (on page 2) ; (3) Board concur in four actions with respect to Vernal Heights area: a. Put the land commonly referred to as Williams property into Country Estates; b. Put the Ranger Ranch and Doris Eaton properties into Low Density Single Family Residential; c. Put the Austin Lane area into Country Estates ; d. Put the Ranger, Williams , and Eaton properties into a Specific Plan area; (4) Board concur in designation of Harper and Davidson properties as Controlled Manufacturing rather than Medium Density Single Family Residential; and (5) Board concur in acceptance of the remainder of the plan with the exception of those items referenced above; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations of Supervisor Hasseltine are APPROVED and April 19, 1977 at 11:05 a.m. is FIXED for decision on the proposed General Plan amendment. PASSED by the Board on April 12, 1977 . CC: County Planning Commission CERTIFIED COPY Director of Planning i o.rtiry that thin is a tuu. true & correct coDY of County Counsel an is p"'" which aovtod by th;�`0i suwrvuors of "RLM cosu Count?7 La-Lwann 86 a. th& fit^ sirw-a. A?Wg R: L a O moi` Clwk tby &rr+�Cuft d ma Board t /977 JECEIVED f CONTRA COSTA COUNTY APR 1 1977 PLANNING DEPARTMENT J. R. OLSSON LIEIR�KL&.CMLT�S DL.OF �RVORS OA` 0 De TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: April 8, 1977 FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesu SUBJECT: San Ramon Valley Area Director of Planni General Plan I This memo provides the Planning Commission reponse to your Board Order of March 29, 1977 which referred the San Ramon Valley Area Plan back to the County Planning Commission to review specific items of concern raised at the Board hearing on that date; and that following this review, the Commis- sion's recommendations incorporated into a report, be submitted to the Board prior to April 12, 1977. The County Planning Commission considered your referral at its April 5, 1977 meeting. The Commission reviewed the attached April 5, 1977 report entitled, "Staff Report on the Board of Supervisors March 29, 1977 Referral to the County Planning Commission for the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan." After a staff presentation of the report and discussion by the Commission of the points raised in the report, the Commission unanimously approved the report. The Commission then instructed me to forward the report to the Board as the report and recommendation of the Commission on the specific items re- ferred. In addition to the items formally referred to the Commission, I raised two other major items presented at the Board Hearing, which were not formally referred to the Commission: the Plummer request for partial Country Estates designation on his property and a homeowners' group request to designate a portion of Roundhill as Open Space. The Commission unanimously reaffirmed its previous recommendation on these items. All of the foregoing comprises the report of the Planning Commission. In addition, as requested, the following is a list of persons who spoke at the public hearing and a review of their comments as they relate to the Plan proposals. The following listing briefly summarizes the issues raised. 1. Sycamore Shopping Center. Mrs. Martha Douglas, President of Sycamore Homeowners Association and Mr. John Blessen, Vice-President of DiGiorgio Development Corporation (owner of the land) . Both supported the change discussed in item m4 of the Staff Report. M:crofi'mEd with board order Board of Supervisors -2- 0 April 8, 1977 2. Vernal Heights area designation as Country Estates. Four persons spoke against designation of at least some of the Bernal Heights area as Country Estates; they were, Eugene F. DeBolt, Mr. Monroe Wingate, Mr. Z. H. Anderson and Mr. Wayne Patten. Four persons spoke in favor of the Country Estates designation; they were, Ms. Lynette Green, Mr. John Lasagna; Mr. John Lucey, representing Vernal Area Improvement Association, and Mr. Dennis Ball . A fifth person, Ms. Dorie Joule, asked a question on the subject. Only a portion of the area designated as Country Estates was referred to the Planning Commission. It is discussed as Item #3 in the Staff Report. 3. Roundhill designation as Open Space. Two speakers requested that a portion of Roundhill be designated as Open Space, they were Mr. William K. Houston, representing Round Hill Homeowners, and Mr. James Rettig. This item was not referred to the County Planning Commission, however, the Commission reaffirmed its stand on this issue at its April 5th, hearing. 4. Harper-Davidson request for Controlled Manufacturing. Three persons spoke in favor of this change; Mr. L. A. Davidson, a property owner, Mr. Lawrence Harper, a property owner, and Mr. Joseph Field, a lawyer representing Mr. Harper. This item is discussed as #5 on the Staff Report. 5. Change from Limited Office to Controlled Manufacturing. Mr. Irving L. Lieber, representing the property owner, spoke in favor of this change. This is discussed as item P of the Staff Report. 6. Plummer-Read request for a Country Estate designation on lands recommended as Open Space. Mr. George Allen spoke in favor of this change. This item was not referred to the Planning Commission, but the Commission action on this item was reaffirmed at its April 5th, 1977 hearing. 7. Navlet's Nursery parcel clarification. Mr. Brad Hirst, representing Navlet's Nursery holdings at Camino Ramon and Sycamore Valley Boulevard, requested clarification of wording in text relating to this property. He received that clarification. Board of Supervisors -3- April 8, 1977 8. Country Estate designation on lands adjacent to San Ramon Valley Boulevard and on limiting San Ramon Valley Boulevard to two lanes. Mr. Michael Wahlig, representing San Ramon Homeowners Association raised these two items. They are discussed as items #8 and #9 of the Staff Report. 9. Clarification of General Plan as it concerns the Artero property. Mrs. Randi Dalton spoke on this item and environmental questions in general . It is discussed as item #2 on the Staff Report. 10. Clarification of Specific Plan Area status. Mr. G. H. Kissin wanted to know if the Specific Plan Area at Sycamore Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Valley Road was still designated in the Plan. He was informed that it was. 11 . Clarification of Sunny Glen parcel . Mr. William Struthers, representing Sunny Glen Adult Community, supported the Planning Commission decision on Parcel 153 showing it as High Density Single Family Residential . No action requested. 12. Comments by two Citizens' Committee Members. Mr. William V. Cardinale, former Chairman of the San Ramon General Plan Review Committee and Dr. Joseph L. Hirsch, a former member of the Com- mittee and representative of the County Service Area R-7 Citizens' Ad- visory Committee, supported by the General Plan and the planning process in developing the plan. AAD:EMA Attachment 0 Or)f�'� cc - County Administrator County Counsel Public Works Director Supervisor Eric Hasseltine Mr. Wm. Cardinale • 4 1 STAFF REPORT ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARCH 29, 1977 `• REFERRAL TO THE COUNTY PLANNING MMISSION FOR THE SAN MION VALLEY AREA GENERAL PLAN April 5, 1977 0GOIr?0 7 Mkrommed with EoaM order On March 29, 1977 the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan. The Board, on that date, closed the public hearing on the draft plan, certified the Environmental Impact Report as adequate, and referred several items back to your Commission for report. For your convenience this staff report is arranged in a manner similar to previous staff reports on the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan. ti 1. REQUEST BY: - Staff Your Commission and the Board of Supervisors have recently approved six agricultural preserve rezonings including approximately 695 acres of land within the Planning Area. In an effort to treat these agricultural preserves consistently with those already designated on the draft General Plan, the land use categories on these new agricultural preserves should be changed to the Agricultural Preserve designation on the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan. The proposed changes are shown on Map 1. RECONWENDATION: Change the plan map to reflect the new agricultural preserves. 2. REQUEST BY: Supervisor Hasseltine On January 25, 1977, your Commission approved subdivision #4948 on the Artero property. This decision was appealed by Randi Dalton and denied by the Board of Supervisors on !March 15, 1977. There was some question regarding the proposed General Plan designations as they affect that project approval. It was requested that the land use map for that property be clarified. RECOD94ENDATION: .Modify the land use map to reflect the decision on subdivision #4948 as shown on Map 2. 3. REQUEST BY: Numerous Speakers The Vernal Area Improvement Association requested your Commission to place roughly 200 acres of land into the Country Estates designation. That land was ,shown.on the Citizens' draft plan as Low Density Single Family Residential. Staff recommended the addition of some land along Austin Lane and land in proposed Subdivision #4879. The Board of Supervisors has referred the lower portion of this area including Austin Road area and the lands included within proposed Subdivision #4879 back to your Commission for a report. The referral is whether that land should be shown as Low Density Single Family Residential rather than as Country Estates. This is basically the lower area recommended for addition by staff. The area along Austin Lane includes few remaining parcels capable of further division. The change of this land to Low Density Single Family Residential would have only minor impact on the area and is not necessary for protection of the Vernal Heights area to the north. This land is zoned R-20. The area covered by proposed Subdivision #4879 and the adjacent school property have raised questions on the appropriateness of the Country Estate designation. 000207 Staff concern for this land has been and continues to be that development on this property be done in a sensitive manner because of the difficulty of development of this property due to parcel configuration and the physical constraints of the site. The key issues should be the finding of appropriate building sites and avoidance of a conventional subdivision with substantial grading. Staff can support the desig- nation of this land as Low Density Single Family Residential, but only with the understanding that any project to be considered under that designation would be developed in a manner consistent with property constraints and the country atmosphere of the area. `. RECOMENDATION: Change the designation of the land along. Austin Lane and for Subdivision #4879 to Low Density Single Family Residential as shown on Map X3. Add wording to the text as the second to last paragraph on page 18, which states: "The land adjacent to 1-680 and northerly of Stone Valley Road is designated as Low Density Single Family Residential on the land use map. While this is the appropriate General Plan designation, the projects in this area must be developed in a manner consistent with maintenance of the characteristics of the Vernal Drive area to the north: that development of this area shall be based on reasonable locations of building sites as limited by existing topography. The grading plan shall recognize this consideration. 4. REQUEST BY: Staff The Sycamore Planned Unit Development was approved in 1965. In that project approval a shopping center under certain conditions of approval was designated for a ten acre parcel at the northeast corner of Old Orchard Drive and Sycamore Valley Road. One of these conditions was that within four years of approval, the developer had to justify the need for the shopping center or the parcel would revert to Single Family Residential District. This condition has not been met. Therefore, it is recommended that the General Plan designation be changed from Commercial to Medium Density Single Family Residential District. The proposed change is shown on Map 4. The property owner as well as the Sycamore Homeowners Association support this change. RECOMMENDATION: Change the designation of the property from Commercial to Medium Density Single Family Residential. S. REQUEST BY: Supervisor Hasseltine There was a concern that the boundaries shown for the Blackhawk Ranch Planned Unit Development did not adequately reflect the approved plan. RECOMMENDATION: Change the General Plan as shown on Map 5 to more adequately reflect the approved Blackhawk approved plan as was intended. QCrf)2O7 6. REQUEST BY: L. A. Davidson, Lawrence Harper, and Joseph A. Field, lawyer for Dir. Harper Both Dir. Harper and Dir. Davidson made presentations before your Commission on their desire to have their lands designated as Controlled Manufacturing. These lands are currently zoned A-21 General Agriculture, and were designated Controlled Manufacturing on the 1971 San Ramon Area Plan. Since the adoption of that plan, several actions have occurred `which affect the property. In 1973 the County established Assessment District 1973-3 to bring required roads, sewer and water facilities into the "Bishop Ranch Area". Both the Harper and Davidson properties are included within that Assessment District and are paying assessments which have brought facilities needed for the land to urbanize. One of the issues raised was that the assessments were based on land use and therefore the County would be harming these property holders by changing the land use designation from Controlled Manufacturing to Medium Density Single Family Residential. In conversation with Mr. Ted Wright of Coleman, Selmi and Wright, whosefirm prepared the assessments for the Assessment District, land use assumptions were not a basis for determining costs. Sewer assessments were on a per acre basis; road assessments had a frontage foot benefit added into the calculation (keep in mind that frontage improvements could be required of the applicant at the time of development in any case) . Mr. Wright made it quite clear that the reason for this approach was that experience had taught his firm that conditions, general plans, and zoning change from time to time and land use designation might lead to unfair assessments at some future date. To summarize, there was no commitment to land use type given by the establishment of Assessment District 1973-3. (A more detailed explanation is contained in the attached memo from Larry Reagan.) The reason the General Plan Committee recommended changing the land use designation on this property from Controlled Manufacturing to Medium Density Single Family Residential was that your Commission and the Board of Supervisors have approved the Broadmoor Homes, Country-view, and Centex residential projects. These actions have helped delineate the boundary line between residential and industrial land use (see Map 6) . The General Plan Committee recommended that this boundary continue southward and these properties be designated residentially. On Tuesday, March 22, 1977, your Commission approved Final Development Plan 3049-76, for the Countryview project (see Map 7) . The relationship of that residential project to the Harper land is clearly displayed. As can be seen, the continuation of Andros Drive southerly onto the Harper property as a residential street is clearly designated. Staff feels that recent decisions make residential development of the property more appropriate than Controlled Manufacturing, and that a Medium Density Single Family Residential designation will not pose a hardship on these property owners. RECOMDIENDATION: Leave the plan as forwarded to the Board, that is, designated for Medium Density Single Family Residential uses. ()e(irb'� • 7. REQUEST BY: Irving L. Lieber Repeated requests have come to your Commission and the Board concerning the disposition of certain parcels of land designated Limited Office in the Citizens Committee's draft for the Crow Canyon Road area. The majority of the area designated Limited Office is zoned M-3. At the public hearing on July 27, 1976 Bill Meder requested this land be designed for Multiple Family. At the September 7, 1976 hearing Jack Weightman requested this land be designated as Commercial. At the Board of Supervisors hearing on March 29, 1976, Irving Lieber, representing the owner, requested the land be designated as Controlled Manufacturing. Staff concerns are that the area is inappropriate for residential use or retail commercial uses. The area is, however, needed to help provide tax base and employment opportunities to the Valley area. Staff had previously recommended Limited Office Designation but recognizes that the Controlled Manufacturing designation will provide slightly more versatility in the potential utilization of the property. The property to the south is designated as Controlled Manufac- turing. (See Map 8) . RECOMMENDATION: Change the designation of this property from Limited Office to Controlled Manufacturing. 8. REQUEST BY: Staff and San Ramon Homeowners The area west of San Ramon Valley Boulevard immediately south of Bishop Ranch was recently considered by your Commission for the Woodhill Subdivision #4932 and rezoning #2094. This was to rezone 186 acres of A-2 land with 1S1 acres ' going into an A-4, Agricultural Preserve District, and the remaining 3S acres of land adjacent to San Ramon Valley Boulevard going into an R-10 District. This rezoning request was approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 8, 1977 and Subdivision #4943 on February 15, 1977. The 1971 San Ramon General Plan in effect for this project site basically designated this land as Medium Density Single Family Residential; the R-10 District complies with that designation. The proposed San Ramon Valley Area Plan designated the _and as Low Density Single Family Residential or R-15 or less density, and Country Estates, R-40 or larger. Based on the decision of the rezoning and subdivision, it is recommended that the land zoned to R-10 be designated Medium Density Single Family Residential on the General Plan. As a part of that appeal process much discussion centered around whether or not the Woodhill project would serve as a precedent for more intensive use in this area. It was felt that southerly of the Woodhill subdivision, the land became more rugged and the hills pinched toward the road. A more restric- tive land use designation was called for. Staff agrees with this analysis. RECOMtilENDAT ION: Change the land use designation on the Woodhill subdivision to Medium Density Single Family Residential and on the property southerly of that site as Country Estates, Agricultural Preserves, and General Open Space as shown on Map 9. 9. REQUEST BY: San Ramon homeowners The draft San Ramon Plan as submitted to the Commission by the Citizens Committee contained wcrding on page 35 restricting San Ramon Valley Boulevard to a two lane road south of the Bollinger Canyon Road interchange southerly to the Alameda County Line. Vern Cline, the Public Works Director, sent a memo to your Commission requesting this restriction be removed from the text. Our Department supported the Public Works Director as did your Commission in terms of' what you recommended for adoption to the Board of Supervisors. With the proposed further reduction of densities along San Ramon Valley Boulevard as recommended in item #8 above, it is requested by the San Ramon Ilomeowners that, text be reintroduced to page 3S limiting San Ramon Valley Boulevard to two lanes southerly of Montevideo Drive. In an effort to verify whether or not the restriction to two lanes is warranted, or whether continued flexibility by absence of a specification in the General Plan is desirable, the Public Works Department reran the traffic model for the San Ramon Valley which was utilized in the General Plan revision. The results of the model runs are attached as Appendix B. They show the potential need for a four lane road by 1990, even if no further development were to occur on San Ramon Valley Boulevard south of Montevideo. RECODQIENDAT ION: Make no change to the draft plan. . 10. REQUEST BY: Supervisor Schroder Supervisor Schroder requested a review of zoning as it relates to the General Plan map and text, to determine if there were any "flagrant violations" In responding to this referral, staff has utilized the "Interpretive Policies in General Plan-Development Ordinance Conformance" adopted by your Commission in January, 1974. One item clearly spelled out in that policy is that the General Plans are broad in policy and have generalized boundary lines, whereas zoning is usually geared to parcel boundaries. This leads to differenced between these two instruments, though most of these differences are not significant. The Citizens Committee in its review of the General Plan looked carefully at the zoning/General Plan conformity issue. Where property was constructed in conformance with existing zoning, the General Plan proposal was modified to reflect that situation. The General Plan Committee started with 33 zoning/General Plan nor.conformities. Most of these were resolved through the General Plan process. This was aided by the decision to treat approved projects as givens in the plan. In a few cases it was the Committee's recommendation to change the plan, and ultimately the zoning of lands, to provide for a better land use plan. Since property owners are concerned about these changes, most of them were raised as issues before the Board or the Planning Commission. The major nonconformities and their disposition to date are listed below. 0, .y ,.., 1. � The Livorna Heights area which is further addressed in item 3 of this staff report. Zoned R-20 and designated as Country Estates. 2. Land zoned R-15 at Camino Tassajara and. Sycamore Valley Road most of which is still shown as residential but which is within Special Concern Area #1. 3. The M-3 zoned property designed as Limited Office on the CoFission recommended plan and discussed as item #7 in this report. 4. The Special Concern Area #2 in San Ramon, zoned R-40, R-7, and N-B. The property owner is concerned about the down-zoning of this property. S. The Multiple Family zoned property in the Sunny Glen area of San Ramon. This designation was protested before your Commission but not raised before the Board. The owner appears to be willing to go along with this change. There exist other smaller inconsistencies which will be resolved through Commission initiated rezonings. Staff feels that there are no major zoning/General Plan nonconformities with the text of the plan, though it must be restated that since zoning is parcel-based and the plan relates more to the physical landscape there will be boundary line interpretation problems. RECOINNENUATION: Make no changes to the draft plan. 11. REQUEST BY: Supervisors Hasseltina and Schroder Certain Board members requested clarifications of certain portions of the text. Several minor editorial changes are recommended to increase clarity. Since the changes are for clarity only, their location in the text and suggested rewording only is given. Staff can provide further discussion upon request. The plan text shall be changed as follows: A. Rewrite the third full paragraph on page 1 as fellows: "This plan revises and combines the existing General Plans for the area, which include the 1963 Land Use Element, 1973 Open Space and Conservation Plan, as well as the 1967 AZamo-Danville and the 1971 San Ramon plans which are parts of the County General Plan. Since those plans were adopted a number of changes have occurred, including State requirements for new General Plan elements, the formation of new regional agencies, revisions of federal and state laws and plans, economic changes, and new trends in residential project proposals. As a result of all these factors, new responsibilities and possibilities for General Plans exist. 000?C) B. Add to the second full paragraph on page 2 the following: "The General Plan revision delineates an approach to growth, development, facilities and other community needs which will enable the Planning Area to develop properly with adequate public services while retaining the natural beauty of the region for the Plan period of fifteen years, to 1990. The Plan consists of maps and text. The maps are useful for orientation and generalized land use statements, but the Plan text must be used for policy guidelines and to understand the concepts relating to suitable types and densities of development, provision of facilities, safety from hazards and environmental protection. Due to the scale of the plan, the lines designating the various land uses on the plan map are general and not precise. " C. Rewrite the last paragraph on page 6 as follows: "State law requires local zoning ordinances and development projects to be consistent with the General Plan. Ordinarily the General Plan land use designation defines the maximum development potential in any area, to be modified by environmental constraints, circulation and facilities needs, and ancillary uses such as churches, recreation facilities, and other uses which are permitted under the conforming zoning. " D. Rewrite the second to last objective under "Circulation" on page 14 to read: "Allow development in outlying areas only when necessary transportation facilities are in place or committed to be developed" E. Rewrite the third paragraph of page 18 to read: "Residential areas, identified by the density of dwelling units considered appropriate, range from Country Estate to Multiple Family Medium Density. Within each density category variations in land use density and intensity do not exceed the density range authorized by this plan. Within the above, in areas designated for single family use, the Planned Unit Development Concept may be utilized, which allows clustered housing and a limited number of attached housing units where appropriate. " 00(179'7 Change Genaral Plan -I-o mfleco- ad6l�lon of new Agri cul+ura l Pres2rves change rom General ( Pen Space +o Agricu4ural Preserve ..r 4� t; Change from w N General Open "S Pace, a 450• Single FQm;ly Cour' -ry EsA-a�¢ 4 S i n4z Family k Low Densi+y �-o b► Agriculk�ra1 Pr¢s¢rVe �gricul+ural Preserves MAP 2 CLARIFICATION MAP OF GENERAL PLAN FOR ARTERO PROPERTY AREA AN 340' 400' } WAY ARTERo OPEN SP4CE :tir'1. �r\�.• '.moi!.!moi! ,I� r�� `.,�../• w SO if r�:�/ `` ►1 _ �. •:�! • -moi.\i+^.-:: �\ , f sy •M"' , . ~•'•LJ iN �jj `�' µ1�0 / —:' /".�. �• ••J •/� +�D0-0--LL COV CfM+t ~ ol ,�Y •i �� •• ,.«i`�` ..(� - l-�;\yiyt/,.... �.��/' •AL1• .' ,;,,,.�` ' �!�may.: iM \ raj• '1 •...''''�`.',ti.: {�. '+ ..V / +, .••';~ '• S •'/ ',;Z` � � p.-�.y, y//////111. •4 \~�• �/.;- lr'%• I. ��!��;.�"•.�:5{\y/�2��F�'•.. '• e 0002a7 i MAP 3 VERNAL HEIGHTS AREA CITY OF r. a a — -CITY J WALNUT CREEK, OF ta WALNUTI- W S, ';CREEK SINGLE FAMILY a RESIDENTIAL - L.4w 1 � •ix"� it ��`l�+-_.,.��M—'1cT-; �Sts. .1 �w � a� CQUIYTeY, =1 ESTATE -41 •..-� � i ',�F;•., i ` �' 'ii, o+'+aft ._,�. °y�.�! r�f •'• �. y"✓' ';i�, ;L r .r.':•. s c�. r'� -`%SINGLE FAMILY + c+ + # :••r �n jZEst DE1YTIgL ;�'"• *s:" • �� :. ; G S it' taw :'_t'• '=` u' CONSIDER CHANGE FROM FAMILY ;,tL •,ti COUNTRY ESTATE TO ftESICENTIAL.- Low ^..� LOW DENSITY SINGLE -"' � ► '"'` FAMILY RESIDENTIAL '_GOMMF.IZClAL :�'-v- �� "r :N•r .• �I' • � : �(:r .�•_ COUNTY •""`f • - p' ESTATE :r• OPEN SaAcE FAMILY =IMMDENTIAL.sr�� LaW 1.�: 000707 .............. ------- > , 1 MEDIUM DENSITY , s I• t' s Si rs!„•a C? •r' ♦ N ;j�iQ•Z•1♦•+`+s 3�r yacl -: v a•' •fL we• t '•,1.._ ..,. _,• raS;per � • .f =s _T .,..r i -.t" � to CA"o -•T::. _ rx sue .f• sl C r e:rl =a ` 0.., ..,sty; s ,�... .•.••as! f xt fa f j: •• '.• - t'•a'w,� f 0 4• '" /; r...-i rr.\ ,t, 7MDIIPNMIII ..+: (w r '.�.. •a .(fta _. t tt3 7ft• ' '.•+l?at'' _'._`tJ...l/of C!)•♦ •L\a.r�'Jt...• qE�„1.._..1• Pe ar {a t'N!"7tC•a a ��`L' ..•`f, fs M.3.--/ •_3.�s�-{•�",� '.'w r Sx 1= 1 f \�_r... .f3O ff' f ,v tfi w• 00 '♦..+•' f tYi:• •aa r•L y 7.r•O Li It r �� 5113•.,.HJ e 5sit .: " X4664 -r ;; �i, x, .,• Po c{ - 4406 :.�t_.;r• \ .rte i:e• , .yp ar;' 42 _..d •. s "rrr ♦0 Y :, .: ». 11 •„ `•, .� • �5� .r Sing •1 r'• "" •• *�� ,� ; (`��;�'14�•/7 NStTY_ af at • _P ,i.-rA Ct t ••\,\_ •1I.-Ow •!7 t• e•• t_l p ' • �!.�_ .i,L,.'7 a: a•r'� •a ..r to 4iAc sr .. y +' n :(as ...-j tr: OC`r a c, r•� tx ,af• 5L%:A Gt ,.. ... s1e t '�•L'f676,_ -.: t7 to - h••`'.:�rri;a� t .. is �'''' .. .•: ��..� •••t,N ji? �'T"�.•• �'sj,•' .'//-tl� .. •iw"'.`'~ n �:%ti; 1 'S -'-a, •u til rei ta• i1• :1•,0 1 •r• :(y�'a ., (j• iia+ p P :S� !*S •, ,. ,f 1 f• 1 `� � •f ,aS as • tin .CpN'•aa : _,� � •t `�� •n !" i �' :' •••tr~ l''' .ri�1 QI\� �.•• er, e 1s21 !1!,S1 '�"'•T- i •, •: ''_• �\ •.oa •_ :Y'•'S` ro .t r.\•J'' i• i •,•t_ � if's 1 /1 t t {i, %:� ` .'�'� •:�'• a,�.-�.i s': Ca4�"+x q'7 _ �P ,xi 1 tfa t4.5 vRw. . . -- , 1r t:� ,e oto %: r��.• fs �'` 8 b ._.y.' � s � .e:t .'•• .M'•�' .,1Jwt ••i•1•tral►� b ,w b i� _C rte: ,�: .•,:: ,'�.•-✓.a• f , opzn 41 �t" ,,ap Y^• a +� P i _ ,•r: /`'' ,;'x �os't- t`jpaG2 * •� rs• f i w Jf .' t / \' `ri a i w'' • ! ,4852 t to r •• ^�.. •,,,. Qo �,4� ,Z• ,` .i, .at.. Q b`iG , •,r�' .• : 'ls`So�oGf '' •'7 a' •', `•S ••+ 4.ie ..t—o1c, `� f•'y4taS: t ~''�\e_' ..f• 74 ub c+t.raw.• ,e Y ao �' p'• t�-1�'� �jY Aw Pa vttEt ,t7 �.• s =`r tP.x+,•� •{'�s :y S StCpuOPE ,. y` • L S,lp t/V t:to ,x� ��a '_ ,G9tW`t •'w ��i COMMERCIAL From Changs MFDIUM Density Sin Ia. Family Ras dents COW07 i � Jt - rATC PaaK !� it dia p IDN � t0 ti ';.c'-.•6 �' -.; ppPO r ,j.;Wil:�•;_•:.'' !!�.j: i �w•:c�r•'Q►�. i• ��w . . aw OP •it I��•q •M i :♦' a t, �� f. •cam. ., op r'� + }• ; it - ^�Y� �• �,r+ ti� C�A� ,�,•t•-I��• - ..t;��13 •.•N�aJtY'r91t illi C t;,Si V ��w MAP b tL-'y. � , • `, • fes. t. .. ad C7► (Covnlryyntw) SINGLE FAMILY •-� µ RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM Areas requesting change from Medium Density Single Family Residential to Controlled Manufacturing CON LLEp � AGRiCULTuRA PRESERYO H UFACTURI N NGLE FAM i` RESIOEN IAL AEDIU `\ (Ctn+ax AN \ 0 600' 1200' WWI() `al �.r.°l_ -•o.r'o ii ....-..._ ... _�.�.—.,„_..-•�"- .X c+rtir•-.u�•-s.«..�... •.��_. lJ� R it s� IJ �Cs.9�• �:.ww `t �, i •l".''j .w _ .. r1 ,' .t� IN �In - I•: . f+'w rlla wr M .S►• -1.. ...J � - �tJ ��" _��. ' �� '� `� � {.'✓ •,,•1 .} �,_Imo. , •�" .I �. i .-' 1{ tJ • _ Y. q �. r � \' p � �.. �, � � -].: , tea? � Q^' i'r - `. ,ir] ` , ••�•w 114;' .."1.�: r '1-"•/.'� '�il r i�:�,r .u""'+ WA, r ..11 -..�.4.n....ii` Y"'�• - l`. � .t'y � i �...iWLrM�"•^�_ n � y .. GL7 � � � ('�70 M� • a 9 '^, r" + 1, •mss~a_C `i y ' "r r ^) •.• -Y:" .t; a i ` r • ... ..If .. r , uru i 'rtt�• •:a.. ..'.. n• ,fit: .'1=^moi .�a ;I u"� �. 'r C:�'i(• �3.1`C?,l .�_ - ,� ' e` . .r... ir.. . �,a ,r!y+-FSM _ 1_ ;. •�• � •� f a-'D��.: �., jt �� 1 c7 �� .rr .w 7 •u '.n :Czaw�•�4'1"� r iiu�• Y ;- � +t � ti, .,_'.'] ��,�� .�. ori i..... � frit 6d't;��• �� .. 4:7 .� J J Gai �. ��`.� (o.r ,. 7 �. It.�i i ��r' .y3„ ,r ,C jy�•},'' `r r. , V .,`�` ~ *..,.M..r�a^-� J• .r•s:•- s._' �j .0 1 15 µ �' �..�!.Z' M1'y �4.� S w •• 'i•i sr7 ,� .��` M,. ;V� ,�� s ( •i,\• ` \.67- L 0r•r? t • y \ f rJ j Y \,v vp It C. Ni ]' r r7 '9rr`��:. •' {•Jr'J ::v - ,/ ':~ .r�T'• �. ¢G ,,'�• • . 5J °• �' 'er'��! ,r a7 `\"`. 4 �/•�1••r '\ � • r[g. L.' 'ri.H' 'l - :.rn :• '� '/p'•• s aJp `ai :r t ,• u c'7.« ' •l��`r.�e••/ .• t'�,� ate.... " r. err .@>,\�.• .t �..'r 6i .!' Lt'7 I• wr ' .. »/rT..+,r'�i-'SC` 't'1• Grp .a7 R''. •;y *�1 '• •4. +� f .rcti I 'F'i'.+'_.,..i rte' j:igt�• r r-� - .l '�>• `,!' sem, ,� w' r• ..{ �'ti •rte', '�i•'�,•.�LPy rr jL�•� t • rCit„'::N, �� i .. N R F. .. C E N AR r f• H : .•` C'•.4 .�+�.r• 1 at a �'•('\'. r1 •a •'•k3'4 !"' ��t+" .'. w . SINGLE FAMILY RES. ! `` . •' ,``. MEDIUM CONSIDER CHANGE FROM MULTIPLE LIMITED OFFICE TO v FAMILY I CONTROLLED MANUFACTURING , RESIDENTIAL i 3 � VERY LOW DENSITY . q \ A Ir I OPEN SPACE K IR COMME'ReJAL CONMOL LED MANUFA Uk1NG ;' z . G � � • . -.......-•- ! � tom,.- � •,,�, • • "� ./ n - Q OPEN SPACE `\ r., Q� • DMtNiSTi2ATIVE OFFICE r' OD MULTIPLE FAMILY $tNGLE •`1, r t,. t �i:f t.:; f ! RESIDENT# SINGLE FgM1LY i , {:+•:.� ;c +'.r SINGLEFAMLYs/ RESIpENfIA4,41), } !" 'I„ UIl.T1PLEl� •I:7": FAMILY VEP.Y RESIOENTIAL 7' ES. LOW EMIL`('• "�t..'•�( LOW / S, .+1F• ..•rI. ' `... �' .�L._,:.MEDIUM me I. .;; •i'. PARKS ';',;:rte,.,-" •�,it_�� .�....•.:i.;:-�:,: .•t.\�:;:� OPUN SPACE° I EceEAso " •4{'. �• �f �1�.� '�,.\r'.,1J.;' \r. 10 TION Cha nge to Medium Density r•. .I: �* -'� R,eLW- Single Family Residentiall' Falvt+I:Y {'` �-' 1, � ` 1.•:�KeS.toENT!At�-,:'•.:-. ':• SEM!- :. , .:��- ;� ,icy►' ' i l`•; Change to Agricultural Preserve `.�;;`,<:_• : •�Nl:r:,` 4f`� OPEN SPACE 1,.� "� �•s�is. 'i ;•' PUBLIC i'• .,.-)�•"• .� hange from Single Family :• SEMI- Low Density, Country Estate ~, ;;�; f :, pua and Open Space to Country i' :• =•;! - ..,, i Estate NN FAMILY' to A han9 a Agricultural ,-•�� 4.,;�r ,,r:'... , Preserve >.HIA :+�•; OPEN SPACE QChange from Single Family Low Density and Country • tv Estate to Country Estate •�.`� ' • • AI'I'I:NI11 X A PUBLIC AORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Date: march 31, 19771 A. A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning To: Attention: Heinz Fenichel, Assistant Dire for of Planning Vernon L. Cline, Public Forks Director From: By: L. .T. Reagan, Assistant Public 11ork. tor Development Proposed San Ramon Valley -General Plan Subject: At. -the Board of Supervisors hearing on the Proposed San Ramon General Plan, on March 29, 1977, the Board of Supervisors listed two conditions to be considered by the Planning Commission regarding the Harper and Davidson Parcels on the cast side of Alcosta Boulevard immediately north of Norris Canyon Road. 1. Were commitments :Wade to the property owners at the time the Assessment District 1973-3 was formed that the existing zoning cast of Alcosta Blvd. would not be changed? 2. Were the parcels assessed (for ,'Assessment District 1973-3) on-.the basis of a CONTROLLED MNUFACTUM'G land use or a MEDI1R1 DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL land use? We have reviewed these questions with Coleman, Selmi and Wright, the Engineers of 1;ork for the Assessment District. There is no evidence that sup.gests that any commitment to retain the existing zoning was made on the subject parcels at the time the Assessment District was formed. This has been verified by conversation with Coleman, Selmi and, Wright and by reviewing the Public Works Department's files. i 1.'e are advised by Coleman, Selmi and l4right that existing or proposedlland use . and/or zoning were not considered in spreading the assessments for Assessment District 1973-3. The only exception to this was in the case of the Western Electric parcel immediately north Bollinger Canyon Road adjacent to I 680. In general, the assessments were spread on a front footage basis for the road improvements and an area basis for the drainage improvements with no considera- tion given to land use. f LJR:kac AI'I'I:NI)I\ It • hk & associllites RECEIVED. APR 0 5 1977 Jamcs If. Kcll, pm�irlr nt PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. April 4, 1977 Mr. Paul E. Kilkenny Assistant Public Works Director, Transportation Planning Contra Costa County Public Works Department 6th Floor, County Administration Building Martinez, California 94553 Dear Mr. Kilkenny: Pursuant to our telephone conversations of March 30 and 31, and your letter of March 31, JHK & Associates has re- evaluated the 1990 traffic forecasts for south San Ramon Valley Boulevard that were prepared in 1975, based on new projections of residential land use. In summary, we find that the new down zone projections do not obviate the need for a four-lane faci- lity south of Montevideo Drive. This conclusion is addressed in detail below. j The area of interest lies on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard from about Montevideo Drive south to Alcosta Boulevard. This area is part of LUTS traffic zone 49. Alter- native 1 for the San Ramon Valley Subarea Study, performed in 1975, forecast 716 single family dwelling units for the area by 1990. Subsequent study has shown that a lower -level of growth may be desirable. The County Planning Department pre- pared two more 1990 forecasts; one projecting mostly open space, the other a Country Estate density. The open space projection showed 125 dwelling units. These are presented below with previous estimates for comparison purposes. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS 1975 1990 Projections Base S.R. Alt. l Open Space Co. Estates 16 716 125 240 JHK integrated these new dwelling unit forecasts into the Subarea Model process and developed new 1990 traffic fgrecasts for San Ramon Valley Boulevard south of Montevideo Drive. These are shown on the following page. 000207 Bay Bridge Office 1'Inzn . 13ox 3727 . San Francisco, Ca. 94119 . 415/428-2550 • , • • j hk R associates Mr. Paul Kilkenny April 4, 1977 Page 2. Average Daily Traffic 1975 1990 1990 1990 San Ramon Valley Road Base Alt. l Open Space Co. Estates S/O Montevideo Drive 4,360 22, 670 21,220 21, 540 N/O Alcosta Blvd. 6,100 32,210 30,230 30, 600 As shown on the table, there is little change in traffic volumes between the different 1990 land use projections. This is attributable to the fact that only seven and a half percent of the traffic growth in this corridor is related to activity in this zone. In addition to the major development near Crow Canyon Road, which definitely affects this area, San Ramon Valley Boulevard offers an attractive route for freeway bound traffic from east of I-680. Traffic from Montevideo Drive and Pine Valley Road corridors will have a faster, more free flowing access to the Alcosta Boulevard -- I-680 interchange via this route than Tareyton Drive, Davona Drive or Broadmoor Drive. Con- versly, these residential streets will be protected from a sub- stantial amount of through traffic. Other factors outside the immediate area also contribute to traffic over this facility. There is substantial development occurring south of Alcosta Boulevard in Alameda County. 1974 traffic volumes on San Ramon Road, the southerly extension of San Ramon Valley Boulevard, were already in excess of 12,000 ve- hicles per day. Many trips from this area will be attracted to the commercial center at Crow Canyon Road. For trips of this length, San Ramon Valley Boulevard may be as fast as the freeway depending on actual origins and destinations. From the discussion above, it is apparent that San Ramon Valley Boulevard serves a wide area, carrying a substantial amount of traffic in the south portion which is not directly related to land uses immediately adjacent to it. The forecast volumes will require a four-lane facility to meet acceptable service levels. The reduction in dwelling units may still manifest itself in reduced roadway requirements however. With little adjacent development, requirements for median channeliza- tion and shoulders may be less than would otherwise be the case. Pik & Mr. Paul Kilkenny April 4, 1977 Page 3. Actual roadway configuration, within the overall fra[mework of a four-lane facility, will be subject to future detailed design review. The preceding discussion covers the major issues we dis- cussed. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely yours, JHK & ASSOCIATES Benjamin if. Goff Transportation Planner BHG/as 00f)"f"'07 i� (sunny Olen cAdult 1?ommunity, c�nc. 9000eraydon eirde, cyan Tamon, ealirnia 94583 i�'arch 3I, 1977 RECEIVED ?ir. ?;'tic iazeltine, and � j9�7 Members of the Board of Supervisors, APR Contra Costa County, J. R. OlSSON Administration Bldg., SR"OE�f F E iSORS Martinez, Ca. s C Dear Mr. ;aazeltine and Supervisors: On Tuesday, '•:arch 29, 1977 I attended the hearing in the 1•11atter of the Report of the Planning Commission on Amendment to the County ' General Plan for the San Ramon Elrea. I wish to comment on the orderly fashion in which the hearing was conducted, and the fairness of the Supervisors in listening and answering those persons who desired to speak. Some were short, and, of course, some were lengthy. Iowever you all were very patient. As President and Chairman of Sunny Glen indult Community, Inc. I was present with over 30 of the senior citizens of our community, along with our attorney, Mr. William Struthers, Mr. Struthers asked that our amendment to the General Plan be accepted, namely, the rezoning of Lot 153, Subdivision 3024 from M-4 to P.-6. This parcel is Located at Alcosta Boulevard and Fircrest Lane next to the fire house and across from the ?amily Medical Center. May I note here that I, and many of our neighbors have attended the heari ngs of the Planning Board and there has been much correspondence between ourselves and the Planning Commission. I am enclosing herewith my last letter to the Contra Costa Planning Commissioners, together with a reply from Mr. Dehaesus. I am wondering if the letter was passed on to the Supervisors as I had hoped. This matter of the change in zoning is of great importance to our small closely knitted community, and we are hopeful that you will honor our amendment. Mr. Eric Hazeltine, and Members of the Board of Supervisors March 31, 1977 -2- We shall be ever so grateful to your Board of-Supervisors for so doing. If there is any further information you require to assist you in bringing about a successful and favorable conclusion to our request, please notify me. Thank you. Very truly yours, SIRINY ADL`LT--t`?MZ1111"ITY, INC. BY: i KERBERT U. i RK President of oard of Directors. I-IWN/en Enc P.S. For your further information the Staff Report on the San Ramon Valley Area Plan as Developed by the San Ramon Valley General Plan Citizens Committee with the Assistance of the Contra Costa County Planning Department, it was recommended that the subject property (Lot 153) be designated as high density single family residential (See Rlap 17). This is exactly what we are hoping for. As you will note from :lap 17 some of our homes are ajoining this property. 000207 {r ,k _ct. 26, i9I6 C'n r r` Ci9mre'1 zirc;»1:tari cdo 'V;651 Ppct i: Y 153 3024 k� l.t:�� stets•��6 I3l�gPb l itys ,In ltd p3commW with Vis racent Planning COMMImal °n f C'a l<^s 1 a 5.t? '"tet`•'>' C ?Ra{3t"3s f?? tbn r sn Pz' - n 17E3M7 Gm Rzal Flan which Inch dca OUT rn t •G r.z,.9 ""s;t` "?_„:. vn the i�Cr nal-aJ C=am l°t't: 153 02t�PCt 30ti�e )='fit r-squ-7mV t*,;n,, V-3 Ellennin.,; Commission InItinto a atudY and to !wenn i:i� '�•:.? 'M 14-: ' *14.3 ;'!.act 31'124 ik4.n7 »�',",',3sEtnt ^'140pla fEitI lly reeldentia; diet-Tlct M- a r.•y ^v``!�g.�7 r 1 � 5 flf 4;±i'ic i tiletrict F'..6 In Con'.5tiL^?tG.sLm ulth tlzo rt-an '.1amm G+cne;9rA Plan jaml tt t'i'n TIZZ�,�i?"lr,4 rr:-"�:"?iu.siv.6” Oct^y?� Fa�.p E��'17� ti"i1K� ti Pi QL'C�«'C�1CO 149th thA.) EC'n,01 2?=:to i?n r .,} r,tint'9 4`.'f" f'.B11.112!1'�l�'ta Th9C �3sm1 f3�� CTao j9SiD�o1:y get C��1+o$9f3t� x:4.1 be I r:,�rt 0-:5 . 4m ('<<-trcrnt mr-T 'p-mi`3 r..'�'.i?+.;ld put on notico that vllhatove2 d to nt on wttn.•: r"'Jj:t'.ytj 9*=tc;;T..t*.`d rt.i3 •t..X'.-^ey 4;$cEtt Adult Cc"" •i!:l1tjp Inc* tJ.J 1S r ,•. • •t�'• " ,'yB C�q R-� > `1-1:a ti' ?Cpz� e n Clio .`"cn Rcrm*n Valloy d�1rou VICon Octel AUSEtat 122, 1 764 �:R..1z•.:, •rt.ta:u rites fnel t",r rA ly CI°z~t �y homn built cn this ��rtp dllsnufld COTeers�"za In .-h t?'ct Mie*rc:=.'?1v- ha end xro could 0 ec r � �dt�' 8 to your "mparatlan 4� I Itv ,�Mo lull coal' 3s r'Wr--nz C`J !M-y Glen toult cCr^.Vinityp ;nee thank the 111Mtltll"'g s fA M 1; .., .• c.,-L; :.i., �t i�p C'a'x'= �t`3_'j I'_ w Jim E`e.'tl:Cl� $iTS} v• flgtii,C�ll9 C¢tslt'erp E.t113 no r . =.�tca U'llair tom end c!'c:ts t3 ps3lat tm with W-4 pres^ntaticn of a destrablc 0002©7 •.R i Laic s.-ra� #"".Costa Counts Games co=leclensra Octo Zwt 1976. ttL Y,rdvret to the sae1 vw= Valley Genarat Plan. Youm very Cruty,p •.r fly$ it resident Cculter Cc# '-ire At neTlo:>t:9 4 - 000207 y* i ` ling Department Contra Planning Andrew H.Young H. onu Young FOn"_- e� � ' Costa ^sta Alamo—Chairman t. County Administration Building, North Wing IIJl Wiftiam L Milano P.O.Box 951 Pittsburg--Vice Chairman Martinez,California 94553 County Donald E.Anderson Moraga Anthony A.Dehaesus Director of Planning Albert R.Compaglin r � � Martinez �' R ichard J.Jena Phone: 327-2026 y . -�,�„ November 29, 1976 ESobrante `= Jack Stoddard Richmond William Y.Walton III Pleasant Hill Mr. Herbert W. Newkirk, President Sunny Glen Adult Community, Inc. 9000 Craydon Circle San Ramon, California 94583 Dear Mr. Newkirk: Your letter of October 26th in which you request that rezoning hearings be initiated concerning Lot 153 of Subdivision 3024 was presented to the Planning Commission at their meeting of November 9th. At that time, the Planning Commission determined to defer your request until after the Board of Supervisors concludes its hearings on the General Pian. If the Board of Supervisors concurs with the Commission's decision as to Lot 153 then the Commission will consider your request again. As you know, the Commission's decision on the General Plan is not final . It is a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The Board's deci- sion would be final . Tile Board expects to commence its hearings on the General Plan in January. Your attendance at these hearings is encouraged. Sincerel yours, a 5 Antho y A. Deh us Dire for ofanning AAD:EMA t30©2®7 5 IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Hearing on the ) Recommendation of the Planning ) Commission on Proposed Amendment ) March 29, 1977 to the County General Plan for ) the San Ramon Area. ) The Board on February 22 , 1977 having fixed this date for hearing on the Planning Commission recommendation with respect to the proposed amendment to the County General Plan for the San Ramon area; and Mr. A. A. Dehaesus , Director of Planning, having advised that an Environmental Impact Report was considered by the Planning Commission during its deliberations and found to have been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State guidelines ; and Mr. Heinz Fenichel , Assistant Director of Planning, having briefly described the goals and objectives of the proposed General Plan revision; and The Board Chairman having opened the hearing and all persons present having been given an opportunity to be heard with respect to the proposal ; and The Board members having discussed the matter, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the public hearing on the San Ramon Valley Area Plan is closed and that the Environmental Impact Report is certified as adequate for Board purposes . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the San Ramon Valley Area Plan is REFERRED back to the County Planning Commission to review items of concern raised at the Board hearing of March 29 , 1977 and that the Planning Commission submit its recommendations to the Board prior to April 12 , 1977 . The specific items for the Planning Commission to consider in this referral are : 1 . That the 1977 agricultural preserves be integrated into the plan; 2 . That the general plan for the Artero property be clarified; 3 . That the southern portion of the Vernal Heights area designated as Country Estates be considered for designation as Low Density Single Family Residential ; 4 . That the portion of the Sycamore Planned Unit Development designated as Commercial be considered for Medium Density Single Family Residential ; S . That the boundaries of land designated as Low Density Single Family Residential for Blackhawk Ranch be clarified; 6 . That the Harper and Davidson properties designated for Medium Density Single Family Residential be considered for Controlled Manufacturing ; specific consideration should be given as to whether any moral or legal commitments were made to the property owners as to land use as a part of the Assessment District 1973-3 implementation process; 7 . That the land designated as Limited Office south of Golden Skate in San Ramon be considered for Controlled Manufacturing; ��si3! a4f 1$. That the lands within the Woodhill Subdivision be designated as Medium Density Single Family Residential and that all lands shown for development southerly of that development and east of the freeway be considered for designation as Country Estates ; 9 . That San Ramon Valley Boulevard south of Montevideo to the Alameda County Line be limited in the text to a two-lane facility; 10. That the plan be reviewed to determine if any significant zoning/general plan non-conformities may exist; and 11 . That further editing of the text be considered as it relates to existing zoning , transportation, sprawl and plan flexibility. PASSED by the Board on March 29 , 1977. 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed this 29th day of ?larch, 1977 . J. R. OLSSON, CLERK €? By ieutierr Depu Cler cc: County Planning Commission Director of Planning County Counsel Hearing on Proposed Amendment to the County General Plan for the San Ramon Valley Area held March 29, 1977 The following persons spoke: Ms . Martha Douglas , President of Sycamore Homes Association; Mr. John M. Blessen, Vice President of DiGiorgio Development Corporation; Mr. Eugene F. DeBolt, DeBolt Divil Engineering; Mrs . Gary (Lynette L. ) Green, 125 Bunce Meadows, Alamo; Mr. William K. Houston, representing Round Hill Homeowners; Mr. Monroe Wingate (applicant for M.S . 20-77) ; Mr. L. A. Davidson, 4787 Norris Canyon;.Road, San Ramon; Mr. Joseph A. Field, agent for Lawrence Harper; Mr. Irving L. Leiber, 1 Macomber Road, Danville; Mr. Z. H. Anderson, 1151 Livorna Road, Alamo; Mr. George Allen, representing j,Tm. J. Black & Associates; Mr. Wayne Patten, 155 Austin Lane, Alamo; Mr. John Lasagna, 211 Austin Lane, Alamo; Mr. Brad Hirst, representing Navlet 's Nursery; Mr. John J. Lucey, representing Vernal Area Improvement Association; Mr. Michael Wahlig, member of San Ramon Homeowners Association; Mr. Dennis Ball, 400 Erselia Trail, Alamo; Dr. Joseph L. Hirsch, representative of Citizens Advisory Committee for County Service Area R-7 (San Ramon area) ; Mrs . Randi Dalton, 2196 Miranda Avenue, Alamo; Mr. James Rettig, 2484 Biltmore Drive, Alamo; Mr. William V. Cardinale, 1020 E1 Capitan Drive, Danville (former Chairman of the San Ramon General Plan Review Committee) ; Mr. William Struthers, attorney representing Sunny Glen Adult Community, Inc. ; Mr. Lawrence A. Harper, 52 Oakwood Road, Orinda; Ms . Doris Joule, 76 Bunce Meadows Drive, Alamo; Mr. G. H. Kissin, member of Town & Country Association; -4,c, 1 PODIUM."O -PLEASE HAND LEAVE.`SLIP ON T SUPERV CONTRA IR TA COUNTY B OF XWORS c /002 ITEM NUMBER: r 0 'j� op 2 4 FUEL NAME blo v-- e. :PH E STREET ADDRESS A It ► CITY: /--oozA- )rl -o REPRESENTING. (FIRM OR ORGANIZATIONs, ANY) 14-7w I u PLEASE LEA SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND TO CLERK CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ITEM NUMBER: FULL NAME: DATE: STREET ADDRESS:- j, E � � PHONE: CITY: REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) COMMENTS: ---'D PLEASE' LEAQE =SLIP ON PODMilk IUM`: OR;cHANDX'rTO CLERRs _ " ' SX : ar r °aa z . r x k✓ti r}� , CONTRATA COUNTY BOARD OF SIIPER�ORS ITEM NUMBER: k Y DATE_: 'S--2� 14 ` t Y FULL .NAME . �VG�N� �_ �� a L,—T, f. STREET ADDRESS : 40 I Sa 014kARTZ 1� \I PHONE: CITY: D AAN i ( l:C • y s REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF .ANY)': } COMMENTS �Y - ;0007 It 1 P Y 1 E `tel 't _ t nt F�7tIt 'PLEASEL , - _SLIP =ON-:.PODIUM OR ELA.NDCLERK TQ CONI STA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVM'ORS IC ITEM NUMBER- FUPL, .NAME : , DATE l STREET ADDRESS u -PHAN E: a q O? CITY: REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATIONg, IF ANY) : COMMENTS : r � s ^ _CLERK ,' PLEASE L SLIP ON PODIIIM OR :HAND.: T , COS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPER SOBS ,.w CONTRA C ITEM NUMB _ ( n DATE• 3 /2a! FULL ':NAME : xy j� tai P144i : STREET ADDRESS CITY : REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION , IF ANY) : V_— . . �vj S s : 4 COMMENTS : =P L,-AW IJ Na ---------- .' 00020 } ' qw4 s qty 'f9e x..Ifir_.. '^L4.fY.�4'3i'."'yYr$'✓4+s.K".».u'n^'1� a 'PLEASE LE SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND T CLERK x CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERV 'ORS ITEM NUMBER: f FUTZ NAME DATE : STREET ADDRESS *•J � ht./f l; /'Z?It PH6NE : X93 --X,3 CITY: r � x� REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION , IF ANY) : COMMENTS : t1 GZ /J / 2'r s,, L LftZ i �74e +� J' r S . lis gym- , ray "rht+W'.'.w^ x.Ji.'� +: + �`"L ♦y.«, wy.n �' ! rs ..S"' +K ✓ - d t '� 'x '+ }1�,.. Ari.. :.r tj, ,o- -fwilily c.+. i L 7 f ' mak ,}& V`_SLIP_' ,OW r LEA'R i HAt to ;Yj} PLEASEPODIUM OR LEKti .rY1 a>Y.V �x jx CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,:BOARD_ OFA SUPER�TISORS. , trY� f ITEM NUMBER: m, told 1 FULL NAME c •. .iJ { DATEtic in, STREET � ~� +.- ADDRESS : 7 . � ' ,z �,.� �_l ;" .J""Joy PHONE : f� � ON CITY: ct _ t;' f . , tog Ell.REPRESENTING .:(F,IRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF..ANY) c AT, � r� �r3 T Qv 1 t n� R Msf T r4'� i l ;COMMENTS • • 77 r ., a ♦ a �� x �� - No sit, .�47w7^3,r,.Sr PLEASE LEA °r SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND TO— CLERK CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERV ORS ITEM NUMBER: FULL NAME: 5 DATE: STREET ADDRESS: �� ✓� �� 7 V/ PHONE: 37.r/,, CITY: REP SENTING (FIRM! OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : � r�'� � ea 6, COMMENTS:C/'_�t�� c::.: �t lC �C: •/D��ti� sc� -� •.'��-Gc�G �s�ic�— . •PLEASE LEAlZ SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND T CLERK CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERV ,ORS ITEM NUMBER: Fupi . QJ L 6 C CPA DATE: ---r STREET ADDRESS ti <� .`lA`e=' Lam'. Q. PHdNE: CITY: C6 REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : COMMEITS: f� �'� A W . � 'SLIP ON LEA `' PODI ORD3s CONTRA COSTA CO UNTY �' >� BOARD' OF S � k : ITEM NUMBER UPERVISORS ` F � � ULL . NA +Zl1Z'.. .". . 5. .r ov TROT " y i{ Dom. DA S TE. 777 �a 4 CITY: L .,tA,f , ' PHO _ NE. Af of #a REP � RESENTING (FIRM -OR17 Ty y OR, GANIZATION ANY) k 2 w Fu 4 e='• r i COMNIE N � - TS r �< . i !'Ix. iL a e � � f. Avon. .. 77 1 „STS r�,� 4St2-�J ��,.•,"?3.y. ��, ��T�c rn�: a.y� �a=.:-�r,y�RiJ=;' _ �:1i,�� w.�'�%sT�� w?rz<;��u�'"51 3 . TO' .CLERR IPI,SASE .IREAVE SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND. : -' j { CONTRA SU � TA COUNTY BOARD- OF SUPER ORS ITEAi NUMBER: fj FULL NAME • "T DATE : loft STREET ADDRESS : . rV PHONE: " . , 4 WIS CITY: h REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION , IF :ANY) : COMMENTS : 000707 y + i i + k a w '%k •PLEASE LEA SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND TIL CLERK CONTRA —W—TA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ITEM NUMBER: FU;,L .NAME: .:��A� t t�Ste- DATE: 3 -31- STREET 31-STREET ADDRESS 3 O/ a eP S hy PHdNE: — G CITY: �G lC /do 0h 4?76/0 REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : COMMENTS: ,PLEASE LEA10 SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND T& CLERK CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ITEM NUMBER: j� [-` �: ri• y� j FW,L .NAME: 1 . ,j) t- DATE: I 17, STREET ADDRESSC PHdNE: CITY: REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : COMMENTS: PLEASE tEA.W SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND TO CLERK CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERASORS ITEM NUMBER: FUZ,L .NAME: DATE: 3 F W 7 7 r STREET ADDRESS "lt.JL,/ Imo.;�,�SL`t�,�l�i;� PHdNE: ' 3M •az 3 CITY: REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : COMMENTS: 00020 PLEASE LEAVE SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND TO CLERK CONTRA ATA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPER&ORS f; ITEM NUMBER: ��< /'r �r✓J'� ✓��' �.`',ri s fc.�-' FULL NAME: W M TR,V Tbf6 '_5 ,4Try DATE: "3 STREET ADDRESS: �S9 (`�y fZ,7'N ST`i PHONE: C 4 3 Z Z CITY: L. 1 VL R m 0 2 C, REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : SU AW Ci-LE"�/ ADUL-T COA444 VAJt TZ COMMENTS: U g C.,/N G" Go r /S3 !3E 511-owN /+,s H PAY .d ids z r% S..v�.� Fi9 i►t�Gy �'G s��•vr�•¢-L 9 As �E-�o•�E.✓�� g Nei 6 17 PLEASE LEAVE SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND TO CLERK CONTRA COTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPER&ORS ITEM NUMBER: FULL NAME: �r" "�`'t `t -i-1 � e.1 DATE: STREET ADDRESS: L' PHONE: CITY: roti�.r REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : COMMENTS: PLEASE LEAVE SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND 174 CLERK CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS V/' ITEM NUMBER- ! Ss:w �ci�+�o� �F��). PIC,"CPahvr Ile A�4� FULL NAME: G. N , iti /S5//yj DATE: 9 MQ{c 15'77 STREET ADDRESS: ,Z /.s Lel tp-mold t0c'v PHONE: g37—�o�S CITY: REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : mews ier, 7—civ:? 0.leo to-Jnj X:557vc-cz-4Lr . . . . . . COMMENTS: sPe�-i CC-f�eey�l� a tYg a�oy►q sa,.� �aw�o r�Q /.3�U c� .��c 'Fl� of PLEASE LEA17E SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND CLERK "°`- CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPER SOBS ITEM NUMBER: Sara A-lnr'rr Vail!-; Gz!�Ga.,% PLAft FUT,L NAME: CNA 2L FS E- S u:-F DATE: 3k-9L -r STREET ADDRESS /g¢ tggjg�- -p/,,,,F PHdNE: 937 613G CITY: A REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : €ILNA` ✓Ery Cffz COMMENTS: ••L9�1'�E�j; .. PLEASE LEAVE SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND TO CLERK CONTRA IFSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPER PSORS ITEM NUMBER: FULL NAME: H p�o ,E �,�� DATE: STREET ADDRESS: �/p�,,,,,,,1,w, C'/� pc_ PHONE CITY: REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : 741f g-Ar2*qvvpepfcw. fda'1r.6sr COMMENTS: • tv Cgfil os�,Lt Gj�,d/v� PLEASE LEAVE SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND TO CLERK `'` CONTRA CqFSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPER ORS ITEM NUMBER: /5(9 FULL NAME: Bacbara MIP {' DATE: G( f'C`( 1 c/77 STREET ADDRESS:. a PHONE: CITY: m n D` REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : COMMENTS: Od a /I u Dra S s P A, (-a ChreA , PLEASE LEAVE SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND 19 CLERK CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ITEM NUMBER: FULL NAME: ,Si1fD/ F- o� DATE: STREET ADDRESS: E _>`_5 ;'�'r PHONE: 53 7-59 iS CITY: ,�11('; REPRESENTING (FIRni OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : t- r� r COMMENTS: 12.16/' i :Cts J RECEIVED r �• /1l, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY . . . .. .. .. ,; - PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAR 29 1977 J. R. OLSSON ::... CLERK M OF SUPERVISORS TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: March 23, 1977 FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesu SUBJECT: San Ramon Val 1 ey Director of Plann' Area General Plan The San Ramon Valle Area General Plan was adopted by the County Planning Commission on Octob r 12, 1976. Since that time the County Planning Com- mission and the Board have taken two actions which, for the sake of con- sistency, should be included in the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan as it is finally adopted. We have a third proposed change to make. On February 8, 1977 the Board adopted the 1977-78 rezoning of lands to the Agricultural Preserve zoning district, A-4. Within the planning area six rezonings were approved including approximately 695 acres of land. In an effort to treat these agricultural preserves consistently with those already designated on the draft General Plan, the land use categories on these new agricultural preserves should be changed to the Agricultural Preserve desig- nation on the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan. The proposed changes are shown on Map 1 . The second area proposed for change relates to the Woodhill Subdivision No. 4932 and rezoning No. 2094. This was to rezone 186 acres of A-2 land with 151 acres going into an A-4, Agricultural Preserve District, and the remain- ing 35 acres of land adjacent to San Ramon Valley Boulevard going into an R-10 District. This rezoning request was approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 8, 1977 and Subdivision 4943 on February 15, 1977. The 1971 San Ramon General Plan in effect for this project site basically designated this land as Medium Density Single Family Residential ; the R-10 District complies with that designation. The proposed San Ramon Valley Area Plan designated the land as Low Density Single Family Residential or R-15 or less density, and Country Estates, R-40 or larger. Based on the decision of the rezoning and subdivision, it is recommended that the land zoned to R-10 be designated Medium Density Single Family Residential on the General Plan. That change coupled with the change to reflect new Agricultural Preserves discussed above would bring your rezoning decisions and the San Ramon Valley Area Plan into conformity. This action would mean that minor additional adjustments to the Low Density Single Family Residential category will be required. The proposed change is shown on Map 2. 000207 • Board of Supervisors -2- March 23, 1977 A third proposed change relates to the Sycamore Planned Unit development approved in 1965. A shopping center under certain conditions was desig- nated for a ten acre parcel at the northeast corner of Old Orchard Drive and Sycamore Valley Road. One of the conditions of approval of that pro- ject was that within four years of approval , the developer had to justify the need for the shopping center or the parcel would revert to Single Family Residential District. This condition has not been met. Therefore, it is recommended that the General Plan designation be changed from Commer- cial to Low Density Single Family Residential District. The proposed change is shown on Map 3. Inasmuch as these changes were not considered by the Planning Commission, before the Board can take action on the Plan, these proposed changes must be referred to the Planning Commission for a report to the Board. AAD:EMA Attachments cc - County Administrator (500,2017County Counsel ,j -- Map i _ Chatige Genaral Plan +o reflec+ adds+ion new Agr;cul+ura i • PreserYes change �rom Cenral Open Space. +o A9 ,r i cul dural Preserve i i 0 ca can9e From ! General Capin Space) � Single Farni ly Caun+ry Es+ai-e # S i n5le Fam i fy Low Densi+y +o Ac3ricu4mr-al preserve 1976 AgrictAt+ura1 Preserves MAP Z Mul+Fannily Res. Sin3la Farnily Dansify Public Mul+Farn+iN Ras.— Med. Semi- Res. Ver LOW =� Densi# c5;• Public Densil• y to 40 J- VfS:••s . " Parks f t hd1 ^ f�' v;i.'�`/•3, \• % ati �`! *Change to Medium Density Single Family Residential semi r .' + ••i �•} .i"• /tit..� blit OP en Spate n t Grt'►r �M :.'`•��.��;�.i:`.•1.,.�s:. qtr' •. to gricultural jri2�r> ;;'-•:.:, '` ' Preserve / Open Space 4: { ot`'�o�• '`: ;. ; • ., -��h��••..• '�.�G t sem: *Change from Single Family , ,n g ` : '` } d Country Estate p ��. +!:•-� Low Density an oun ,. � •,�k�•�:.� •• to Single Family Low Density fltural Cha t gricu .. Preserve } '"i • �a`4'-`eta• -single FaamiIj Ras.- Coun" Oafe Open Space OOOE07 � to: 2 !•• � '•.j- a� aepvj%% ` �•, fpr a '. " -��(,\ S \. '•` "Fa,rr+�1y R�5` SNS`-�.� !T�°�- SIVA ),OVA •\ NJr at ,.. ;• r,• t.jsa ! •fir, '•� � �• „ ! '7 =fi T,3,2��1� •� �! '-�f`' „y.• to•� ��! 5 i -j'"•� L �"• !•'`' +,tt. ,,. q '� � ♦`� J L' 'K it � ,. � .,:!z � i i• `c•."y. N,! �:i�' h• p, ! _` ( (ry � �.,,.:%%": `_: s '= I��'!: 2� y 'l•' s�8 60 7 pn C '� " _.��•• Wit: -�;�.,! ::::� .�. °a sAA9 2/ �"� d ! of- �J ••-` � .. i :.�.t.i• •� :_' �._t?il p � w•' d?• � „ t1 , 466 .�;:1;• a¢r�ia� 1'\!• e�;. r moa ' .°�:- * �•�it�.� RAS` •ir !� ..`�.\\ S ° .a� __'�^ 1 � dam y � ,� ._!( •.--i `.� ..•.«'• fir' ,j.-� ,! ! �',. '� 4406 .s "gY.'Tr 2 c,� +. t'__ .� t:•..o ,i n ,. S •.:, n� ID '•i, , ,n G! \J_'p'�•N�• _.`}.�T c � .1��l t, r.t•� •a t' ��'• '�\ � a e •�:. 4 • " „t 1 ✓ ! a'S ;/- ♦a• �` y it"r•' �, S .h� '�: 6> � ,° ..! c •Gpw' • .!=;i 1 1 .d. Vit• .O: . ...,% P� .j;.,:::•�s . ..i# `• { -7!ea \ J a yt Owe' ~= p.�".�. %•�' �' \ oI ,r. � '`os •! , `mss^2,t�, � -••.,�< .: t" '-j tea av�7 :� , t�8• i •� gi .\ S\U'� \�,,/fie T YO .• .... ��f .i �' / '••' ' ?� '°�' A , 0 ✓�f rie y � .� . ,. .a�aS�,�� :. / � _ ``!;. as �s s.OGt �`�,•' _ r/f f '• Zat,�,1' .r� �,•},!,/":.••'•4852 ; _�a:``o ..` �� ,'��• y� _ �1D �i, CT �•• i .n' 'tib\"..• �, �. '�../ \.�� by `•- '7 21 it g �.r Lam. ar• _ �Y' y frOft LOW G.4 �0 ¢r Cha"� F,fril1 9 020*1 STATEMENT T0: 9 0 Centra Costa County RECEIVED Board of Supervisors ' 7j A March 29, 1977 MAR X91977 J. R. OLSSON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ONT!�,CQSTA CO. ..Deputy ... De u I am Marty Douglas, President of Sycamore Homes Association, Board of Directors. I live at 137 Clover Hill Court, Danville. The membership of Sycamore Homes Association consists of approximately { 550 property owners within the Sycamore planned community. We are very concerned adequate plans and controls insure and protect the Sycamore environment and our substantial financial investment. A major concern of Sycamore residents is the development of the approx- imately 10 acre site which received conditional approval in 1965 as a shopping center site within the Sycamore Planned Unit District. The Sycamore Homes Association recently reviewed with the County Planning Department staff the proposed commercial use and development of the site. Our review concluded that the site had reverted to single family residen- tial zoning because the property owners of the site had not complied with the conditions imposed by the Board of Supervisors for the commercial development of the site. We requested that the Planning Department 000207 • -2- review 2-review the situation. By letter, dated March 17, 1977, Anthony A. Dehaesus County Planning Director, confirmed to the Sycamore Homes Association that the site has reverted to single family residential zoning. Copies of our letter to the Planning Department, dated January 13, 1977, and Mr. Dehaesus 's response, dated March 17, 1977 have been furnished to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. During the time the General Plan Review Committee developed the new General Plan for recomendation to the Planning,Commission, it was assumed that the commercial use of this parcel was still a valid part of the Sycamore PUD as a consequence of the action of the Board of Supervisors in 19G5. The parcel was designated for shopping center use in the proposed new General Plan to reflect a previously approved land use and not as a result of any study and determination by the Committee that the site was appropriate for commercial use or that a shopping center was needed. The facts that led to the investigation and deter- mination by the Planning Department did not come to light until after the Planning Commission held its hearings on the new General Plan. To bring the General Plan into conformity with the land uses new per- mitted by the Sycamore PUD following the determination made by the head of the Planning Department to enforce the conditions laid down by this body, we request that the commercial designation be deleted and that a residential use be shown. Thank you. T' � J Sycamore Homes Association January 13, 1977 Planning Department Contra Costa Countv Administration Building Martinez, Ca. 94553 - Gentlemen: There has been a great deal of recent newspaper publicity and community discussion regarding the use and development- of the vacant site of approximately 10 acres, bounded by Old Orchard Di ive, Old Creep Road, Tunbridge Road, and Sycamore Vallev Road within the Sycamore planned community in Danville. The site was the subject of rezoning request 873-RZ which was approved with conditions by the Board of Supervisors on April 13, 1965, ordi- nance rdi-n nCe 1897; effective June 25: 1965. The Sycamore Homes Association Board of Directors has obtained from County Planning Department files various communications and studies related to the site and its proposed commercial use and development. Our review has concluded that the property owners have not compli-•d with the conditions imposed by the Board of Supervisors for- the commercial development of the site. A market analysis was not submitted within • `-the requested time period. The studies which were submitted failed to establish a definite need for a neighborhood shopping center. We further conclude that this property has reverted to single family residential zoning. We request that the Planning Department review this situation and advise our Association of your conclusion. Sycamore Homes Association . Bradshaw Manager RSB:j 63501d0rchardPrwe Danvrlle.Cal-lorn*94526 (415)837.9669 Planning Department Contra _ontra PlanningCommission Members t 1 • Andrew H.Young �t^ County Administration Building, North WinAlamo—Chairman g d William L.Milano P.O.Sox 951 Pittsburg—Vice Chairman Martinez,California 94553 County Donald I-Anderson `� Moraga Anthony A.Dehaesus Director of Planning Albert R.Compaglia Martinez Phone: ` Richard J.Jeha 372-2026 - March 17, 1977 EI Sobranto Jack Stoddard Richmond William V.Walton III Pleasant Hill ' rl!/afT 1i V 71917 nit Mr. R. S. Bradshaw, manager Mana 5t�giti� . N��ncS A g `�S'IV Sycamore Homes Association 635 Old Orchard Drive Danville, California 94526 Dear Mr. Bradshaw: This is in response to your letters of January 4th and 13th concern- ing the status of a proposed shopping center as it relates to Condi- tion No. 5 established in the approval of the Planned Unit District (873-RZ) for the Filper Corporation in 1965. This shopping center was to be located on a ten acre parcel at the northeast corner of Old Orchard Drive and Sycamore Valley Road. I have reviewed the files in this matter completely. I find that Condition No. 5 has not been met and that, accordingly, the subject parcel is designated for single family residential development. The DiGiorgio Development Corporation, successors to the Filper Corporation, is being notified of his conclusion. Sincer y yours, An ny A. Dehaes Dir ctor of Plan ing AAD:EMA cc - Supervisor Hasseltine File 873-RZ Aft RECEDED MAR ay 1971 J. R. OLSSON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ONSRA G 1A CO._DeputY ' STATE-WT OF I.AW.RMCE A. HARPER Before the Board of Supervisors ;larch 29, 1977 { Concerning the General Plan for the San Ramon Va3.3 ey Area M Prepared by the s San Ramon galley General Plan Citizen's Committee with the Assistance of the Contra Costa County Planning Department and approved by the Planning Commission, 1976 STATE10ff OF LAWRENCE A. HARPER My name is Lawrence •`harper, and I reside at 52 Oakwood Road, Orinda. As an investor, I owned, along with r.-Or three children, parcel 1 and Parcel 3 as indicated in Figures (and two facing this page), parcels 210-020-020-9 and 210-020-005-0. One a 12=9 acre 300 foot wide parcel extending easterly from the railroad track, the other a 121 acre square at the eastern end of Crow Canyon Road and the Broadmoor and Better Homes Group Planned Unit Developments. Professionally, I am a member of the Sate Bar of California and a Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, whose major interests are= American Legal and Constitutional history, and Economic History, from 1500 to 1800. Here I am first of all protesting the changed zoning in the San Ramon Valley area General Plan adopted by the Planning Commission late last year for the ifarpers and asking that the zoning of the Harper parcels (for reasons hereinafter explained) be retained as it was in the previous General Plan. I also as a citizen wish to add my argument that the needs of industry and people as well as that of ecology be emphasized. I hope that this board with its new membership will demonstrate that it seeks to reverse the "No Growth" emphasis so frequently advocated in the San Ramon Valley, (by doubtless earnest and highly vocal groups) which has been demonstrated to be a minority in the most recent efforts to incorporate the San Ramon Valley and make it independent of any outside control. WX x }4a tr- ,_ 'a, G+ 4, i r� �"� ! Y Ct cr " �pO`"" G e. w o P0. C ! Parcel Tw o Thr r,C. Har p-e f) 0.� v tC i ex 14- G +s `t 44 G.r"'27,V- c;.e S r: I _...-- AlcoS+d fvd• t�4 u . s. & go 12.5 Acro. Pckect-is ik- Norris Canyon - Nd. Crow C RYot� _ - • 2 • To return to the Harper's protest with respect to their land, the problem may be briefly stated as follows. The 300 ft. rectangle was intersected by Alcosta Boulevard and the westerly 4.5 acres (between the boulevard and railroad trac1c) was sold to the Gonsalves Brothers (now Conco Concrete). The assessments by Assessment District 1973-3 (San Ramon) x was virtually equally divided. Harper's Portion Assessment Total (including interest and collection) #16 $47,537.11 $ 932879.52 Gonsalvez Portion #17 $46,570.33 $ 92,132.13 Both parcels were then zoned as A-2 on the Assessors rolls but were zoned as Controlled Manufacturing on the General Plan of 1971. Parcel 17 has been rezoned as Commercial; as it is now used for commercial purposes, it can support the assessment for the Boulevard. But the new General Plan changes the Harper parcel of 7.29 + acres from Controlled Iianufacturing to Medium Density Housing. Also changed in this way is the 10�* acre Davidson parcel immediately to the south of the Harper's. The results of this changer 1) Will place a heavy and unfair burden upon both the Harpers and the Davidsons by reducing the potential sale value of the land while the assessment is increased $4000 per annum for 20 years, 2) Will involve a possible law suit because both the Aarpers and the Davi.dsons agreed to the Assessments contingent upon the z ming of controlled manufacturing remaining the same on the General Plan. 3) Will cost some 850 industrial jobs if the estimate of 50 factory 3 workers per acre still remains true as given by the planning 1 department in February 1958 on page 12. I•Iore important to potential businesses seeking to establishplants inithe San Ramon Valley area, will be the logic which seems to justify the rezoning -- that Alcosta Boulevard provides a more clearcut boundary separating two zoning areas than an Assessment District boundargo It may be that it will prove wiser for the owners ultimately to change from Controlled "ianufacturing but they should have the right to make the request themselves just as the two large home developers on each side of Crow Canyon (the Broadmoor and the Home Group) sought and obtained the right to have their land shifted from Controlled Manufacturing to Planned Unit Development when they found that it could be better utilized in that fashion. Similarly the Harper parcel at the far end of Crow Canyon Road has been altered on the General Plan from light residential to Cpen Space in between the two Planned Unit Developments of the Broadmoor and Better Homes Groups. I do not know whether the change is beneficial or detrimental because I did not learn about it in any of the meetings and could not detect it upon the map. It was only when Mrs. Harper made inquiries about some other problem that some one at the desk stated that it might be wise to check with some higher up because she had heard a comment which indicated that there might have been a change. 1 A General Plan for the San Ramon Planning Area. The Planning Department, Contra Costa County, California, pg. 12, 1958. 000207 • Thus the Harpers request that the General Flan insofar as it relates to their property be returned to the status it had under the former General Plan, thereby helping to demonstrate that this Board wishes r to reassure investors that it is embarking on a new policy designed to protect individual investors against unnecessary changes. Respectfully submitted, awrence A. Harper A.�'.. .°fit _ w ,+. �, � . x • ' ,{ R � � # • •�j_.�,�,, �',� � e -� r �. � � `+� . C�, a •�,,. S ^ 4s <" �� A.� i' ,� `bf'e .1 .�q 0'� a'*'"'�..,*, � '� � ~ � • � • , wA �1��'^ �Qe+�t V�� • r J r i' / f Atm • � I 4 16 Q p p t , ' fo LV ot 74 t - S /� , • t r t SCci�l r yy '::,t . '.� r. �:I' � i'._TJy'`�t�' }1 �.�� / :�� •�V ►ii M� :+. , •'��i� f f�y i A4 T �x .i, ' ♦♦ r J �44v; S S P .yY' . • L*1�-" ar �.{.. .t.._� '' �•� -'a'a� .w°V ,>�,cay vr•. :; 1.�'� _V` E ••!'i {.•� l.. r••-� fei' y �;, iN.a x , ....,.i_ \.c ,.' hy.'F';; ✓ ��aI. ), ppp '�.'.._,� it i,a�qt' .tet a' i � e' .t," ;- � 4..jrw• �.J4J si "•-,m. tr • .• ,:• . , . 'rt ..r.,.. .. -�.):,'3" �, t_..r�� .}. �sr ;ir:P'�r '-!•�� AQP ^t�:1�.^ '.,+': z:: .9 % 1.;iy� tti.��zti,I..:i:..w,:S'� . .x e. '� . ' ... "\s'� .r-..,'..,: w t s,..• ...,b SM1}r y Vy':;t,� "d,. Y. a, .. 7� { "� s.�.w:s:. LC.i '. s... •�'� x.,.yi�,e',t4 'syt .:4i p.,,. } , � . . .•.- ♦ q,±� +{s ,._ .t r Oa .i. a ,� �++,..r � ire ".� .. , !• ?hl.. 4 t«tom t'�. £. i ,.t._ '\�� .i �.�1�.� `dt1 �� i�i'�. .ti. ? 4 �`' '.T r :'.ei, ` ..�7�w�.e': •. ems" 5 1 �µ `I uu t-:t �it• Y . V�i{.t xit � yYr. �" I �vV �� '� J � 4 � ,�,�' � � ��+J y 'otondti114 ' -• �►+ o <�; . �? r t,,. . �`° , 0 ,4 40 40 two 40 IQC- rl OX tv- f `r'"t J' t � j' � •a. i �', ft y /1 '� Q �1i � ,t .'' t, r If y� � I I ,� 1 ,' r / . J• j t .+' ./ t � *� a `.'1 � { • � e l � 'a �• r � , . � • ! ! � ( ' ./' J 1 1, ; .+�� :�, � t' i - � (� j ��. ` Q X : J~�.. N f. :� �� r + ! • /� I � f I .17 t� i �• I ( � ( / �, to �,y . 6 '� �� March 28, 1977 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Dear Supervisors The undersigned, as residents of Alamo, living on Miranda Ave near the intersection with Bunce Meadows, strongly support the R-40 zoning In this area. R-40 zoning preserves the rural atmosphere; reduces traffic, especially on Bunce Meadows which is a private road and on Miranda,which is already heavily travelled; and reduces pressure on the local schools which are already overcrowded. We, therefore, strongly support R-40 zoning in this area. 411.11aa L. Gore Janet re `s`' Step.danie Gore 2890 Miranda Alamo, California 94507 934-6275 RECEIVED AR 9 1977 J. R. OLSSOrd CSR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ev COM STA Co. Depu RECEIVED �. 0 MAR 29 1977 CLERK BOARD OF SU ONT C TA CO. B . __.,�.._ _. .. ....._.Deputy i......,.,... �� S'3r,�. ■��-s a .y �a..�, �-Kssa-.�� ,{��___" "„4,r.2:_"`a\J o..r tN NO f EC {{ MAR X91971 OUSSON i' J. RK--BOARD Of SLJPEPVWZI,l B r. A Chi n _eL � _ t i r w ,! h t� 77 ,� • � � s Vi � � h � � /'• r;� fir! � .��!� .<��' v y ' r ! • fI�J ,�.__.� "�U._.we�_C��...��„cc.1L.e_;_ ___. �`'�.�'t,�.s?..�,. .�_C�-•Q_":�__... U "`�C,a�' J - _ k y r t . .;.---L-.. .. I/1.../fes .....:._�i��/-.Rid:(+--- .... .a_.__� _ •G�� r.. r Tie -4iK— eKv Z- _ rr -• w _..... _ ... jq,_.—.+_.. ......._.♦.� .!r.._ +_.�+__...a ✓:.Vr.n.waw•.......�...�—..r_....._�s._..s..^r y _ _-.-__.:�._......._.r.�.�._.....�..+--_. a�..� _ .-...r._.-r..._..._.».._._._..»_._._...r•...__...._.....v+w,._.._._.. w.._...� ..+++�.rv-...:,..r.-_.4...,•.au�_._r.,...r`._+.n..._...�_..«_r.-..�...+...+�_..e.:_ - .., ` A •� ; i _ s a RE EIVED MAR 1 . March 29, 1977 9 517 LCLERJ. R. O!SLAW 9 J ;? OF SUPERVISORS K ONTRq COSTA Co. To: Planning Commission, Contra Costa County ---Depu For Designation on General Master Plan for San Ramon Valley Area. Parcel No: 208-250-38 (location on San Ramon Valley Area General Plan Map, attached) Designation: Controlled Manufacturing The property to the east, parcel #208-250-37, Mallory Building Services, Inc. , is now occupied with eleven businesses that are uses under a Controlled Manufacturing District. A list of the businesses located on this property is as follows: 1. San Ramon Heating & Air Conditioning 2. Archetectural Glass & Aluminum 2. Interior Carpet Co. 4. Ron Nunes Enterprises - Steel fabrication 5. The Tuft Kote Co. 6. RPM Erectors 7. L & G Screw Machine Products 8. Auto Electric 9. Woolsey Metal Products 10. Swinger Engineering & Golf Products 11. Valley Custom Metals - Job Shop The property to the south on the General Plan is planned as a controlled manufacturing district. The best use of the property is controlled manu- facturing use. The major county road required to be built the length of the property right through the middle of the property connects with the controlled manufacturing businesses to be located to the south. Therefore, it is requested that parcel #208-250-38 be designated as controlled manufacturing in the San Ramon Valley General Plan r ruing L. Leiber, PA for property owner John Boscarello Boscarello, Inc. ILL/mjh;3/29/76 1 ` Ir :dam �' ''••�'• -. .-` J u ,a5 + s� �J «tit DENP F T. 2ao tit a 'r 6P'D .. ...'�Y ..� U.9: P4 r\` .. fit„ t' '"� _ ! � 4 95 F• tG ,•7�,?G' ,} o• O•s i�, PEvo r ,41.96 A 32 '.;j:' "` a •r to .f w Z C t sa�t oT(SVOtQ L ba► V � lot � ��,, +^` It .+a; •(;h'L •t£�• ,1+ � .+ 'GP•�•`• ,,,t' a� •s, it•w:si�• `� �TIP� y70 . t , ..PS• H .. 9 - 3+ \� k \�. \fir q r[.• •'� r �•i KAP bQ,�'At��jt: •`' O� �!."- 4�H •�'%1.s.t' • \` /s�''E`a Ala ?si �Nt lru'- i D (r rcn 9, 1977 Board of Supervisors Planning Commission, Contra Costa County MAR a91917 San Ramon Valley General Plan Review - ETR , <. aL!JN (CouHnittee of 23 revised and drafted the plan) CLERK BOARD O ARPEISORS By.... De To Whom It May Concern, This is a letter of concern for the way in which the "public inputtt� 'citizen participation". rrenerz,.l review of the so-called San Eamon , General Plan has been carried on. I just read of the "small turnout" at the Planning; Connissionts first hearin`;s of revisions tot he San Rafuon Ceneral Plan. This was not well-publicized, no notices 1 el-ters; attempts to (ny 1--nowledr-e to inform the general on poles, public in the area considered to come and attend. Perhaps local papers carried articles, but not to my direct knowledoe. Public notification cf meetin,"s that concern the public should 4e required. The selection of a 23-mer,"_er coorrittee to "represent the valley" is questioned by this vcri ter. Who selected these people? Using what criteria H ow many are real-ors, lay-5-r-rs, :iavelorers, business- men women, you:_n peGple, teachers, scudents, workers, residents, out-o -tie- rea reo_;1e? !!,7 eo,_ was this com.-A ctee seiected? Have their beezi public? : ho financed the study and General Plan revision? !gill continued publ_e hearir.6,s be held with adequate, publi- citral, open participation encourar,ed and honestly sought after? Cr will. "politics" , inner circles of elite, "professi.anal" developers and planners, money movers be the chief authorities to decide the futures of us all. while cei gh:ors , workers, farwers , youth are ignored or left ignorant of the plans, Just to foot the bibs , and view the destruction of the rest of t^e San Ramcn galley as "city" moves ;n and country is destroyed? How will the growth affect taxes? hili the r� • -2- • Randi Dalton 2196 Miranda Ave. re: General Plan fcr the San Hamcn Valley Alamo , Calif. Letter, cant. . March 29 , 1977 new "growth" of homes and industry be affordable by the mainstream of working class people, nct wel:"are recipients and "lower" class but average, ordinary carpenters , electricians, clerical , nurses , teachers , rr.iddle income folks which are the "base" of our American society? `r►hat about water needs , food , ;obs , hospital , fire and police , services in general fcr the over ?0'% projected population increase in the next 10 years, as provided for in the most recent San Famon Valley General Plan? In view of the recent water drought, rain shortage , it is esp�.cially disconcerting to me that so much urbanized growth can be projected and anticipated when the present water needs of valley residents is required to be cut back , and denied. There is a carrying capacity to the land. We do and will continue to need goad agricultural lards to supply food, grains and Ccvv5 2 (L- fibers, nuts ,ncattle, sheep, as uell as the visual relief of open lands to sore, concrete and asphalt , plastic flooded , eyes and bodies. As population doubles v,--orldwide every ?; years, we will need to increase our food production. , and cut back on wasteful , unnecessary consumption of goods and services as our resources reach their limits. Flood control and soils erosion problems and sedimentation in the streams have b en mentioned during the Blackhawk public hearings and in the case of our fami3v's home and farmsite' s projected devel- opment in Alamo. Questions of the costs of damage inflicted must be answered , and mitigation measures, i .e. detention basins , preserving areas for "flood rains" where runeff car. be stc:•ed or dissipated, should be provided fcr, nct_ at public expense , rather, the developers who "profit" economically from building must assum.e responsibility. I am especially concerned about the lack of proper and adecuate pub-lic rarticipaticn and involvement in t© � #rir process of this -3- plan. 3-plan. The general population of 40,000 residents of the San Ramon Valley, from Alccsta ilvd. to Pudgear lid. , near South Walnut Creek, including Alamo , Danvf: lie, and San Ramon, has not been informel :i»- ir the decisi n-making and planning' process tc, a sufficient degree to make this plan as proposed an accurate reflection of valley needs and desires. Rather, .it strongly ._ seems to represent a "rapid growth" , developer speculator, non- . agricultural view of c t_lyinF e.ithout consideration givenAto the d long-range impacts and effects , economic , social , and phrsieal of t=he Ia.:d a r: -.r' V.I_ .+ `_; are nc..a C-l.cirl.y'.. Whcl rays -: W-C, from the projected growth? ,e should have "additional time to review and consider alternatives to the proposed- "master plan"-,.with thorough, open, encouraged participatic.': c" all ?Talley residents, not just 23 select members , and the planning dept. Youth housewives, workers are systematically eliminated. from participating it should also to mentioned , dui to timing of meetings ie ., this Bd. of Supervisors hearing at 1: 30^ P.M. , March 29, 1977 Cl,(- c c��`h (f --t'tt51�,.�'i't. ��c5�«i` ��=(�{z.ti,� c� `k-:t. �r��. ��y ?)• � The soils of k;t. Diablo region have limited water storage holding capacity, and when building occurs, this capacity is limited even further. There are not ade^uate drainage facilities at present , and low-lying areas , on the ter-aces and valleys, of Danville and even Walnut Creek, will be subject to flooding in the suture il' measures are not taken `�:� correct the land limitations . As the hills are built on more and --ore , -greater problems of-'slides land slips, erosion and land sl'.:,nps in the mountail nSi des f:i11 occur. These physical limitations -yr-11 exist re7,3rdre5s of z^nir.g, or an ' other N Man ii;duced manpi c:.j. The, land bears its own record . Jur childfien will ,inherit the earth . Let us stri tie' to keep i t-a beautiful, quality C T-o all - ;i cit c� p.i area r`?'hank -nu . r-- ---1 �t��-t�..ic.'l.�-c� Lry ��.•dv►�.o�.c. t�fr -�.L ��/ -1 41 •`� lr 1 lit , 29 :J??-- �.,C-: -07 tF771St iL IS :t-71 c-P-lCa Z.'Jt3 I C11:1- V150OF �tR5 h •and civilization is- to survive,' it nust�seco�F i on eart e .a a ,denands 'of the ecosphere. A bbld statemeri 9.,but-true, Planntn-p:.ur!mn [;rowth, preservinM open] ,;seen spaces, and populativa con!••--- -- troll are not only desirable, but essential for the human species;. 63nce .Man. has4reatl.y'improved his means of transportation, concentreate'd .his population and-industries, and consideratiy developed the-sources of enerr-- gy, available to hies .pollution of the 'earths s airs water .and: land..has re– sulted, : .Te need to plan .to balance -thin;-s right. Zdueation of the prob len is a , first step. Proper plannin` of population �rowth� . e`cononiC .pro– duction•– with,'i motive of human Interests not just money and freed: - pollution'controi- -a nd properly ,planned land use and housifir, these are the immediate proposals for today, For there -is a..limit. to our'earth's system – she ca nnot and will not permit_ the overpopulated :-rowth ' pollutdd rowth; and continued stripping.and disturbances of her ecological cycles indefinitely; Sa ving. the environment is basic to .everyo•ne:t s survival. It• would- be, useless to solve the' problems of.-the, r;hetto, without..solving , the -problems of the environments for what woulda cleaned--up, ghetto,-:mean in a polluted, Baseless larger world? sire we, goin to wait" until the' • ecological and population problems reach crises proportions'-bePore. we do anything? Or shall we' start to plan ahead 'nowl Mir-.' I.8 rH 3 ZCOSPHMEN The"eirthts ,resources are finite/limited; its..space..is-too; . 2Tan.has •ekplored'and discovered all the continents and land. masses existing. `We Yi�ave and -continue .-to rob the -land of precious .metalsf.:oil and timber#- the waters -of ,fish, .whales .(used fordo Food;4. • Blit we have. not treasured -:these cifts:. We do..not .recycle them .:. -itts• too•.costly . mind* .inconvenient, plus .many.-have not .really thoutght it 'out. 'TTe'-have. assumed that there 'is more. of everything (go to the supermar::ets) .and that =1t will ta:e care of Itself• (burred-in .some land–fill dump, -or duet a•-'huge gaping hole :•in :.the earth dump somewhere), We'ares taking but not, ,,iving;in return: -Unlike nature, with its, endless . interrelated .cycles which-have,.evolved. over bil- lions of years to.-'form the intricate balanoe. of alrs•.•land, and sea, 'and plant -and,animal life, we, human beings -have considered :only onv°..prooess at a• time, . Ife' study isolated instances, a-nicroscopio point of�viewti- 'uowever, life isn't like the-test ;-tube- models we •are guided to .study. . . ,For everything isinterrelated in nature, everything has its taus.^.. and effect, Every living thing is -dependan�r on its, chemical and phys.Lc�33. • surroundings. We must wort_ with and::conserve nature—.as.—she is oux�- life sustaining element, - ::a s gone.–sided -vision.is ' the :chief .'reason we have failed to understand the advironment and have *?Ti;ndered .into destroying; and unbalancing it. Pldhninb and technology and a:otion.'can create new urban areas•where man 'can live. healthful, happy -lives, if we worts togather :-Te have the knowledge and techniques. -at- our' disposal- to protect -our environment.. (Thomas L.Kinball, in Hatt;ral lldlif-e). - Developers and' government –local., state, a nd federal should be required to ,use them, We must educate ourselves, become informed,.,and do- sometN.pA, from'-letter writing to public officials, to circulating _Aetit� i s tt--save -our ioven space, tall= to our neighbors and each other. . We need to .generally _r,-^rder our priorities as to what is important. _Even though men -on -themoon 'is a great achievement of science, we have groblews here. on. earthj at -home that deserve and need money, time and mental energies. spent ' to solve- then. over • v `-r'..�`%L"�-7�'i-%�ti7 i� ��. f V if�•,C'•�j✓��• � � J <,4ih•:•�.(, � �-� ; •/Y V ,�n.�.-P•fir- �` � ,�t"�t,�ti. ' � �- .a' 2A G el Lr l � F _ r .I art%rte <:.c.�'�-�.-�t. - j i''�:�y�C" •C;CZti �, �`�? ..mac..+ _ � `f� I ) r. (; . • �}/lr(/�i /1 �'�1.�'t^ h C�..fL.�..A.Q `� 2.�' tr �� rW?�LQ; ��j s •.!/Yl/ fr , 'i t ,' -2— PL TPTZD U?,T3�,iT C-70',; t-T - 11ECESSI TY r 0R rL M -7U'i'UPL Problems : Do we want another Los AIngeles here in Contra Costa County or the Bay . A' rea?;- Within any- city -area in the U..S. today? .-, the -:eco-cycles of. our, -landi air, arid--water are breaking down because . .people =are ` clustered.. in such -high_density.. in . small areasofland,;. (Aocording ;. o -tYiB _lg?,0 U.S.. Census„ •some 759 of the nation 's . people live ;6n.r2 :,of.:the land ) } ' Due .. to poor. planning, lack. of .:proper facilities for ` disposal of- pewag`e and solid.. wastes,. . the `hi� h.• concentratIon of populati�aA and Industry� .,etc. _the -cities. are:.rapidly beicoia ng centers of_. f ;paverty poll itign;";_and.. problems: . T ie , . aurrounding.. suburl�an,;areas too are, last: being : simi ,srly affected: S.Te have ..prc'�lems of 'bad .housing _ or- manyp -poor„and b meth- cal care for some-, co'stl .for .most'; . a brot�,ing_ aspl�ialt and. c,oncrete., . covered land, growing racial unrest., unemployment , war- arid:. yes,,,Oven hunger. ifalso have. many psychQ16,7ical .arid{ mental areas of unhappiness - stress and discontents k `any .people feel isolated and;,.alienated_ from. ... their„ ,) obs - and neightorse lrany feel . dissatisfied with th,.e way things are : but, wonder, ; "µThat . can I do? " O . feeling. rrustrated 'and ;useles .But ignorance,.. blindness, ' fear: and- ;reed — all, sy�sIbtoms.. of -a. si`crtiiesb.An our, - society -- And procrastination do not save:. us . irom . our' mistakes.. S'le have "conquered". our . wilderness -and -.almost. completely. exterminated.,At from our living_ areas: - !`uch' of these- »rotlema. stem from " the fact..:txaat_ mans pagu3ati.on hays doubled in the last 35 gears -and-will -again- in * the neat - 35Y although it tool=_ nearly 62000 years previous to this century for ,-the, earth, s- pop ulation to• reach its present proportions. . If.,we.` are, to ,feedi� house . clothe, educate- and care medically. f or” our •childr6h .ar d ' the futureIsx we -must realize that we need population Iimits. and plan .for urbazi growth, We ` must change our ways and .habits. Still with”usµ qeos1; tie 'need,:4tidgg Solutions� : stamina `,°of spirit 'to meet 'the Glial en cs of o401te - 'Planhed :population growth is ' a Vandamental , factor: for .our;µsur zival. - ( 16also: needpeopTe willing to bepatieht, with a. tired . t :pis , and: a willingness to read 4n. ' .:) _, ?'le have much . to overcome , ,;and, wewI 3 , if i re try and work =hard at ; it; Proper land usejandpYanning _ ran grawrh.are also vital" elements .to- preserving aur'- enproninent. Iii .' our sirciety,: populat ion , '---grows- -as long as ' there is wealth - to," support ' countries -famine �and• War act- as 'a deterrent �;to. po ulatign :.grovth. Thus, the accumulation of social wea:it'h and resources , stimulates x�atath: '::"1T e carries -_-on :as Tong as : we,'- the < social fagtors on wh3.ch ;tYiey ;denen mit it. --OQerLpopu3ation of our species -'is 'a wcr. d—aide pnolale ,,':.�iorrrev. '. }' 6 ry t r We must -recognize and deal with'- it, - the m ruse;. of the ;land �:�c �n.�tYier_ urgent problem, Here in ='Contra Costa County; and in 'lacy ' of: . : - as of America too; the fla-t,..'.Pertile arriculttiral,wls►nd `is bv ?.ng 'de and used _ for Industry - and 'residential areas. Th _d_dre; ,er,.ts . :r�o� , rob- lems -in - some cases (L. .A. is a prime examole), and .:txe ' ma.-;r fiats . _Y ,or•.)age of . food _producing -lands if ' it is all owed to - cont iue tla ' c_c? - :�, . ;lust , also preserve open space lander -for recreation Puz' '� : ;�.; i:tain ecological. talance with plant's which produce .the lii e- . .:.1 ;. .oxygen, for consetvatlon p'urposes, for inaintainino- an btreea':?.=. . ' xx+, : 71t .to live in. The ridges and mountain hill sides lfrovtd� t.�st of dents -alr-eady� plus the added usefulness of .Ileiri� •a : i `area ;gaze livestock •y- cattle. sheep, etc.-- anothernetesr�:. �r.. C:'' then, would we build -our houses? Fh7not, deco me ur � r `c.reas, or at least limit the population- density of peopl: the numberp . Md- the . growing towns to-reflect in.4eres';, . ,ireser _InGG , .some of, the- rural/oountry , flaver2 This.could be accomplished lbs 'estahlishing guidelines for development — certain percentages of land must be left in natural cover (20-30-40 ) to be preserved as open space. The popu lation .could be dispersed along the bases of the hills , in. cluster housing. STATE OF CAFORNIA, COUNTY OF C*RA 1fri L E D In the Matter of MAR 18 1977 Publication of legal notice - Public Heari J. R. otssoM RK BOAR OF R SORS Affidavit of Pu re: Amendment to County General Plan forDeputy� .' San Ramon Valley area. ¢ .r V P 98 P o 67684 Ami County of Contra Costa 1 a3t3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA bi .f.. .ARLENE THIESSEN .... ....... .................... ....... .................................................................. being duly sworn,deposes and says,that all times herein named he was and now is a citizen of the United States of America.over the age of eighteen years,and a resident of said County of Contra Costa. That he is not. nor was he, at any of the times hereinafter named,a party to the above entitled proceedings,or interested therein. and that all of said times he was,and now is the.......offifae...mnager.......... '� a. ,.. 8;.. .•, of the VALLEY PIONEER, a newspaper printed, published and circu- �• fated in said Contra Costa County,and as such........OffiCe...IDSnagar............ � he had charge of all advertisements in wid newspaper. That the said Valley Pioneer is a newspaper of general circulation in the said County of Contra Costa,published for the dissemnation of local and telegraphic news and intelligence of a general character,having bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers and which has been established,printed and published in said county for more than two "� ` '4 years last past, and which is not devoted to the profession, trade. calling, race or denomination,or any number thereof: ' Thatthe............................ .................................. ..�. f, . of which the annexed is a printed copy,was printed and published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said paper during the period and times of publication for....................one.....e.................consecutive weeks. :.; to-wit:from the....................9th.....................day of...•---.......Mar............ 19`1 ..... ,. .�. :,y ...3. toand until the...................................................day of...................................... 19.......... `• both days included,and as often during said periixf as said paper was published,to- 4 wit: Mar. 99 1977 :+ tea ■nuu •' �l� l 4 nuiw P That said notice was published in the newspaper proper and not in a supplement DATB :�;l,�6euial ; uuriraaa Subscribed and sworn before me this 10th Mar, ..........................Mar..........................Iy.7..7.. - .: ! : Notary public in and for the County of Contra Costa.State of California. ��af'y�f9`YJ The Board of SuperviEos Contra JamesCount Clerk n County Clerk and CC }� Ex Officio Clerk o/the Board osta CcL;nty Administration Building t Mrs.Geraldine Russell P.D.Box 911 Chief Clerks M ir;inez,California 94553 County (415)372-2371 James P.Kenny-Richmond 1st District r - i J' Nancy C.Fanden-Martinez . .- 2nd'District Robert I.Schroder-Lafayette 3rd District Warren N.Boggess-Concord 4th District Eric H.Hasseltine-Pittsburg February 2 5 1977 5th District s The Valley Pioneer Post Office Box 68 Danville, California 94526 Gentlemen: Re: Purchase Order # 67684 Enclosed is Notice of Hearing on amendment to the County General Plan for the San IZamon Valley .area which we wish you to publish on March 9, 1977 Please sign the enclosed card and return it to this office. Immediately upon the expiration of publication, send us an affidavit of publication in order that the Auditor may be authorized to pay your bill. Very truly yours, J. R. OLSSON, CLERK Jamie L. Johnson Deputy Clerk 15.4 f In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California February 22 , 19 77 In the Matter of Report of the Planning Commission on Amendment to the County General Plan for the San Ramon Valley Area The Director of Planning having notified this Board that the Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to the County General Plan for the San Ramon Valley area; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that a hearing be held on Tuesday, 'March 29 , 1977 , at 1 :30 p.m. , in the Board Chambers , Room 107 , Administration Building, Pine and Escobar Streets , Martinez, California, and the Clerk publish notice of same as required by law in the VALLEY PIONEER. PASSED by the Board on February 22 , 1977 . I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Names on list provided Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of by Planning Supervisors Director of Planning affixed this 22ndlay of February 19 77 ff J. R. OLSSON, Clerk Deputy Clerk Jamie L. Johnson r,(yQZOr7 H-24 3/76 15m 4 46 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, March 29, 1977,.- �, at 1 :30 p.m. in Room 107 of the County Administration Building, Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets , Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider a recommendation of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on an amendment to the County General Plan for the San Ramon Valley area. This proposed amendment is directed toward revising the General Plan elements as they pertain to the San Ramon Valley. The San Ramon Valley Area General Plan encompasses approximately 112 square miles , gener- ally bounded on the west and south by the Alameda County line, on the north by the City of Walnut Creek and on the east by Morgan Territory Road. This is a comprehensive revision of the County General Plan including changes to all the State mandated general plan elements . By order of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California. J. R. OLSSON, County Clerk and ex officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California. DATED/: February 22 , 1977 BY o,/Q/I • �./L�i/I'ii�lr l ti Jamie L. Johnson, Deputy ClerF G'. + y ♦-. �_: .. it ` i + f f•' Ik NOW 14 1,0I y _ r titres -ate t ' -..•. t r !�~'._.. t _ NNtN ARRA " + �!� ,nom .�X � �.. ^:�"T+'•'1� ' r .� Y �� .�f 19377 j � IMS DAFT �,lyyIRONMtQ r p1,p1R R£y1SI0N sow o ot- RVlsoas � �pH VAI.L w co. r prdBT • ic �,q SAN RAMON VALLEY GENERAL PLAN REVISION T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S SUBJECT PAGE I. Introduction 1 A. Project Description 1 B. Environmental Inventory 2 1. Physical Description 2 2. Existing Use and Surrounding Area 2 3. Utilities and Community Facilities 3 4. Circulation 13 S. Plans, Ordinances and Policies 14 6. Soils and Geology 16 • 7. Hydrology and Water Quality 21 S. Vegetation and Wildlife 24 9. Open Space 2S 10. Socioeconomic Considerations 2S 11. Air Quality 30 12. Noise 32 13. Historical and Archaeological Aspects 33 14. Energy 34 II. Environmental Impact Analysis 37 • A. The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action 37 1. Physical Impacts 37 2. Impacts upon the Existing Use and Surrounding 'Area 37 3. Impacts upon the Utilities and Community Facilities 39 4. Circulation Impacts 47 S. Pians, Ordinances and Policies 50 6. Soils and Geological Impacts 50 7. Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts 53 8. Vegetation and Water Quality Impacts S5 9. Open Space Impacts 55 10. Socioeconomic Impacts S6 11. Air Quality Impacts 57 12. Noise Impacts 58 13. Historical and Archaeological Impacts 58 14. Energy Impacts 58 B. Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if This Proposal is Implemented 59 C. Mitigating Measures .Proposed to Minimize the Impact 61 D. Alternatives to the Proposed Action 64 E. The Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhance- ment of Long-term Productivity 65 • TABLE O F CONTENTS (cont'd) . SUBJECT PAGE F. Any Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented 66 G. The Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed Action 66 H. Organizations and Persons.Consulted; Documents Utilized 66 I. Qualifications of EIR Preparation Agency 67 Appendix 69-71 • 1 1 DRAFT EIR FOR THE GREATER SAN MION GENERAL PLAN REVISION I. Introductory Discussion This Environmental Impact Report is based on the Planning Background Reports prepared for the Greater San Ramon Area General Plan revi- sion by the Contra Costa County Planning Department. The Prelimin- ary Draft of the General Plan proposal was prepared in February of 1976 and was analysed for environmental significance. It was determined that an environmental impact report (EIR) was required for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the Contra Costa County Guidelines for preparing environmental documents. This report is divided into two basic sections: The inventory of the region and the environmental impact analysis. A. Project Description This plan is a revision of the previously adopted general plans for the area: the 1967 Alamo-Danville Plan and the 1971 San Ramon Plan. In the years since those plans were adopted_a • number of changes have occurred, including state requirements for new general plan elements, the formation of new regional agencies, revisions to federal and state laws and plans, economic changes, and new trends in residential project propo- sals. The result of all these factors is that new responsibi- lities and possibilities for general plans exist. The legisla- tion requiring an Open Space element and the controversy that surrounded this plan, especially as it related to the San Ramon Valley, caused the Board of Supervisors to direct that a general plan revision be prepared for the San Ramon Valley area. The broad purposes of this general plan revision are: - To update and to bring together all the various land use elements of the general plans for the area. - To integrate the special purpose elements into one compre- hensive general plan document. - To integrate zoning and general plan land use categories. - To relate development proposals to necessary community facilities. • C ;�l�'�l�r is 1 To consider the proposals of regional and state agencies in County government decisions, such as the plans of the East Bay Regional Park District and the State Department of Parks and Recreation. B. Environmental Inventory of Region The environmental inventory section is a summarization of the information prepared- for the Planning Background Reports for the proposed General Plan Amendment. These reports are six in number and total more than 350 pages in length. Each appro- priate section is referenced by report name and pages where the information is located. Certain information has been updated with more recent data. 1. Physical Description (Physical Resources Report, October, 1974, pp. 1-36) . The Greater San Ramon Valley Planning Area encompasses 112 square miles of linear valleys bordered by steeply rolling foothills and rugged terrain. The larger central valley is dominated by Las Trampas Ridge on the west and Mt. Diablo and the Diablo Range on the north and east. Mt. Diablo, which rises to 3,849 feet, dominates the skyline from the entire central and eastern parts of • Contra Costa County as well as large parts of neighboring Alameda and San Joaquin Counties. Just north of Alamo the valley opens into the Diablo Valley which is occupied by the Cities of Walnut Creek and Concord. To the south the central valley and the north-south trending side valleys open into the spacious Livermore-Amador Valley in Alameda County. The Mediterranean dry-summer climate type prevails through- out central coastal California. This climate type is characterized by mild rainy winters and warm dry summers. The pattern is governed by the annual movements of the North Pacific High, proximity to the Pacific Ocean, and a position in the mid-latitudes around 38 degrees north. 2. Existing Use and Surrounding Area (Land Use and Zoning Inventory Analysis Report, November, 1974, pp. 1-10 and 48-54) . The relative distribution of existing land use in the Greater San Ramon Valley Planning Area is reflective of the region's developing residential character. Until recently, it has been peripheral to the County's more • 2 • urbanized north central valley, and land use patterns were characterized by residential development of a rural character oriented to Walnut Creek. Since the early 19601s, however, the character of development has changed. Urban expansion south of Walnut Creek has been increasing- ly characterized by subdivision development, which has extended southward along I-680. Growth from the south has been accompanied by residential subdivision expansion northward from the Dublin area, in Alameda County. Table 1 indicates the acreage and percentage distribution of existing land use in the Greater San Ramon Valley Planning Area as tabulated in the County's 1970 Land Use Inventory. Almost 5,000 acres (9 percent) of the existing land in the Planning Area is devoted to uses which can be classi- fied as urban: residential, commercial, industrial, public/semi-public. Approximately 57 percent of the remaining area is devoted to extensive and intensive agricultural pursuits. An additional 32 percent can be considered as vacant with some potential for development. The areas to the north (Walnut Creek) and the south • (Dublin) are either urbanized or in the process of develop- ment. The land adjacent to the Planning Area to the west consists of open space for agricultural, watershed or park uses while the areas to the east are primarily devoted to agricultural pursuits. 3. Utilities and Community Facilities (Community Facilities Report, September, 1974, pp. 8-90) . a. Sewerage (pp. 43-58) Sewerage service to the San Ramon Planning Area shows a mixture of facility development characteris- tic of many regions undergoing rapid urbanization. The largest sewerage service agency in the county, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) serves the northern portion of the valley and extends eastward into Green Valley. The southern portion of the valley is served by the Valley Community Services District which also extends into the Dublin area of Alameda County. Considerable area within the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District service area remains on septic tanks. (See Table 2) i TABLE 1 EXISTING LAND USE COUNTYJGREATER SAN RAMON VALLEY PLANNING AREA, 1970 Contra Costa County, California SAN.RAMON Acres Percent of Total Residential 3,958 5.5% Commercial 192 0.2 Industrial 111 0.1 Public/Semi-Public 390 0.5 Open Space 65,375 91.1 Other 1,730 2.4 TOTAL 71,756 - 100.0$ • TABLE 2 Central Contra Costa Valley Community Sanitary District District Area served --- San Ramon Village Drainage Walnut Creek Amador Amador Alamo 1970-1971 Population Served 217,100 9,000 Service Area Acreage 61,600 2,500 Plans call for completion of expansion of the capa- city of the CCCSD plant, located near Pacheco, by 15 million gallons during 1976, to be followed by a second expansion of 15 million gallons by 1980. Costs are now estimated at $30 million for this total project. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District estimates that the average generation of sewage is 100 gallons per person per day, but that 150 gallons is the engineered capacity for sewerage pipeline design. The local capital investment per person is thus $49 on a 100 gallon basis, while the total local, state and federal investment is $213 per person. b. Water (pp. 58-67) Residents of the study area receive their water almost totally from the East Bay Municipal Utility District and the surface sources which this District has developed. However, large sparsely populated areas exist which receive their water from individual wells and certain areas are within the boundaries of the Contra Costa County Water District. When public water service is required for development, most portions of the Planning Area will look to EBMUD. An area must first be annexed to the District. This is accomplished by an application to EBMUD and a hearing before the District Board of Directors. Once an area is accepted by the District, its annex- ation must be approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission. A fee of $200.00 per acre is assessed by the District to equalize the costs of system development between existing and new users. If a development requires new storage facilities, the developed must advance 60% of the construction costs; however, money is returned once the development begins to receive water. A pumping plant and reser- voir may cost between $600,000 and $800,000. The quality of raw water is important, for it deter- mines the potential use to which it can be placed and the expenditures necessary to process it. Owing to their sources, Contra Costa County's two major suppliers transmit water of different quality. • 5 • a C. Electricity and Telephone Service (pp. 72-74) • The Pacific Gas and Electric Company provides electri- cal service to the Planning Area. Two types of transmission lines can be defined: those that deliver bulk power throughout the system and those that deliver power to substations for stepdown and ' distribution to the consumer. These lines(normally operating at 50 kilovolts or over) are particularly visible because of the large size of towers and the fact that easements do not follow existing rights- of-way. Distribution lines are those which operate at less than 50 kilovolts. Power is delivered to a distribution substation by a transmission line. Here it is stepped down to a lower voltage by a transformer and-sent out for ultimate distribution to the customer. Natural gas service is also provided to much of the Planning Area by P.G.$ E. Outlying areas must rely upon liquified petroleum gas for a non-electrical energy source. Telephone service to the Planning Area is provided by Pacific Telephone Company. d. Schools (pp. 8-19) Public education in the Planning Area is the primary responsibility of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. As of May, 1976 the San Ramon Valley School District had eleven elementary schools with a total enrollment of 6,378 students, two intermediate schools for grades seven and eight with an enrollment of 2,110 pupils, and four high schools, including a continuation school, with 3,679 pupils. A second jurisdiction, the Amador Valley Joint Union School District serves a small portion of the County with facilities in Dublin and Pleasanton. Approxi- mately ten- students are bused from this area to Fairlanes Elementary School, Harvest Park Middle School, and Amador and Foothill High Schools in Alameda County. Two additional school districts which serve parts of the study area are the Walnut Creek School District and the Livermore Valley School District. The Walnut Creek School District serves a small section of the northwestern tip of the study area north of . 0 Chaney Road. Children in this area attend either Muirwood or Tice Valley Elementary Schools, both located outside the study area. Both elementary schools feed Parkmead Intermediate School, also located outside the study area. Del Valle and Las Lomas High Schools serve the study area and are located on its periphery. Although a portion of the study area is included within the Livermore Valley School District, no students attend district schools from the Planning Area. There are no college facilities in the Planning Area; however, Contra Costa County Junior College District's Diablo Valley campus located in Pleasant Hill serves the area. In addition to public educational facilities there are two private schools in the study area. Athenian is a private high school with approximately 150 students. St. Isodore's is a parochial elementary school serving grades 1 to 8; the school has an enrollment of 320. Other education facilities include approximately ten nursery-pre-schools. • e. Police (pp. 22-23) The Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department, a department of County Government, provides the major portion of police protection in the Planning Area. This department, directed by an elected official, provides police services in unincorporated area throughout the County, directs County detention facilites, serves the Superior Court as Bailiff and by serving civil processes, and provides communication services. The California Highway Patrol, a law enforcement branch of State Government, also provides police services in the Planning Area. The Highway Patrol is responsible for patrolling Highway 680, as well as all County roads throughout the study area. The Highway Patrol's primary responsibility is to "expe- dite the smooth and safe flow of traffic", while the Sheriff's Department is primarily concerned with police services involving individuals and families and crime prevention. G_fq l� r The Sheriff's Department provides service to the San • Ramon Valley from its central administrative and support facility in the County administration complex in Martinez. There are three patrol beats in the Planning Area which require a minimum of fifteen officers to maintain. Additional support is available on call. Aside from official sheriff department services, there are two police districts in the study area, Danville-Alamo and Roundhill which are supported by local property taxes. The Highway Patrol operates out of its station at 5001 Blum Road in Martinez. Eighty officers operate out of this facility, 7 of which provide 24 hour duty in the Planning Area. Police service to the north of the Planning Area is provided by the City of Walnut Creek and to the south by the Alameda County Sheriff's Department. f. Fire (pp. 24-29) Fire protection in the Planning Area is provided by the five agencies indicated on the following page. • Districts are sustained almost entirely by revenues generated by the property tax. In the Planning Area only the Danville and Contra Costa. Consolidated Fire Protection Ditricts, however, have no volunteer firemen. Tassajara is staffed entirely by volunteers and San Ramon Fire Protection District and Valley Community Services District are at least partially staffed by volunteers. There is no formula to determine at what point the volunteer department should give way to a full-time paid department. The determining factor is quality and level of service the people want and are willing to pay for. The larger and more populated the district, the less effective the volunteer department becomes. g. Solid Waste Disposal (pp. 67-71) Refuse in the Planning Area is collected by three private companies, the Diablo Disposal Service, the Dublin Disposal Service, and the Valley Disposal Service. The companies carry refuse from the San Ramon Valley to the Acme Fill site located near • • TABLE 3 ASSESSED VALUATION AND PROPERTY TAX REVENUES BY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SAN RAbiON VALLEY PLANNING AREA Contra Costa County, California Assessed Value Tax Rate District 1972-1973 Per $100 A.V. Revenue Danville 72,214,434 1.015 779,182 San Ramon 23,342,058 .778 238,074 Tassajara 3,073,633 .344¢ 11,614 Valley Community Services 24,860,218* .974 259,782* Consolidated 669,407,291 .749 5,497,566 • *For total district operations. Source: Prepared from Office of the County Auditor-Controller Data by the Contra Costa County Planning Department. • 4 .•CA e2-�f'� , Martinez for final disposal. The present regulation of refuse disposal in Contra Cota County is under local control. Refuse collectors . are generally regulated by county ordinance. Those who provide service within the boundaries of the Centra Contra Costa County Sanitary District and the Valley Community Services District are also controlled by franchise arrangement with those jurisdictions. Disposal sites which are all currently located in the unincorporated area are under county regulations. The County has formed the Board of Supervisors' Solid Waste Management Subcommittee to prepare the plan required by State Statute (SB 5- Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972) . It is estimated that an average of 508 tons of refuse per day are being disposed of at the Acme fill site. It has been estimated by Bechtel Engineers that the ultimate capacity of the site is in excess of 28,000 acre feet and as of 1970 only about 2,000 acre feet had been utilized. The Acme Fill Dump should serve the needs of the central portion of Contra Costa County, including the Planning Area, until after 2010. Refuse collected by the Dublin Disposal Service is carried to the Eastern Alameda County landfill north of Livermore on Vasco Road. This general purpose facility is operated as a modified landfill; it is privately owned and operated. The site is 300 acres in size and accepts approximately 50 tons of refuse a day. h. Public Transit (Transportation Facilities Report, November, 1974, pp. 30-37) Public modes of mass transportation are virtually non-existent within the Planning Area. There are three bus systems operating in the area. The service is oriented toward commute periods. The Franciscan Lines run a service from the Greenbrook development through Danville to San Francisco via Freeway 24. The Sierra Lines operates 4 routes through the Planning Area to the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. AC Transit provides a BART feeder line from Dublin to the Walnut Creek BART station through the San Ramon Valley. Greyhound no longer provides service in the area. • �!7 i. Parks and Recreation (pp. 36-42) The State Department of Parks and Recreation owns and operates Mt. Diablo State Park which lies partially within the Planning Area. All of the Planning Area lies in the East Bay Regional Park District, which provides regional-level outdoor recreation areas and trails for most of Contra Costa and the Planning Area. Las Trampas park includes over 2,500 acres and is classified as a Wilderness Park. The District Master Plan includes a future Regional Preserve Park in the Morgan Territory area east of the Planning Area. This land was required in 1975 and further additions to the 970 acres is anticipated. Valley Community Services District in southern San Ramon Valley includes parts of both Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. Existing neighborhood parks are Armstrong Park at Neil Armstrong School and the Country Club Tot Lot at Country Club School. The District has completed the acquisition of a 20 acre community park site in the northwest part of the • District (southern San Ramon Valley) to become a community park. Just north of the intersection of 680 and Crow Canyon Road is County Service Area R-5 which operates a 1.5 acre park which was donated to the County by a subdivision developer. On the northeast side of the Planning Area just east of Stone Valley Road is the Green Valley Park and Recreation District which operates and maintains a swimming pool and grounds on approximately 2 acres. Some non-district families use the facility by membership. County Service Area R-7 is a new park and recreation County Service Area approved in the June 1974 election. The Service Area will acquire and operate parks, using property tax revenues and the park dedication fees required by ordinance from new residential developments. Two privately owned golf courses, Roundhill and Diablo, are located in the northern Planning Area on the east side of the central valley. San Ramon National Golf Course is located in the central valley to the south near the Alameda County border. j. Flood Control (pp. 75-81) The Flood Control District was established by state statute in 1951 as the lead 'agency in planning and constructing flood control and drainage works in the County. The enabling legislation authorized the district to levy taxes and perform all the functions necessary to the operation of such a district. Approximately half of the Planning Area, some 50 square miles, lies within Zone 3-B, the Walnut Creek Basin. Surface runoff in the basin reaches Walnut Creek via San Ramon Creek at its confluence with Walnut Creek just north of the Planning Area. The southeastern half of the Planning Area lies in the Alameda Creek basin which drains into Alameda Creek in Alameda County. No Flood Control Zane or drainage plan has been established in this basin in Contra Costa County. In the Planning Area, channel improvements are planned for San Ramon Creek, Green Valley Creek, and Sycamore Creek. In addition to constructing channel improvements, the district approves the design of flood control • and other drainage works which are sometimes required to be provided by property developers. Channel improvements constructed by developers are usually maintained by the district. However, the district is not authorized to maintain unconventional means of reducing flood risks such as small check dams and impoundment basins which may double as recreation ponds. These would be maintained by a homeowners association or a small separate assessment district. The district also forms Storm Drainage Zones in smaller parts of a basin where drainage works are required other than stream channel improvements. Low-lying areas subject to water standing on the land require ditches and underground storm drians in order to prevent water standing on roads and private property. Major subdivision developments are usually required to provide drainage works as a part of preparing the land for development. Areas which develop on a piecemeal or lot-split method usually are not required to install drainage works based on full subsequent development. It is these areas which may require drainage works at a post- development time through a Storm Drainage Zone. Two Storm Drainage Zones exist in the Planning Area. • 12 Flood control and drainage works are a costly but essential component in urbanizing areas. In areas which develop by an individual or lot-split method it is usually not required to provide drainage works for the property or for anticipated future additional development upstream. These costs may merely be deferred until such time as drainage inadequacies are clearly evident, and then the needed storm drain may be constructed by the Flood Control District through a Drainage Zone. Community efforts to preserve streams in their natural state are often frustrated by the extremely high cost of "amenity" channel designs. Also, because Flood Control District channel improvements are commonly constructed on easements, not land owned in fee, the easement territory belongs to property owners adjacent to the creeks. Owners usually do not desire to sacrifice back yards for flood control works. Additionally, there is no public access to these streams, which also makes it difficult to justify the extra coats. When traffic increases require road widening there is usually no place to put new lanes except on top of the creek. Flood control works are part of both environmental • and economic costs in a rapidly developing region such as the Planning Area. k. Commercial Facilities There are no truly "regional" commercial facilities in the Planning Area. The communities of Alamo, Danville, San Ramon and South San Ramon serve many of these functions on a sub-regional basis by providing local shopping and general commercial uses such as banking, markets, savings and loans, and retail outlets. Approximately 200 acres within the Planning Area are devoted to these uses. 4. Circulation (Transportation Facilities Report, November, 1974, pp. 1-29; Land Use ad Transportation Study: Sub- Area Networks and Traffic Projections, July, 1975, 2-1 to 2-35) The road system in the Planning Area was originally developed to serve an agricultural economy and a small population. As development grew the transportation system was improved, but not rapidly enough to keep pace 13 with the development that has occurred. The system's general layout, however, is well planned and works adequate- ly in most locations (see Map 1) . Danville Boulevard, Hartz Avenue and San Ramon Valley Boulevard are all names of a continuous route extending the length of the Planning Area, which connects all the major commercial areas in the valley, and was the main route for through traffic prior to completion of the freeway. It still has a major role in valley travel. Portions of this road have been improved to carry heavier traffic and other sections remain narrow and rural. This plan supports the concept of keeping the scenic route aspect of the road, but recognizes that conditions and needs change and that adequate setbacks should be required so that if they are needed in the future they will be available. Construction of Interstate 680 began in the valley in 1962 and was completed in 1966. The completion of this freeway provided a major stimulus to development of the valley. Interstate 680, six lanes for most of its length in the San Ramon Valley, was widened in 1974-75 to provide adequate capacity for the increasing traffic. At that time a new interchange was added at Diablo Road which further established downtown Danville as the primary commercial area in the valley. S. Plans, Ordinances and Policies (Land Use and Zoning Inventory and Analysis, November, 1974, pp. 17-61) . The following required elements of the General Plan have been completed: General Plan 1963 (last complete revision) Housing Element 1970 Open Space 1973 Land Use Element 1974 Conservation Element 1973 Circulation Element 1971 Seismic Safety Element 1975 Noise Element 1975 Scenic Highway Element 1974 Safety Element 1975 Recreation Element 1970 Refuse Disposal 1972 The County is preparing two other elements which are not mandatory: Historical Resources and Community Facilities. A comprehensive discussion of these elements as they apply to the proposed San Ramon Valley Area General Plan is found in the draft document on pages (18-68) . , 14 SA5RAd IA44 0Mev ff r,�t c0 '-r s:r`.'I moi'';,;,s '• ,�' �., _ "��C •��* • _ •� �. y.` �j 1 .•til ,.^'r• .:i"'.�•S., h�;:�....,..Y _ •.•••. 3 �� i% dip �Nf- Noy=k ' tip � 6. Soils and Geology • Soils The importance of good soil in continuing to produce vital foods cannot be underestimated in this period of increasing food shortages and world famine. Many soils are adaptable to a wide variety of crops which give agriculture the flexibility to change growing patterns in response to changing market demands for agricultural products. Other soils, while they may be less versatile, still produce an annual harvest of adapted crops or livestock. Knowledge of soil characteristics is essential to farm and ranch management, to adequate land conservation practices and in some locations can be critical to wise crop selection. In the Planning Area soils are not the limiting factor for agricultural development. Topography and water, discussed in other sections of this report, are the physical constraints on farming and ranching. The Soil Conservation Service assigns to each soil series a soil class number from I to VIII based on the soil properties and characteristics which are limiting for cultivation. Classes I through IV are considered suitable for cultivated crops, with Class I having only slight • limitations and Class IV having severe limitations, usually slope steepness in the Planning Area. Classes V through VIII are rated for grazing suitability, but are considered not suitable for cultivation because of slope steepness. The details of these are available in the General Soil Survey of Contra Costa County of 1974. All Class I and II soils are considered "prime" according to this method. Non-prime soils are suited to cultivation but require special care because they are subject to erosion, have a sub-surface claypan or, in the case of several scattered small areas, are alkali and thus limited in the crops which are adapted. Though not considered prime, these soils are as good as or better than many soils in country which have been farmed successfully for generations. The engineering characteristics of soils are related to their stability and capability to support the weight of structures such as roads and buildings. Wetness, the presence of shrink-swell clays, or a tendency to slide, erode, or subside affect the engineering characteristics of soils. Recognizing the importance of knowledge of soil capabilities and limitations prior to land development, i 16 and incorporating this knowledge into plans and project design, is a major means of reducing property damage risks and minimizing public costs of constructing and maintaining roads, facility installations, and public buildings. Failure to observe the limitations inherent in soils may result in expensive or persistent problems in structures and improvements such as slope failure, extreme erosion and silting, heaving and cracking of pavements, dislocation of utility and sewage lines, and many minor local problems as well. The engineering properties of soils, like the agricultural properties, tend to cluster in characteristic groups. Only an on-site soil investigation can reveal the exact degree and distribution of each factor for a specific location. Geology The modern landscape of the Greater San Ramon Planning Area is the result of complex geologic processes origina- ting deep within the rocky crust and mantle of the earth. It is these forces that have given rise to the faulting, folding and uplift which have created the central Coast Ranges of California, and it is these forces which are responsible for the recent and continuing uplift of the Las Trampas Hills and Diablo Range. Accompanying the internal changes in the crust in this area are water-flow and gravity-related processes, such as erosion, land- sliding, soil slippage, and sedimentation. These processes pose certain problems to human settlement of the Planning Area and the geologic and seismic risks will become greater as development pushes into more hazardous areas. For example, landsliding may not pose an unacceptable risk to agriculture but it may be a severe obstacle to suburban development. Fault movement, ground shaking, ground failure, erosion, sedimentation, flooding and fire are all potentially hazardous to human life, safety and property. Because of these phenomena an understanding of the nature and distribution of hazardous conditions is essential for safe and efficient land use, facilities and services planning. Any discussion of topography and geologic structure of the Planning Area falls into three broad categories which correspond to the following physiographic regions: Las Trampas Hills, San Ramon Valley and Diablo Range. Each region has its own distinct geologic characteristics and potential- for various uses. The Las Trampas Hills The typical northwesterly trend of the central Coast Ranges of California is clearly displayed in the outcrop pattern of the Tertiary rocks in the Las Trampas Hills segment of the Planning Area. The topography is dominated by two, long steep-sided, northwest-trending ridges. Las Trampas Ridge forms the western boundary of the San Ramon Valley and reaches crestal elevations approaching 1800 feet in the Planning Area. Rocky Ridge, which lies west of Last Trampas Ridge, is the highest ridge in the Las Trampas Hills section of the County. The crestal elevation of this ridge reaches a maximum of 2024 feet. The hill- sides are furrowed with gullies and pock marked with landslide scars, indicative of the high erosion hazard and slope stability problems that exist through the region. The major valley in this section of the Planning Area is the Bollinger Creek drainage basin. Local relief typically amounts to several hundred feet with slopes exceeding 100% (a horizontal to vertical ratio of 1:1) on some hillsides. Bollinger Creek itself is a youthful stream which has cut deeply in the heavy alluvial soils on the valley floor, carving a narrow ravine with precipi- tous sides. The geologic structure of the Las Trampas Hills segment of the Planning Area is dominated by a series of folds in the rock strata developed in sedimentary formations of Tertiary age. These geologic units have been bisected by two through-going regional earthquake faults which are considered to be mechanically linked to the Calaveras fault zone. The significance of these faults will be discussed later in this report. San Ramon Valley The San Ramon Valley consists of relatively level land except for local steep areas along or near creek banks. The most significant topographic feature in this area is the drainage divide which separates San Ramon Creek from South San Ramon Creek. The formation of this divide is apparently a geologically recent phenomenon and may be related to the continuing uplift of Mt. Diablo. The valley floor is underlain by Quaternary alluvial deposits which generally increase in thickness toward the center of the basin. The San Ramon Valley, at least to some extent, is a fault controlled valley, bounded by active faults on both the west side (Calaveras fault zone) and east side (Pleasanton fault) . Additionally, ground water surveys and geologic investigations conducted in the • �s valley bottom area have documented the existence of west- northwest trending cross-faults. Some of these fault traces are known to disturb geologically recent alluvial deposits •and the topsoil, indicating recent movement. Diablo Range The eastern portion of the Planning Area lies on the southwest flank of the bit. Diablo uplift. The bedrock has been tilted to a near vertical position during the emplacement of the serpentine rock core of the mountain. The geologic units which outcrop in this area range in age from the Orinda Formation which is exposed in the western foothills of bit. Diablo, to rocks of the Great Valley Sequence (Cretaceous sedimentary rocks) which are exposed in the core of the Diablo Range. In general the oldest rocks are exposed at higher elevations near the eastern limit of the Planning Area and the bedrock units become progressively younger to the southwest and west. The drainage pattern in the eastern portion of the Planning Area is best characterized as a radial pattern, with streams flowing either west or south, away from the crest of Mt. Diablo. These youthful streams have eroded soft bedrock in some areas to form relatively narrow, elongated upland valleys which are underlain by clay loam alluvial soils. In other areas the streams are confined to narrow, • steep-walled canyons. Surface waters north of the Crow Canyon area are discharged into San Ramon Creek and conveyed northward to Suisun Bay. All surface waters in the southeastern portion of the Planning Area are conveyed to Alameda Creek in Alameda County. Earthquake Faults The landscape of the San Francisco Bay Region generally and Contra Costa County in particular are products of geologic processes in which earthquake faults are inherent features and earthquakes are inherent events. Although the outstanding geologic fault of the Bay Area, the San Andreas fault lies outside of the Planning Area, other fault systems paralleling the San Andreas are found within the Planning Area. The Calaveras system, for example, is an acknowledged regional fault system that has produced at least one major earthquake in the last century and a half. Some are known faults whose relation- ship to *larger systems are yet to be determined, such as the Pleasanton or Las Trampas faults; or whose activity status in the County is inferred but not conclusively proven by geoligic evidence, such as the Mt. Diablo fault. Many others are minor faults which have been • 19 - 3� presumed (but not always known) to be inactive. In general, major through-going faults of regional signifi- cance are oriented approximately N 30 degrees W, paralleling the trend of major ridges and valleys of the region. The minor faults are short and highly variable in their orientation. Some are cross-faults which intersect the major faults at an oblique angle; others are oriented sub-parallel to the major fault systems. Finally, there are "radial" faults which radiate away from Mt. Diablo like spokes from the hub of a wheel and "concentric" faults which are concentrically disposed about the Mt. Diablo uplift. To a greater or lesser extent, all have an effect on structures placed astride or immediately adjacent to the fault trace. The Calaveras fault is the dominant structural feature in Central Contra Costa County and, at least in part, is responsible for the wide, trench-like Diablo-San Ramon Valley. Geologically, the Calaveras fault is a boundary fault separating two major crustal blocks. As presently mapped, the Calaveras fault zone is approximately 100 miles long, extending northwesterly from the Hollister, California area (where the Calaveras merges with the San Andreas system) to southern Solano County. The Calaveras fault zone has long been considered active • on the basis of physiographic and geologic evidence and earthquake epicenters located along the trace of the fault (i.e., point of intersection of fault with earth's surface). Much of the true nature of the Calaveras fault in Contra Costa County is obscured by alluvium and urbanization, but it is evident that it is a complex zone of many faults. The principal effects of earthquakes in the Planning Area include fault rupture, ground shaking, and ground failure. It should also be recognized that the damaging effects of a great earthquake such as the 1906 San Francisco earthquake (magnitude 8.3) will be felt over thousands of square miles and could trigger a regional disaster. Conversely a moderate magnitude earthquake such as the 1971 San Fernando earthquake (magnitude 6.6) can have devastating results locally, but the damage is generally limited to an area with 10 to 25 miles of the moving fault trace. In either instance, the extent of the damage depends on complex factors, including earthquake magnitude, local geologic conditions, and the seismic response characteris- tics of existing structures. • 20 7. Hydrology and Water Quality (Physical Resources Report, October, 1974, pp. 37-63) . • Precipitation The mass of moist air moving inland from the Pacific through the Golden Gate is deflected upwards by the hills, cools, and the water vapor it holds condenses and falls as rain. Thus the first ridges along the coast receive 35 inches or more of rain, with each successive inland ridge receiving less as the moisture content of the atmosphere is reduced. As the air mass flows down the eastern side of the ridges it is warmed and will hold more water vapor. Thus, the east-facing slopes receive less precipitation than west-facing slopes. This is known as the "rain shadow" effect and is common wherever ridges are perpendicular to storm tracks. The Greater San Ramon Valley proper receives an average annual precipi- tation of less than 25 inches, with several inches more falling on its boundary ridges, particularly on Las Trampas ridge to the west. Because of its height, hit. Diablo captures more moisture than would be true for an inland ridge with a lower elevation. The low rolling foothills of the southeast Planning Area have very little ability to capture rainfall. • East of Mt. Diablo average annual rainfall drops off rapidly to the semi-arid climate of the San Joaquin Valley, with average annual precipitation of about 12 inches. Drainage Basins . The Planning Area is about equally divided between the Walnut Creek and Alameda Creek drainage basins. Small areas drain into the Marsh Creek system on the northeast, into San Leandro Creek on the southwest and into Pine Creek in the extreme north of the Planning Area. Surface runoff in the Walnut Creek basin is carried north out of the Planning Area in San Ramon Creek which has its conflu- ence with Walnut Creek a mile north of the Planning Area near the "Y" where Interstate 680 and Highway 24 meet. Surface runoff in the Alameda Creek basin is carried south out of the County in several streams which have their confluence in the vicinity of Pleasanton. Stream Characteristics The west tributaries of San Ramon Creek coming off Las Trampas ridge are short, straight, and steep. Storm 21Fy Oe �7 runoff will rush down such creeks with considerable force • until the energy is dissipated as the gradient levels out on the valley floor. San Ramon tributarires on the east side rise in the Diablo Range and the lower foothills. They are characteristically steep in the upper reaches, but wind more slowly through the outlying valleys before emptying into San Ramon Creek. Major tributaries of San Ramon Creek include Green Valley Creek and East Branch, Sycamore Creek, and Bollinger Creek on the west. Streams which flow into Alameda Creek include South San Ramon Creek, Coyote Creek, Alamo Creek and West Branch, and the Tassajara Creek system in the east Planning Area. Surface flows in the San Ramon drainage basin of 50.8 square miles, are measured at a gauging station (monitored by the U.S.G.S.) at its confluence with Walnut Creek. The maximum daily flow since October 1952, 7,980 cfs (cubic feet per second) , occurred in 1963 as a result of an unusual rain storm. The highest flows follow the heavy storms of winter and spring, the amount of runoff depending on the amount of precipitation and whether or not the ground is saturated at the time the storm occurs. Most of the Planning Area creeks are intermittent, that is, they are dry during the dry season. Nevertheless they must carry large volumes and veolcities of runoff • during the rainy season. Functioning under natural conditions a stream engineers its channel to carry most but not all high flows. The general pattern is for channel erosion to occur in the upper steeper reaches, and for sediments to be deposited in the lower more level reaches. Relative channel steepness of streams in the Walnut Creek Basin is shown in Figure S. Exceptional . runoff leads to overbank flows during which erosion is increased and sediments are deposited on the adjacent flood plains where velocity is reduced. It is this process that has built the valley floors and continually carries the hills downward to the sea. The National Flood Insurance Program The pattern of hydrologic changes described above is not extraordinary nor is it a pattern of degradation unique to the Coast Ranges of California. It is, in fact, so widespread that the federal government has taken action to be relieved from the continually rising cost of both flood control works and flood disaster damages. Under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, the federal government has set up a program of partially subsidized insurance in order to transfer to property owners the i 22 - i • cost of flood damages. Contra Costa County has participa- ted in the flood insurance program since November 1, 1975. Extensive areas along creeks and natural drainage courses in the project area have been designated as subject to 100 year flood inundation (a 1% risk in a given rainy season) and hence must comply with damage mitigation and insurance provisions of the program. Ground Water Very little information is available on the quantity and quality of sub-surface water, or aquifers, in the Planning Area. According to a Department of Water Resources report of 1968, the San Ramon Valley ground water basin, extending 10 miles below the City of Walnut Creek, is a low yield aquifer with ground water storage limited to unconsolidated Quaternary alluvial deposits. The under- lying rock is composed of non-water-bearing Tertiary formations. In the drainage of South San Ramon Creek, a tributary of Alameda Creek, the narrow valley floor has been identified as part of the Amador ground water basin which provides water for agricultural, domestic, and industrial uses in Alameda County. Virtually all the rest of the Planning Area is lacking in substantial ground water resources. Deep drilling will not increase the yield since the underlying dense rock is not water • saturated. Well flow in most of the Planning Area depends on the annual rainfall which infiltrates into the upper less consolidated alluvial materials which compose the valley floors. Wells yield a maximum flow of 10 to 15 gpm (gallons per .minute), satisfactory for domestic use and stock watering, but not adequate for irrigated crops. Because of the dependency on annual rainfall to replenish ground water supplies, this area is extremely vulnerable to drought. A two year or three year drought could lead to wells running dry. This is especialy a risk if housing on wells increases to the point that the modest aquifer is tapped close to its capacity. Also, if development reduces infiltration in areas on wells, the water table will drop and the wells will run dry. The existing low- yield aquifer will not support intensive use or a dense residential area on wells. Because the water saturated deposites lie relatively close to the surface, not at great depth, contamination of wells from septic systems is a possibility. There are no known gravel deposits or other rapid infiltration sites in the Planning Area, but the entire region, and especially stream channel bottoms and coarse-grained alluvial deposits function as aquifer recharge areas. A reduction in the infiltration capacity of an extensive area could result in water shortages in • the same area. 20 �f � 7�I 8. Vegetation and Wildlife (Physical Resources Report, • October, 1974, pp. 64-81) . (See Appendix) The Planning Area is composed of the following vegetation types which are based on criteria developed by the Contra Costa County Planning Department: Vegetation Types Approximate Percentage of Cover in the Planning Area Open grassland 50 Oak woodland 20 True chaparral 10 Scrub/brushland less than .S Riparian woodland 1 - .5 Agriculture 8 Urban 11 The following are the rare, endangered or locally depleted species of plants and animals which occur or may occur within the Planning Area. Plants: known Mt. Diablo manzanita Arctostaphylos auriculata Brewer dwarf flax Sesperolinon Breweri • Knob-cone pine pinus attenuata Plants: probable Caper-fruited tropidocarpum Tropidocarpum capparideum Contra Costa eriogonum Eriogonum truncatum Diablo helianthella Eianthella castanea Mt. Diablo fairy lantern Calochortus pulchellus Animals: known California tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum californiense Northern brown skink Eumeces gilberti placerensis Alameda striped racer Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis caurina Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos canadensis Mountain lion Felis concolor Bobcat Lynx rufus Animals: probable Northern sagebrush lizard sceloporus graciosus graciosus Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum perpallidus • San Joaquin kit fox vulpes macrosis mutica 2.1 Ringtail Bassariscus astutus Badger Taxidea taxrs Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus townsendi The following is a list of the sites within the Planning area which are proposed by the California Natural Areas Coordinating Council (CNACC) for inclusion within the Governor's report on California areas of Environmental Concern (proposed for completion in December•of 1976) . Proposed Natural Areas (CNACC) Las Trampas Ridge Mt.. Diablo Blackhawk Ranch Fossil Site Morgan Territory 9. Open Space In 1970 the Planning Area had more than 90% open space. The existing General Plan shows approximately 59% open space. Some of this is devoted to parks and watershed lands which are currently under public ownership while the majority is privately owned as agricultural land. Much of this is under the agriculture preserve program for Contra Costa County. • 10. Socioeconomic Considerations (Population Characteristics Report, June, 1974, pp. 1636;. and Economic Report, Novem- ber, 1974, pp. 6-39). Population Characteristics Populations grow as a result of two simultaneous phenomena: natural increase and in-migration. Natural increase is the growth resulting from excess of births over deaths. The rate of growth due to this factor is seldom more than two percent per year. In-migration could be roughly described as the net increase resulting from people who move into and out of an area. Another important facet of migration is the age composition of the people who are moving. Some age groups, such as young adults between 20 and 30 may be experiencing a high outward flow, because the high cost of the predominantly single family housing calls for established families in their peak earning years. The age composition of the migrating population has followed a typical suburban pattern, with an outflow of ,young adults and an inflow of older adults and school-age children. This has produced a population having a higher proportion of children in school, 37%_as compared to 325 0 in the County and 28% in the Greater Bay Area. Simply • stated this means that the local schools have had a lower proportion of adult tax means that the local schools have had a lower proportion of adult taxpayers to support the students in the schools. This, plus other economic factors, have created a tax-base problem for the area schools, such that it has been difficult to maintain the desired level of service. Table 4 is compiled from data obtained from the completed special census for 1975 for Contra Costa County. The communities represented are the major areas within the Planning Area. The population age distribution for the Planning Area is shown on Table S. Housing Characteristics The housing stock in the valley consists mainly of higher priced, owner occupied, single family homes. Houses tend to be newer, larger, and have more rooms than those in the surrounding region. There are relatively few duplex or apartment type units availalbe, and those which exist have substantially higher rents. Residents of the area have lived in their homes for a shorter time than other County residents. A smaller share of newly arriving families come from the central cities of the Bay Area, and a larger proportion come from places outside the local region. The area captures the smallest proportion of persons from outside the United States. Selected comparative statistics are presented in Table 6. Ninety-five percent of the housing units in the valley are single family detached homes on their own lots. This is considerably higher than the 80% countywide, and far more than 60% for the Bay Area. Only 13% of the year- round units are rentals, compared to 30% for the County, and 47% in the Bay Area. A typical housing unit contains seven rooms, compared to five rooms per unit in the region. In 1970, more than half of the owner-occupied homes in the valley were valued higher than $37,800. By comparison, the County median value was only $25,700, and the Bay Area was only slightly higher at $26,900. There were virtually no houses priced under $20,000, whereas the County had over 25% of its stock valued below this level, and for the Bay Area, a full one-third of the owner- occupied units were under $20,000. Rapidly inflating 26 TABLE 4 POPULATION STATISTICS: 1970 Federal Census and 1975 Contra Costa County Special Census Percentage Jurisdiction 1970 1975 Numeric Change Alamo 6,120 8,108 1,988 32.5 Danville 16,218* 18,885 2,667 16.4 Diablo 794 1,036 242 30.5 San Ramon 4,884* 12,749 73,865 161.0 Total County 5553805 582,829 27,024 4.9 • *Subject to revision upward pending outcome of possible undercount in 1970. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department. Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Contra Costa County Planning Department. • y�� TABLE 5 1970 POPULATION DISTRIBUTIONS BY FUNCTIONAL AGE CLASSIFICATION GREATER SAN RAMON VALLEY SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND PLANNING AREA CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SMSA Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent of of of of of of Age Group Persons Total Persons Total Persons Total Under 5 (pre-school) 2,070 7.4 46,113 • 8.3 231,687 7.S S to 19 (students) 10,017 35.7 172,757 31.1 811,298 26.1 20 to 34 (formationfamil } 4,363 15.S 110,119 19.8 72S,204 23.3 3S to 64 (prime earn-) 10,178 36.2 188,133 33.8 1,04S,8S2 33.6 ing years 6S and over (seniors) 1,462 5.2 38,683 7.0 295,478 X9.55 TOTAL POPULATION 28,090 100.0 555,805 100.0 3,109,S19 100.0 Source: Contra Costa County Planning Department, based on 1970 Census Data. TABLE 6 SELECTED COMPARATIVE STATISTICS: 1970 Federal Census and 1975 Contra Costa County Special Census Median Years of Average Median Household Income School Completed Household Size Jurisdiction 1970 1975 1970 1975 1970 197S Alamo $17,930 $24,123 13.S 16.0 3.5 3.3 Danville IS,928 22,768 13.4 IS.6 3.6 3.3 Diablo 16,90S 25,690 13.5 16.0 3.8 3.6 San Ramon 15,944 21,387 13.3 15.0 3.6 3.1 Total County $10,992 $15,026 12.S 13.0 3.2 2.9 Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Contra Costa County Planning Department. housing costs have made these figures obsolete in absolute terms; however, they are presented here in an effort to show the relative disparity between the costs of housing in the valley versus its neighbors in the region. In 1970, sixty percent of the valley residents had lived in their homes less than five years. The County and Bay Area were slightly more settled at 53% but also showed a high mobility typical of a dynamic and growing urban area. The high mobility in the valley represents primari- ly new residents moving into purchased home; whereas the regional figures include intra-area moves, and a larger proportion of rental units. Thus the mobility of the Planning Area residents, in terms of their ability to purchase and move into new homes, is substantial when compared to the region. Travel Characteristics As would be expected in a low density suburban area, the private automobile is by far the dominant mode of transpor- tation in the San Ramon Valley. There are more autos per capita, and fewer passengers per auto, than is the case in the surrounding region. Public transportation is virtually nonexistent. According to the 1970 census, eighty percent of the workers living in the valley drove automobiles to their places of employment. A mere 7% rode as auto passengers. Only 4% used public transport. By comparison, in the San Francisco-Oakland SMSA as a whole, 65% drove, 9% rode, and 15% used transit. These figures have no doubt changed to some extent since the advent of the gasoline shortage, probably increasing the number of auto passengers, while decreasing the number of drivers. Some increase in transit usage may also have occurred; including both Greyhound commute buses and BART, but it should be made clear that autos are still the primary feeder system for these facilities. With population increasing rapidly, even these adjustments have not diminished the loads on local streets and roads. Fifty-six percent of the valley's employed residents work outside of Contra Costa County. For the county as a whole, the percentage is lower than 43% out-commuters. The higher commute rate for the area may be due to the greater proportion of professional workers, who must travel farther to employment centers which utilize their skills. This suggests that new residents may, on a per • capita basis, produce greater transportation impacts on the County and regional road systems than other residents of the County. The census data also shows that, on a per capita basis, the valley has more autos serving each family and each individual. There are 189 automobiles for each 100 auto- owning households, while the County and Bay Area have 165 and 151 respectively. The ratio of autos to individuals reveals that each car in the San Ramon Valley serves an average of 1.95 persons--compared to 2.12 and 2.34 in the other regions. The higher income level of the area would also suggest more light trucks, motorcycles, and other motor vehicles--such that the total availability of personal vehicles could be even higher than the census figures would suggest. 11. Air Quality (Physical Resources Report, October, 1974, pp. 10-36) . Since the development of fuel-powered machinery and vehicles the natural capacity of the atmosphere to dilute or neutralize wastes has been over-taxed to the degree that all industrialized nations are seeking means of reducing the air pollutants produced by our advanced society. The immediate effects of polluted air are damages to property and health. Damages to human health from air pollution are still as matter of debate. It is difficult to isolate air pollution produced illnesses from those caused by other factors such as the elusive virus. A United States Public Health Service publication states that "air pollution, as it exists in some of our communi- ties, contributes significantly as a cause or aggravating factor for the following medical conditions: acute respiratory infection, chronic bronchitis, chronic constric- tive ventilation disease, pulmonary emphysema, bronchial asthma, and lung cancer". Eye irritation is evidently not the only effect of air pollution on the human system even though it is the symptom most persons first notice. There are no known cases in which disease has been defini- tely attributable to air pollution in Contra Costa County, but if air pollution levels increase pollutants could become a noticeable factor in the health of county resi- dents. Damages to property include a shorter life for paint, cracking of rubber, and corrosion of metals and stone. Damages to vegetation include crop losses, and damages to • e%O park and other public plantings and home gardens. Air Emissions The chemistry of air pollution is complex and not yet completely understood. Many particulates are of natural origin, including mist, dust, and pollens. Man-made particulates are generated primarily from combustion, chemical and photochemical reactions, pulverizing operations, and construction. Many of the particulates emitted from industrial sources and vehicle exhausts are toxic. These include beryllium, asbestos, cadmium, arsenic, and lead. Most of these are of concern only in the immediate vicinity of the source. Lead is the exception. It is widespread and appears in the environment far from the source of emission. It has been estimated that over 12 tons of lead are emitted daily in the Bay Area from vehicles, the amounts being greatest where traffic is greatest. More reliance on low-lead and no-lead gasoline.would improve this situation significantly. Gases found in the Greater San Ramon Valley atmosphere include carbon monoxide, hydrogen, sulfide, sulfur oxides, • and oxides of nitrogen. Carbon monoxide in concentrations sufficient to induce dizziness, unconsciousness, and death are not known to have occurred in the Bay Area. Concentrations of carbon monoxide are found along heavily traveled roads and at road intersections. Hydrogen sulfide, an odorous gas, is produced largely from oil refineries and at sewage treatment plants. This gas, which may discolor paints and tarnish metals, tends to be localized around emission sources. Low concentration levels reach the Planning Area as winds from the north county coast blow south into the interior valleys. Sulfur oxides result from the burning of fossil fuels. The greatest proportion of sulfur oxides is in the form of sulfur dioxide which often further oxidizes into sulfur trioxide which combines with atmospheric moisture to form sulfuric acid mist. Sulfur oxides damage metals, stone, and vegetation, and can affect the health of humans and animals. Sulfur oxides are a problem in the vicinity of the large oil refineries and chemical plants concentrated on the Contra Costa shoreline, but when the wind is right, they can also appear in the valley atmo- sphere. b r r Oxides of nitrogen result from burning materials at high • temperatures. Both nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) are formed, and both are involved in the formation of oxidant, discussed below. Nitrogen dioxide is a brown colored gas visible as a "whiskey brown" haze at concentra- tions perceived in the San Ramon-Amador Valley area. At high concentrations damage has been noted in sensitive plants such as beans and tomatoes and when sustained at high levels has resulted in pulmonary changes in experimen- tal animals. Most of the nitrogen dioxide in the Planning Area is produced by vehicle exhaust. Cars have been required to have controls for NO2 emissions since the 1971 model year. The Diablo-San Ramon-Amador Valley is particularly- subject to the concentration of air pollutants. The confining ridges to the east and west materially reduce horizontal ventilation of the air mass by the prevailing westerly winds. During the warm sunny months between May and October more photochemical oxidants are created in the atmosphere than during winter months. Strong inversions and stagnant air conditions are also commonly present during summer and fall, which is the "smog season" when the San Ramon-Amador Valley area experiences the worst • sieges of air pollution. 12. Noise (Contra Costa County Noise Element, August 1975) . In response to the growing problem of environmental noise and in recognition of the important role of planning in . determining the community noise levels, the California Legislature in 1972 added section 64302(g) of the Govern- ment Code which requires cities and counties to adopt a Noise Element as part of their General Plan. The Noise Element is intended to add the consideration of noise and noise related problems to the scope of a city or county General Plan. The Element has been developed to provide a noise policy for Contra Costa County, and to furnish a means for coordination between the County and other . jurisdictions engaged in planning and implementing actions to mitigate noise impacts. Among these agencies is the State of California's Department of Transportation, which is providing noise barriers along existing State routes. The sources of community noise in Contra Costa County can be classified into two groups--mobile (or line) sources, and fixed point sources. The mobile sources include freeways, highways transit vehicles, and aircraft. Fixed • point sources include industries, commercial establish- ments, individual residences, some recreational facilities, ^41 public transportation terminals, railroad yards, and • airport ground facilities. Each of these classes of noise sources affects the people in the County to varying degrees, depending on the charac- teristics of the source and the proximity and sensitivity of the receptors. Freeways are the most pervasively intense source of noise in the County. They are characterized by high traffic volumes, high speeds, heavy truck traffic, and carry relatively high traffic volumes at night. The freeways in the County, are bordered by a mix of land uses including industries, businesses, schools, residences, parks, and open space. The majority of single family residences bordering freeways are oriented so that rear yards and bedrooms are exposed to traffic noises. Homes facing freeways are usually separated by a frontage road. Several multiple story apartment structures are also located very close to freeways. Further, several schools and parks are impacted by freeway noise. Areas for which acoustical reports are required will be determined by use of the 1990 contour maps; all projects covered by State Guidelines, and within an area with noise levels exceeding 60 dBA (CNEL), will require an • acoustical study. Whenever a project is submitted for Planning Agency review, the project will be checked against the 1990 contour maps. 13. Historical and Archaeological Aspects (Land Use and Zoning Inventory and Analysis, November, 1974, pp. 3-6) . The history of the Native Americans in the Planning Area is not well documented. Few artifacts have remained giving modern man little information. Populations were probably quite low. There are currently 38 recorded archaeological sites in the Planning Area. Of current interest is site number CCO 552 in Danville which was recently discovered and studied extensively. It is probable that more sites of archaeological significance exist in the Planning Area. There were 4 Mexican Land Grants within the Planning ' Area: (1) Pacheco, (2) Jose Maria Amador, (3) Leo Norris, (4) Canada de Vaqueros. Horace Carpenter acquired portions of the Pacheco holding in 1865. The Canada de Vaqueros • is located in the eastern portion of the Planning Area. fs • There are 40 historical sites proposed for inclusion within the County's Historicl Resources Inventory. The Eugene O'Neill home, "Tao House" is on the National Register of Historic Sites and the Captain Pedro Foges Trail (853) is in the State Landmark program. Some of the historical sites are of architectural value. * 14. Egnergy (Contra Costa County Energy Resources and Conserva- tion Study, 1976, in preparation) . On the national level, the residential sector accounts for 20 percent of annual energy consumption in the U. S. Space conditioning is the major component of residential energy consumption, requiring a substantial portion of the available energy resources devoted to residential use (approximately 31 percent) . As the United States strives for energy independence, residential space conditioning, is an important candidate for conservation measures. Three basic factors are important in the determination of energy requirements for space conditioning in residential buildings. These include location, the type of housing and the construction standards being followed. Location is the environmental component of space conditioning • energy requirements. It is informative to take a close look at the energy needs for heating of an average home in various locations throughout the County. Because there are several different climate types in the County, energy needs vary considerably. The most extreme heating-needs in the County are found at St. Mary's College in Lafayette, and in Martinez. At Saint Mary's College a high 614 gallons of natural gas per dwelling unit per year are required for heating; as compared to a low 450 gallon require- ment in Martinez. In addition to heating, cooling needs are important in the consideration of total energy expenditures for space conditioning. Air conditioning's share of annual total national energy consumption has grown from an insignificant amount 20 years ago, to 1.6 percent in 1960 to 2.5 percent in 1968, to possibly as much as 4 percent now. Because most of the energy for cooling is consumed during just a few months of the year, severe strain can result on electric generating resources. High energy needs for cooling are found in East County, where Byron, Brentwood and Knightsen require approximately 150 gallons of fuel per year. By contrast, Richmond requires almost no cooling during the year. Heating and cooling loads can be expressed as yearly degree day load. For this purpose, 65 degrees is accepted as the outdoor • 34 temperature at which no heating or cooling is required in buildings. Due to lighting, body heat and appliances, when the temperature is 65 degrees outdoors, it is usually comfortable inside, with no space conditioning required. When the temperature is below 65 degrees, the number of degrees difference between the average temperature and 65 degrees is the heating degree day load. Conversely when the temperature is above 65 degrees, the number of degrees difference between the average temperature and 65 degrees is the cooling degree day load. Table 8 gives a method for "rough" calculations of energy consumption for some structures. r-W Oc-07 TABLE 8 RULES OF THUMB Gas and Electric Demand Estimating Typical Gas Equivalent Watts Per Electric BTU Per Month Full Square Foot Load Factor Square Foot Load Hours 1. Shopping Centers 7-8 w/sq. ft. 55 percent 50 BTU/sq. ft. 400 2. Super Markets 7-9 w/sq. ft. 65 percent 40 BTU/sq. ft. 475 • 3. Drug and Variety Stores 7-8 w/sq, ft. 50 percent 50 BTU/sq. ft. 365 4. Banks 6-7 w/sq. ft. 45 percent 50 BTU/sq. ft. 325 5. Department Stores 6-8 w/sq. ft. 50 percent 50 BTU/sq. ft. 365 6. Office Buildings 6-8 w/sq. ft. 55 percent 50 BTU/sq. ft 400 7. Schools 5-7 w/sq. ft. 35 percent 60 BTU/sq. ft. 255 8, Hospitals 3-5 w/sq. ft. 60 percent 50 BTU/sq. ft. 435 9. Apartment (louses (all electric) 2-3 kw/unit 60 percent -------------- 435 10. Apartment Houses (electric cook only) 1 dw/unit 65 percent 50 BTU/sq. ft. 475 11. Industrial Determine from connected load and diversity of use, averages do not apply here. Cl) The load factor and equivalent monthly full load hours represent "normal" hours of operation greater than normal, p) such as an office building operating for two or three shifts, the load factor and monthly full load hours should be increased. Watts per Square Foot for 100 Foot Candles in Typical Commercial Application • 100 foot candles w/diffusing panels = 4.5 w/sq. ft. 100 foot candles w/bare camps = 3.1 w/sq. ft. Estimating Electric Demands on Basis of Connected Load 1. Use 100 percent of connected interior lighting load. 2. Use 100 percent of connected air-conditioning load. 3. Disregard exterior lighting and recepticle load. 4. Use 10 percent of motor load for miscellaneous motors, pumps, elevators, compressors, etc. S. ASK QUESTIONS AND USE YOUR JUDGEMENT TO DETERMINE THE LOAD FACTOR FOR PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT OF ANY UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL EQUIPMENT. Sc. 0 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 1975 • • II. Environmental Impact Analysis A. The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action 1. Physical Impacts The proposed plan, should it be fully implemented, will - reduce the amount of open space from that which exists now by approximately 20% (existing land use = 65,000 acres -.proposed plan = S3,000 acres) . This will be a negative impact by comparison to the existing condition. However, it should be recognized that the existing plan would reduce the open space by 40% (65,000 acres as opposed to 42,000 acres) . Therefore, the proposed plan has less impact upon open space than the existing plan. Accompanying this loss of open space and the conversion to more intense use will be the alteration of the landscape to accommodate structures, roads and other urban facilities. This, too, will be a negative impact which would be somewhat reduced by implementation of the proposed plan in comparison to that which could be expected from the existing plan. Although the proposed plan states certain objectives to reduce the impact of development on ridges and steep hillsides, these objectives center around project review and not restrictive ordinances, etc. Therefore, it is likely that some hillside and ridgetop development will occur. If such is the case, the impacts will be negative. Urbanization leads to micro and often macroclimactic changes. These include, altering wind patterns, increasing ambient temperature by increasing reflectance, and increasing the tendency toward temperature inversions. 2. Impacts Upon the Existing Use and Surrounding Area Implementation of the proposed plan will alter the use pattern projected by the existing plan (see chart on following page) . The proposed plan may also influence land use and plans outside the Planning Area (i.e. Dublin, Walnut Creek and the eastern portion of Contra Costa County) . The proposed use categories and densities have been devised to minimize impact and to be compatible with projected uses in areas adjacent to the Planning Area. 3`; C1 .:s TABLE, 7 EXISTING AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ACTUAL 1970 LAND USE Change from Adopted Adopted Composite Plan Proposed Plan to Proposed Plan General Plan by Sub- by general by Sub- by General —Land Use Category Category Category Category Acres o of Area Acres Acres Acres Acres 'RESIDENTIAL 27,164 37.9 16,357 22.8 -10,807 _lS.l Single Family (26,432) (36.9) (I5,691) (21.9) (-10,741) (-15.0) .Low Density Expansion 2,022 0 Country Estate 0 2,403 Low Density 19,637 9,825 Medium Density 3,741 2,592 High Density 1,032 871 Multiple Family 732 (723) (1-0) (666) (.9) (-66) (-.1) Very Low Density 433 293 Low Density 134 64 Medium Density I56 309 SERVICE AND EMPLOYMENT 1,948 2.7 1,576 2.2 -372 5 Overall Commercial (768) (1.05) (738) (1.3) (-30) (+.IS) cl) Commercial 413 480 on Office 295 258 Commercial Service 60 Highway Controlled Industry 1,180 (1,180) (1 .65) 838 (838) .9) (-342) (-.65) PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC ISO ISO .2 541 541 .7 +391 +.S OPEN SPACE 42,249 59.0 53,037 74.1 +10,788 +15.1 Parks and Recreation 5,313 Agricultural Open Space 10,313 Agricultural Preserve 5,313 Other TOTALS 71,511 99.7 71P5II 99.8 same same 3. Impacts Upon the Utilities and Community Facilities • a. Sewerage Central Contra Costa Sanitary District because of its size can take advantage of the economies of scale which are possible in sewage treatment. The District is apparently capable of expanding its facilities to match prospective growth in the Planning Area. It now, however, lies on the threshold of expansion to the east into drainage basins for which District plans have not yet been completed. Proposed subdivisions in this area could open up development and demands for sewage service in the 'Alamo drainage basin which drains to Alameda County. The Valley Community Service District (UCSD) current- ly exports sewage from the Alamo basin to the Pleasan- ton treatment plant; providing hookups in the future - may be a problem as it is today (no new hookups are allowed) . One solution may be annexation of VCSD to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Trend pro- jections of growth from the present 12,000 dwellings to nearly 24,000 projected by 1990, to provide shelter for a potential 80,000 persons in the Valley, would indicate hookup fees of $4.5 million for additional collector and sewer trunk lines to service • 15,000 new dwellings. The 1975 population of the Planning Area is approxi- mately 41,000 persons. If currently approved projects are "built-out", continued rapid growth can be expected, so that the population could approach 80,000 persons by 1990. Estimates from VCSD indicate that adequate sewage facilities are available for this population. Property in outlying areas will probably continue to use private wells and septic tanks. There should be no impact if public health standards for well and septic tank performance are adhered to. b. Water East Bay Municipal Utility District is the only public agency to supply water to residents of the Planning Area. The northern portion of the Planning Area is included in the Contra Costa County Vater District. Although no water is presently supplied by the District to the area, treated water is guaratneed at such a time as sufficient demand occurs. Capital costs of water supply include pumping, storage and major transmission lines. New develop- ments must pay for connecting lines, hydrants, and service installation as part of each project. These costs are passed onto the new homeowners. Where the development poses an unusual burden to the District, additional requirements may be imposed. The estima- ted costs of water service storage facilities are based on a figure of 2,400 gallon capacity per housing unit. The need for new reservoirs depends on the physical location of existing reservoirs and the topography of the area to be served. The cost for new reservoirs, pumping stations and transmission pipelines approximate $600 to $1,000 per dwelling unit in capital costs. Operating and maintenance costs for water service are paid for by the monthly user charges. The Planning Area is extremely fortunate to be served by a water supply jurisdiction which is capable of delivering a large quanitity of good water. District planning has been carried out to insure that this situation will remain true in the future. Impacts which the area may face are largely tied • with problems which will affect the entire district. These are centered around increasing per capita consumption of water which when accompanied by rapid population growth may tax the District's resources sometime in the future. To avert this possible shortage MMUD has adopted a water conservation policy which at present is based upon voluntary consumption reduction. Should the problem become serious enough, however, some day consideration may have to be given to the desirability of accepting new hookups. As with septic tanks, impacts resulting from the use of well water are primarily those revolving around public health, considerations of quality and avail- ability; adherence to Public Health Codes should reduce impacts. C. Electricity Three major electrical transmission lines originate at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa County generating plants to deliver power to the Planning Area and to the South Bay. Their routes are clearly visible and • 40 they are viewed by many as having a significant detrimental visual effect upon the natural landscape. Much of Contra Costa County's distribution system is located above ground. The network consists of delivery lines•, wooden poles and connections to individual homes. This system is also quite visible. Unlike transmission lines, alternatives to pole-line networks do exist. As a result of recent technolo- gical developments, it costs only slightly more to install residential systems underground as it does to install a conventional system. In 1966, Contra Costa County adopted an ordinance requiring the undergrounding of all distribution lines to new residential and commercial subdivisions. The responsibility for undergrounding was placed upon the subdivider. In some areas of the County undergrounding of existing facilities has been carried out. The effort normally requies the creation of a local improvement district. d. Natural Gas Natural gas shortages and increasing demands are a nationwide problem. The impact upon the Planning Area centers around availability and cost: availa- bility will decrease while costs will rise. There is, apparently, no direct solution to this problem. However, concerted efforts should continue to develop alternate sources of energy; the Planning Area should benefit from these efforts as more alternatives become available. e. Schools In the San Ramon Valley, developers are presently required to pay school dedication fees, a practice which is not observed in other areas of the County. Questions have been raised concerning the necessity of this practice, and whether local residents are assuming their share of school expenses. Justifica- tion of the requirement is based on the grounds that the rapid growth of the San Ramon Valley has caused unusual capital requirements for the local school district, thus necessitating the dedication policy. Total school tax rates ranged from $3.0750 per $100 • of assessed valuation in the John Swett Unified 41 ,�. { District to a high of $6.2504 in the San Ramon Valley Unified District. San Ramon Valley also had the highest Bonded-Indebtedness Tax Rate, $0.9634; Mount Diablo Unified District was second with a rate of $0.6690, some 300 less (see Tables 9 and 10) . The analysis indicates that the San Ramon Valley Unified School District is a unique financial situa- tion compared to other school district in the County. It has the highest school tax rate, by far the highest percentage of its available bonding capacity committed to bonded indebtedness, and the highest rate of bonded indebtedness per average daily attendance. f. Fire Protection The majority of the urbanized Planning Area is served by three fire protection districts - the Danville, San Ramon and the Tassajara Fire Districts. Since the Danville Fire District is the largest and serves the greatest portion of the urbanized area in the Planning Area, examining the impact of new development by using service standards for this District will approximate impact levels for the whole area. At present the Danville District services an area of 15,000 persons with 40 employees located at 3 fire stations. It has an annual budget of $888,000: Expansion of the Valley's population to nearly 80,000 would require substantial increases in employees and fire stations to provide a continuingly adequate level of service. More growth could well require a comprehensive study to review the present and future location of all fire stations. Consolidation of the existing districts might be one vehicle for coordinating the delivery of services while keeping down their annual operating and maintenance costs. The capital costs required to construct and furbish necessary new stations would have to be raised through a bond issue or through bank loans. An additional property tax rate to recover these costs might then be necessary for a limited time period. In the future, those districts which are manned partially or totally by volunteers must eventually consider shifting to full time staffing. It is difficult to determine at what point the transition from a volunteer to a full time department should take place. The determining factor is the level of • 42 TABLE 9 • CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT TAX RATES: FISCAL 1974-75 Operating Tax Rate Bonded Indebt- Total edness Tax Tax Selected School District SB 901 Other Total Rate Rate Mt. Diablo Unified $4.650 $0.372 $5.022 $0.6690 $5.6910 Richmond Unified 5.564 0.243 5.807 0.3121 6.1191 Pittsburg Unified 4.458 0.189 4.624 0.4940 5.1410 Martinez Unified 4.095 0.128 4.223 0.1776 4.4006 Antioch Unified 4.233 0.103 4.336 0.5876 4.9236 John Swett Unified 2.975 0.100 3.075 0 3.0750 San Ramon Valley Unified S.088 0.199 5.287 0.9634 6.2504 • 1Tax rate necessary to raise sufficient funds to meet state mandated revenue limit. 7 . V TABLE 10 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT BONDED INDEBTEDNESS COMPARISONS FISCAL 1974-75 Bonded Indebtedness Average Modified Bonded as Percentage of Daily Bonded Assessed Indebtedness Available Bonding Attendance Indebtedness Valucl June 30, 19742 Capacity (ADA) Per ADA Mount Diablo Unified $622,461,938 $25,426,000 40.9 46,054 $ 552 Richmond Unified 595,634,414 13,833,000 23. 2 36,986 374 Pittsburg Unified 174,306,931 4,958,000 28.4 6,147 807 Martinez Unified 115,097,034 1,085,000 9.4 4,315 251 Antioch Unified 176, 170, 368 8,370,000 47.5 . 8,987 931 John Swett Unified 90, 318,558 0 0 1,881 0 San Raison Valley Unified . 183,030, 3359 15,610,.000 85. 3 12,220 1 ,277 Acalanes High School District 434,508, 167 10,798,000 24.9 20,360 530 Liberty Union high School District3 63,082,956 2,238,000 35.5 3,878 577 tF► , IActual assessed value modified so that a figure which is exactly 25% of full market value is obtained. 2June 30, 1974 figures were the most recent readily available figures. - 3Figures include data for all elementary districts within high school district boundaries to allow for comparison with unified districts. Source: Contra Costa County Department of Education Prepared by: Contra Costa County Planning Department • service desired by the particular community and the costs they are willing to bear. ' In all districts, fire protection demands will be increased out of necessity. The distribution of fire stations and the types of equipment necessary will depend upon the concentration of fire hazards, the time, height, and distance factors, and the physical characteristics of the area an increase of • service levels requires additional administrative costs, in addition to specialized equipment costs and special training of the personnel. g. Police Revenue for the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Depart- ment's operation is received from collection of the general County tax rate. If growth in the Planning Area continues at a rapid rate to 80,000 persons or more by 1990, it may prove necessary to construct a sheriff's substation in the Valley to eliminate the long commute time between the Valley and the Martinez service center. It, however, is too difficult to calculate costs for a substation as this has not • proceeded beyond the discussion stage. However, based on the present, the County Sheriff's Office estimates a requirement of nine beats plus staffing for vacation relief and special applications such as additional traffic enforcement, juvenile programs, and other related auxiliary services. Assuming that the special district programs would continue to be operational (P-.2 and P-S) , an increased number of investigation sergeants would be assigned to the Planning Area. Thus, approximately 50 patrol person- nel and 10 investigative personnel could be required to serve a population of 80,000 for the Planning Area; this compares with 20 personnel presently assigned. Future staffing compares favorably with present staffing of the cities of Concord and Rich- mond, which fall in the 80,OOOt population category. The annual cost of patrol vehicles and their operation would approximate $2,200,000. h. Solid Waste Disposal In July, 1972, the Nejecly-Z'berg-Dills Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972 (Senate Bill Five or SB-5) was passed mandating that all counties prepare comprehensive countywide plans for solid waste management. It was recognized at the C-, - e—f 45 time that continuation of uncoordinated efforts • would only aggravate existing problems and would not provide the basis for analyzing the feasibility of resource recovery systems. In response to this state directive, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors formed the Solid Waste Management Policy Committee (SWMPC) on October 24, 1972. To study various problem areas in detail, the SWMPC appointed four subcommittees: waste disposal, collection and•operations; planning and regulation; and resource recovery. These subcommit- tees-were disbanded by a motion of the SWMPC on September 10, 1975. The County plan was completed in December of 1975 and approved by the Board of Supervisors in April of 1976. i. Public Transportation The relatively low density land use which exists in the Planning Area and the Proposed General Plan do not encourage the development of extensive public transportation. Unless some major change were to occur (i.e. "sky-rocketing" fuel costs or "land- fall" funds), it is likely that this impact will • remain. Minor expansion of the existing public transportation system will not significantly reduce the impact. j . Parks and Recreation Based on the 1975 population of .41,000 in the Planning Area, there is a present deficiency of approximately 50 acres of community parks and a deficiency of over 100 acres of neighborhood parks (Community Facilities Report, p. 40) . These deficiencies are partly relieved by the VCSD park near Highway 680 and Montevideo. Nearby regional and state parks do not replace the local recreation facilities provided by neighborhood and community parks. Service Area R-7 has acquired one 10 acre site near Danville Station. One 43 acre site adjacent to Monte Vista High School, one mini-park in downtown Danville and is working on several cooperative projects with schools. Develo pment of these park facilities should reduce the impact of future development. In recent years the private recreation area within a Planned Unit Development has gained in popularity. These recreation facilities are available to residents • • and their guests and may include swimming pools, tennis courts, riding stables, golf courses, informal park areas, and recreation buildings. Although private recreation facilities can meet some of the recreation needs of the surrounding homeowners, they do not replace public parks nor can they be a total alternative to public recreation. k. Community Services There will be impacts upon the local services as development continues within the Planning Area. The lack of Regional Shopping extensive libraries, a hospital and other facilities will be magnified as the population increases and thus, the demand increases. Without alleviating these needs, overuse of these types of services and facilities will result. 4. Circulation Impacts The San Ramon Valley generates a substantial volume of traffic that is destined for the San Francisco and Oakland employment centers. The intersection of State Route 24 and Interstate 680 is heavily congested during commute hours. Continued development within the Planning Area • can be expected to worsen this situation. There have been numerous plans to mitigate this problem but no realistic alternative has been approved nor have funds been made available. The likelihood of such funds becoming available in the future appears remote. A second major flow of traffic utilizes Interstate 680 south to Interstate -580 in Alameda County. As development in the San Ramon and Amador Valleys occurs, traffic on these facilities. will increase. The widening of Interstate 680 to six lanes has reduced some congestion in certain portions (i.e. at major on and off-ramps) within the Planning Area. The Planning Area's system of major and minor roads is critical to the ability for residents to commute to work, to school, for shopping and for pleasure. Many of the roads in the areas proposed for new development are presently narrow, winding two-lane roads. To accommodate the increased traffic volumes generated by a substantial increase in the population level, and to prevent traffic congestion, these roads will need to be widened and improved. In some cases a 15 to 20 foot right-of-way on either side of these roads would be required, creating smaller front yards for homes bordering on these roads. • 47 y Substantial tree removal, bike lane identification and sidewalks may be required in certain areas. These changes may not be in keeping with the community image of a semi- rural atmosphere. New roads would cause areas to experience substantial road construction and would result in a large cost to the County taxpayers, local residents and project developers, if Federal and State funds for new road building and road improvements could not be found. For example, it has been estimated new roads and road improve- ments to handle projected traffic loads for residents of the Blackhawk Ranch, Bishop Ranch and the adjacent areas could total $20 million. Costs approved for developments which contain approximately half the anticipated popula- tion growth to 1990, could approximate $40 million. Much of the revenue needed for roads will be derived from Road Assessment Districts created by project developers and other land owners. These costs are eventually passed to the new homebuyer through increased new home prices. The County Public Works Department receives $6 to $7 million in Federal and State Highway subventions annually, but $5 to $6 million is committed to road maintenance and other related public works purposes, leaving only $1 million per year for new road construction. Obviously this money is spread throughout the County and is not • restricted to the Planning Area. The problem of road construction financing becomes one of the paramount issues facing the Planning Area if the level of growth continues. Road maintenance will continue to increase due to the growth of road mileage that must be maintained. According to figures from the Public Works Department, there were approximately 186 miles of county roadway in the Planning Area maintained at an average cost of some $2,560 per year per mile for fiscal 1973-1974. This would average to nearly a half million dollars per year just to maintain existing roadways. Expansion of the present road system accommodating 80,000 persons could easily produce costs double that figure or about $1 million per year in constant 1974 dollars if that trend continues. Comparison between the existing major road plan and the proposed plan reveals that many of the projected improve- ments have been dropped (See NAp ;L ) . This reduced roads improvement plan may create certain circulation impacts but it reduces the monetary commitment which would be passed onto the existing and future residents of the Planning Area. • . 3$ i i 011i la4 UGULpt bppptEO Q,y f..� :=• (yNCs 5 FRopobEP �'J• \\f`.'...`�`• =� � ^�,,+.. .—..J, .:�•••;�� a+`-Y.,•;r? .= t:..:�"t .1 it O 5a ami � . J'cAAJ Y 2 S. Plans, Ordinances and Policies • Most impacts upon plans and ordinances will be positive. For example, one result of the proposed plan, should it be approved, would be to bring existing non-conforming uses into conformance with the General Plan. This can be accomplished through a series of Planning Commission initiated zoning changes. 6. Soils and Geology Soils As pointed out in the Contra Costa Soil Conservation District Annual Report of 1970, the wise utilization of soils for non-agricultural purposes begins with planning. As that report says, "It is regrettable that it has taken so long, with people losing their homes, threatening the lives of their families and the loss, in many instances, of their lifelong savings, before more careful planning precedes project development." Although this comment was directed at problems throughout the County, the basic soil factors which can cause such problems exist in the Planning Area. Not only do many of the soils in the Planning Area have inherent stability problems but the • land alteration needs of development cause further problems because of the earthwork required. As is true of many areas, the better agricultural soils in the Planning Area are also the most readily developable for urban uses because it is less costly to develop the flatter valley floors. The prime soils of the Highway 680 corridor are now largely committed to urban uses, either by property ownership or by proximity to presently developed communi- ties and the freeway. The future of interior smaller valleys which have fair to good soils for agriculture or development are generally shown for urban development by the proposed plan. An area which requires special study is the Sherburne- Dougherty Hills which are designated Agricultural Open Space in the 1971 San Ramon General Plan and Major Open Space Area (for a multiplicity of open space uses) in the 1973 Open Space-Conservation Plan. Thought should be given to whether or not it is realistic to attempt to keep these low foothills in open space through agriculture (gentler slopes are Class IV, suitable for dry farming and grazing; steeper parts are Class VI, suitable for grazing) , or whether an acceptable compromise such as 50 very low density housing (subject to landslides when wet, poor septic suitability) would be better able to achieve community goals without undue hardship to the owners. Areas which may be designated for low intensity residential development on septic systems and even wells should also be delineated with reference to soil physical characteris- tics. Throughout the Planning Area a seasonal high soil water table indicates this is not a favorable region for septic systems. Steeper slopes, with thin soils and impermeable substrata rock are also not well suited to septic systems.' The County Health Department does not grant septic permits on slopes over 20% because of the general unsuitability. Maintaining agriculture as a profitable sector of the ' econom requires a large contiguous area, as a district, within which each soil -type is used to its capacity and which is protected from urban intrusion. There are probably no areas within the Planning Area which meet these criteria. Geology Knowledge of the location and extent of geologic hazards from natural instability and from earthquake events is directly related to the Seismic Safety and (public) Safety Elements of the General Plan 1975. These elements include policies and standards to guide the location and design of various tyeps of projects such as houses, schools, and utility lines. These elements discuss in detail the nature of geologic hazards throughout the county, evaluate levels of risk, delineate evacuation routes, and propose standards for the location of public facilities _atnd the design of various types of development in order to avoid unnecessary risks to life and property. The determination of how much risk is acceptable involves judgment and knowledge. There is no such thing as a perfectly hazard-free environment. Natural and man-made hazards of some kind and degree are always present. Although there is no way to engineer out all risks asso- ciated with a specific site, the evidence is that careful planning construction design will materially reduce the dollar and social costs of the natural physical processes of an area which may be hazardous to man and his works. The Planning Area, like most of the central urbanized corridor of Contra Costa is fortunate in having undergone • J1 a type of development in low one and two story frame buildings which can be expected to ride out the shock waves from all but the great earthquakes without a severe risk to life or property. There are some old buildings, largely houses from the early decades of this century, which may be more subject to damages if they are not as well braced as newer structures. The major thrust of development has been along the valley corridors in areas which are not as subject to failure. As is true in most growing communities similarly situated, hillside development is beginning to occur as the more easily built upon valley floor is filled in. This trend, now occurring in the north and central parts of the Planning Area, presents problems and opportunities for planning at the broad area-wide level and at the subdivi- sion design level. The problems are oriented around the nature of the hillsides which pose a greater number and degree of geologic hazards than more level sites. Public safety and the security of future property owners of hillside property require that the physical nature of the hills be given serious consideration in designating such areas for homes, schools, or places of employment. Because development in the hills is now in its early stages opportunities to guide and regulate suburbanization have not extensively been utilized by development under the less geologically aware regulations of previous decades. The policies of the several elements of the general plan, in written and graphic form, provide guidlines for directing development into areas which do not pose extreme or unmanageable hazards from geologic and ot}er environmental processes. For the enforcement and administration of regulations, information or standards must be precise and detailed at the level of each specific project. The exact location of a fault trace, required to be investigated in areas designated Special Studies Zones, is an example. It is not a purpose of countywide or areawide general plans to locate all significant features for each square foot of land surface. At the time project applications are received by the Planning Agency it is determined what investigations need to be made to disclose features and characteristics which it is appropriate to investigate is a purpose of the general plan, particularly in the findings and policies related to the physical environment. • • 7. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact Any change in watershed characteristics will be reflected in a changed pattern of surface runoff. Continuous mountain raising steepens the stream gradient, increasing velocity and erosion. Climate cycles of wet and dry years vary the volume of runoff streams carry. Vegetation changes may increase or decrease the volume of runoff reaching streams. Grading operations expose soil and steepen slopes, thus adding to the sediments from surface erosion which streams must carry. Trampling of the stream banks, usually by livestock, reduces their stability, thus adding to channel erosion and bank failure. The impervious roof, paving and storm drains of urban development greatly increase the percent of precipitation which becomes surface runoff, and shortens the time required for surface runoff to reach the stream channels, thus materially increasing the volume of flow, and concentrating it into a shorter time period. Flood control works also increase the percent of precipitation which becomes surface runoff, particularly if the channel bottom is paved and no longer permits infiltration. Water, like air, does not remain in place, but circulates throughout the planet's environment, carrying with it various substances which may be recognized as pollution at a distance from the point of origin. Without doubt the greatest adverse effect on streams and bays resulting from activities in the Planning Area is silting from land surface and stream bank erosion. As noted earlier in this section land disturbances, including disturbances from fire and for agriculture as well as the road cuts and other grading required for urban types' of development, increase surface soil erosion rates and increase the incidence of stream bank failure and bottom cutting. These silts settle out near the outlets of Walnut Creek and Alameda Creek, contribute to silting in of harbors and ports and contribute to shoaling in of marshes and damages to shellfish beds. The degree to which silts derived from the Planning Area contribute to these effects is not known, but it is an example of adverse environmental effects appearing far from the point of origin. Streams within the Planning Area itself may suffer several forms of quality degradation as a result of land activities. These include: • Contamination by fecal bacteria from livestock Residues of herbicides and pesticides from agricul- tural operations, garden maintenance, and flood control channel maintenance Heat from exposure to the sun through vegetation removal Grocery store carts, rubber tires, and the other trash which seems to have a strong affinity for creeks. Information is not available on ground water quality. Based on water quality findings from other similar regions of the County, it is probable that ground water in the Planning Area is high in dissolved mineral salts and that boron is locally present. The ground water is of a quality satisfactory for consumption and domestic uses, but may not be satisfactory for industrial or food proces- sing purposes. Where residences are served by septic tanks and wells there is always the risk of contamination of the domestic water supply. This risk is increased in areas like the Planning Area in which well water is not derived from deep high-yield aquifers, but from the realtively shallow and limited valley alluviums. The risk of contamination is also greatly increased as the density of wells and septic systems increases. The Environmental Health Services Division of the County Health Department estimates that a 5-acre parcel is a minimum size for reasonable safety from septic system problems in the eastern Planning Area because of shallow wells and a seasonal high water table, depending on the overall density of wells and septic systems. An area with an abundance of smaller parcels, such as is now occurring along Finley Road and Lawrence Road, could suffer contamination problems at some point in time if small residential parcels on wells and septic tanks proliferate throughout this or other similar small valleys. In addition, the aquifer could be "over-taxed" that is, the supply could be completely exploited to the point where no well water was available. Although it is technically possible to have both stream preservation and a measure of flood protection, it is usually considered not ecomonically feasible. Even if all known means of producing inefficient drainage of surface runoff were used in a large watershed, permitting maximum infiltration and evapotranspiration, there could • be no guarantee that all creeks would be "saved". 5 ' • 8. Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts Physical factors such as climate, soils, slope, elevation, and available water are the principal natural factors determining which plants and animals, both native and introduced species, wild and domestic, can exist and thrive in an area. Organisms adapted to one type of habitat usually do well in simlar habitats elsewhere. Thus, the European grasses are asl well adapted in the Planning Area as they are to their homelands. Some problems associated with vegetation in the Planning Area are fire hazard and invasion by unwanted species. During the dry season the foothill grasslands are easily ignited. Grass fires are relatively cool and easy to control if equipment can get to them, but butned-over slopes are then highly susceptible to erosion and gullying. The maintenance of abundant and diverse wildlife populations requires large contiguous habitat areas which provide the feeding, nesting, shelter, and breeding conditions required for all phases of each species' life cycle. Changes in environmental conditions result in changes in the numbers and species of organisms which will be found in the area. Thus a concrete or riprap flood control channel will • greatly deplete populations of many insect species but may increase populations of others, notably mosquitos. Overgrazing will eventually reduce the population of favored grazing plants and usually leads to an increase in ground squirrels and yellow star thistle which thrive in disturbed areas and which themselves reduce the ability of the range to support diverse wildlife populations and livestock. Urbanization will continue to exert pressure upon plant and animal populations to some degree. Certain habitats will succumb to these pressures, while others will not (i.e. the riparian habitats are particularly sensitive while the grasslands have been supplanted by imported species for the most part) . Continued develop- ment in the Planning Area will have an adverse impact on vegetation and wildlife of the region. 9. Open Space Impacts The proposed plan shows extensive areas where development may take place in the future. Many of the areas are currently in "open space", that is, no significant develop- ment has occurred. The proposed plan shows 15% more land area devoted to open space until 1990. This is a signifi- cant increase over the existing plan, and as such this impact is positive. , 10. Socioeconomic Impacts • An analysis of the existing population shows unique characteristics which are typical of an affluent suburban community--high incomes, expensive housing, and a highly mobile lifestyle centered around the automobile as the principal mode of transportation. The general impression is one of a distinctly white, upper middle-class community with living standards well above the norm for the County and surrounding regions. From a planning perspective, the impacts of continuing the above patterns are enormous. This type of community has the greatest possible effects on land use and transpor- tation. The types of housing and their low densities consume large amounts of land, much of which is in produc- tive agricultural use prior to being developed. From a transportation perspective, large investments must be made in roads to accommodate the automobiles generated. Strains are placed on many other facilities as well-- schools, utilities, fire protection, police services, etc. The question which future plans must consider is whether or not the community wishes to continue the public and • private expenditures needed to support more of the type of development which currently exists, or should planning policies be adopted which allow for a better social and economic balance to develop, thereby diminishing the impacts on both the manmade and natural environments of the Planning Area. Some of the impacts associated with development of an area with the above characteristics are listed below (there are many others) : 1. Little or no provision for low to moderate income housing. 2. A relatively high ratio of in-commute for workers in the Planning Area and out-commute of the residents. This is an inefficient use of transportation facili- ties. 3. Encouragement of diffuse development - low density development and high utilization of the land. 4. Reduction of the land uses which employ the largest number of workers (i.e. industrial or manufacturing) . . - rU a'S • S. Contribution to high taxes - low density uses cost more per unit to provide urban services. 6. High consumption of renewable and non-renewable resources. 11. Air Quality Impacts Precise and detailed studies of air quality have not been made for the Planning Area as a single physical unit. Atmospheric patterns and air pollution tendencies are known and these can become guiding assumptions about future air quality in a general way given alternative , plans for land uses. The topographic and meterological characteristics of the Diablo-San Ramon-Amador Valley region are such that conditions as serious and objectionable as those in the Los Angeles basin could occur. The long-term effects of vehicular emission controls on ambient air quality cannot be predicted at this time. The vehicular control program may be highly effective in reducing emission from indivi- dual vehicles, but these benefits may not result in improved air quality if the region doubles or triples its vehicle population. Significant improvements in ambient • air quality in the Los Angeles basin have not occurred as a result of vehicle emission devices. Added to this probability is the generally poor ventilation during the "smog season" and the tendency of industrial emissions to blow into the area from the west and north. The picture is not a very favorable one for the community's future air quality, yet the climate and good summer weather are major factors in continuing to attract suburbanites. The Planning Area has been growing at an average rate of 7 percent per year for the last two decades (this popula- tion growth rate has a doubling time of approximately 8 years) . The southern part of the air basin--around Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore--has also experienced a substantial increase in population in recent decades. Several very large new suburban developments are presently proposed or in progress in each of the two counties. This rapid growth rate has serious implications for air quality, yet there is no direct way the citizens of a community can effectuate means of reducing emissions from stationary or moving sources within their appropriate area of interest; that is, where their homes and businesses are located. • Since major employment centers are not likely to locate • here and reduce home-to-job driving distances, the strong commuter pattern is expected to continue, and to be concentrated on Highway 680 as the main route, dumping hundreds of tons a day of gases and particulates into the central valley corridor. Barring more restrictive regula- tions for industrial emissions, the anticipated moderate growth of industry upwind from the Planning Area will lead to an increase in the industrial emissions which are blown into the valleys. 12. Noise Im ap cts Noise, especially noise generated by transportation sources, is ever present in urban and suburban life. The main concern, however, is with the quality and level of sound and the place where it is perceived. People react to noise according to an area's setting; people may love the "hustle and bustle" of a city, while objecting strenuously to noise in a rural parklike Setting. However, at certain levels of noise continued exposure will be detrimental to the average person's health or his ability to function efficiently. These adverse impacts can be expected to continue in the Planning Area as development continues. • 13. Historical and Archaeological Impacts Although numerous known sites where archaeological resources exist are found in the Planning Area, no comprehensive survey has been conducted. Discoveries have been made, for the most part, as a result of development (road and sewer installation and subdivision construction, etc.). Should sites be destroyed or significantly disturbed, adverse impacts will result. All development should be examined for the potential of having archaeological resources. 14. Energy Impacts In the past, mere economic incentive has been sufficient to guarantee an energy supply for a new community. Unfortunately, energy supplies are limited at the present time, and this restriction may continue indefinitely. It is valuable to examine the impact of a proposed project from the point of view of energy supply and consumption. There are significant differences in heating and cooling energy requirements for housing units of different types. • As housing unit density increases, energy use per family decreases (as shown in the chart below) . Nationwide BTU's of required- per degree Housing Type day of heating load Single family 25,000 Duplex or townhouse 16,000 Multi-family 12,000 Multiple.family units require less energy than single family homes because the amount of energy required for space conditioning is decreased. There are typically fewer exposed sides and a greater number of common walls in a multi-family dwelling, so instead of losing conditioned air to the outdoors, air is exchanged between units, reducing net energy loss. The area within the proposed plan designated for multiple family uses is small, therefore, the impact upon energy consumption is relatively adverse. In addition, the long commute distance increases the amount of gasoline which area residents will • utilize; this, too is a negative impact. B. Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided If This Proposal is Implemented The impacts identified in the previous discussion are itemized below. Brief mention is made as to whether or not they are adverse of if they can be avoided. 1. Physical Impact. Adverse and unavoidable, less impact than existing plan - less developable land will reduce impacts in the area and create more open space, increased hill areas. 2. Existing Use and Surrounding Area. Adverse and unavoidable - proposed plan may influence local pockets of rapid expan- sion within the Planning Area, proposed plan may influence development outside Planning Area, i.e. Walnut Creek, Dublin and eastern Contra Costa County. 3. Utilities and Community Facilities a. Sewerage. Not adverse - avoidable as long as expan- sion schedule and funding continues for CCCSD and if Valley Community Service annexes sewer service to . CCCSD. 69 �. - b. Water. Not adverse - avoidable as long as good • quality water is available to East Bay Municipal Utilities District, and as long as no private well contamination occurs. C. Electricity. Somewhat-adverse but avoidable if existing above ground distribution lines are under- grounded, eventually more generating plants may be needed unless alternative energy sources are developed. d. Natural Gas. Adverse and unavoidable - natural gas shortages are likely to continue and indications are that they may increase, the proposed plan will be more consumptive of energy if full development is realized. e. Schools. Adverse and unavoidable - taxes will continue to rise and the "bedroom tax" on new develop- ment will increase per unit cost to the new home buyer. f. Fire. Adverse and unavoidable - a bond issue may be required in the future to increase needed service ... levels as development continues. g. Police. Adverse and unavoidable - major expansion • (i.e. a new substation) may be required because of the long distance to the Martinez headquarters. h. Solid Waste. Not adverse - Waste Disposal Plan indicates adequate capacity at the Acme Fill site. i. Public Transportation. Adverse and unavoidable the proposed plan is not conducive to encouraging mass or public transportation systems. _ j. Parks and Recreation. Adverse and unavoidable - more people creates more needs, funds may or may not be available - new development often includes recrea- tion facilities. k. Community Services. Adverse and unavoidable - regional shopping is needed and other facilities such- as hospitals and libraries may be needed. 4. Circulation. Adverse and unavoidable - major reduction in the Major Roads Plan for Contra Costa County with the proposed plan, funds are in short supply and greater congestion and accident rates can be expected. bQ - • S. Plans, Ordinances and Policies. Not adverse and avoidable - zoning and general plan conformance can be accomplished through Planning Commission-initiated zoning changes. 6. Soils and Geology. Adverse and unavoidable - there are many unstable areas, and geologic hazards, loss of life and property could result. 7. Hydrology and Water Quality. Adverse and somewhat unavoid- able - runoff and siltation will increase and water quality will be degraded. 8. Vegetation and Wildlife. Adverse and unavoidable - habitat will be reduced and there will be a greater threat of fire, and greater predation by dogs and cats upon wildlife. 9. Open Space. Not adverse and avoidable - There is a larger proportion of open space provided with the proposed plan compared to the existing plan. 10. Socioeconomics. Adverse and unavoidable - poor housing mix, little provision for low and moderate income housing, bad commute patterns, encourages exclusion of all but the relatively rich. • 11. Air Quality. Adverse and essentially unavoidable - critical air basin, more people, autos and vehicle miles traveled equals greater air pollution. 12. Noise. Adverse and partially avoidable - some noise can be reduced to acceptable levels. 13. Archaeology and Historical Impacts. Adverse and partially avoidable - a comprehensive archaeological survey of the Planning Area could reduce archaeological impacts by identifying critical area. 14. Energy. Adverse and unavoidable - the proposed uses are highly consumptive of energy (i.e. low density single family residential) , alternative energy sources and conservation techniques could reduce the impacts. C. Mitigating Measures Proposed to Reduce the Impact The outline below suggests ways in which identified impacts may be reduced. • 61 1. Physical: the Grading Ordinance should be strictly adhered to, the proposed slope-density ordinance could be developed and adopted. 2. Existing Use and Surrounding Area: "infilling" should be encouraged wherever possible, major facilities extensions can create "pockets" of intense development in existing non-urban areas, the proposed plan should blend into the general plans. of adjacent areas, i.e. Walnut Creek and Dublin. 3. Utilities and Community Facilities: a. and b. no mitigation measures suggested. c. electrical distribution line should be undergrounded-, alternative energy sources (solar collectors, wind powered generators) should be explored, conservation measures implemented (proper building orientation, design and construction) and communities should be laid out with energy conservation in mind, as well as lot layout, street size and orientation and landscaping). d. natural gas consumption can be reduced by using electri- cal ignition systems as opposed to pilot lights and solar • water heating units are two of many techniques available. The County Energy Resources and Conservation Study will generate additional information on this and other energy related issues. e. the bedroom tax for new development could be increased to reduce deficits in the San Ramon Valley School District budget. f, g, and h. no mitigation measures proposed. i. external funds could be sought to develop a public transit system or the plan could be altered to include higher densities which would encourage the development of mass transit. j . an increase in the taxes for the R-7 Parks and Recrea- tion Service Area would make more funds available for park acquisition and development. k. a regional shopping center could be developed within the Planning Area, thereby increasing resident convenience and reducing travel distance to such areas as Dublin and Sun Valley; plans for future hospital needs could be developed before a critical need arises - other services • could be explored as well. F2 - L 4. Circulation: future development could contribute to off- site improvement costs in areas where no funds are avail- able for road system improvements, the continued use of the "assessment district" should be encouraged. S. Plans, Ordinances and Policies: the Planning Commission should initiate zoning changes in areas where inconsisten- cies and general plan non-conformities exist. 6. Soils and Geology: soils reports should be required of all development on hillsides or areas of known instability' and geologic investigations should be performed in all areas where suspected fault traces occur. This move is further clarified in the Seismic Safety Element of the County General Plan. 7. Hydrology and Water Quality: developers could contribute to downstream, off-site drainage improvements. 8. Vegetation and Wildlife: development should avoid all areas where valuable habitats occur and where rare, endangered or locally depleted species of plants and animals occur. Domestic animals should be more carefully controlled and prevented from entering natural areas. A • riparian or stream ordinance could be developed to preserve and enhance the valuable and easily destroyed creeks and streams within the Planning Area. 9. Open Space: no mitigation measures suggested. 10. Socioeconomics: more multiple family units and more higher density uses could be provided to encourage a greater housing mix, resulting in a more heterogenous population, reduced in and out commute patterns and encouragement of mass transit. 11. Air Quality: only an effective mass transit system can reduce the mobile source air pollution in the Planning Area. The BAAPCD computer model will demonstrate where the source node are but will not solve the basic problem - too many vehicle miles traveled within a critical air basin. 12. Noise: strict enforcement of the State of California regulations and the County Noise Element will reduce much of the impact noise. The State regulations should be expanded to include single family residences. Acoustic studies could be required of all development within the 60 CNEL contour of the Noise Element. • 13. Archaeology: an archaeological survey of the Planning • Area could reveal areas of moderate to high probability of archaeological resources. Any proposed development within these areas could be required to perform further, more specific, studies to delineate the presence of resources. An archaeological ordinance could be developed to specify exactly what procedures are to be followed when resources are discovered. 14. EnP.T/�, : as discussed under utilities above, techniques exist to reduce energy consumption and waste. The Energy Resources and Conservation Study for Contra Costa County will be completed in the Summer of 1976 and will give developers and agencies specific guidance and recommenda- tions. D. Alternatives to the Proposed Action There is a myriad of alternatives to the proposed General Plan Amendment for the Greater San Ramon Valley. These could range from minor, local density or use alternatives to a "do nothing" or "no project" alternative (continuance of the existing plan). Three basic alternatives will be discussed which will tend to reduce certain impacts. 1. Greater residential density. • This alternative will concentrate residential uses along established transportation corridors (i.e. Alcosta Blvd. , Stone Valley Road, Diablo Road, etc.) . This alternative will reduce transportation impacts (such as the need for more roads in outlying areas) and tend to lower develop- ment costs to the point where moderate income families could be encouraged to purchase homes in the area. 2. Greater amount of multiple family residential. This alternative would take number 1 above, a step further by making mass transit a real alternative and further reducing the per unit cost. Other things remaining equal, this alternative would tend to reduce the pressure upon the school system because of the smaller family size associated with multiple family units. 3. Increase the area devoted to manufacturing and industrial type use. This alternative would establish the Planning Area as an employment center. This would reduce the heavy out- commute to jobs if alternative 1 or 2 were also established. • r,'i • Vehicle miles traveled would be reduced and thus, the air pollution and energy consumption would also be reduced. If 80,000 is the projected population for 1990, this alternative would leave even greater open space than shown by the proposed plan. 4. Lower density residential. This would further aggravate many of the impacts previously identified. It could also reduce the significant amount of open space provided by the proposed plan. This latter alternative is probably not a realistic one. E. The Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long- term Productivity The proposed plan is highly consumptive of the available and readily developable land. Developing large-lot residences is not an efficient use of land, regardless of the fact that there appears to be a market for such development. The rate of immigration into California has not kept up with expectations. Migration is difficult to predict on a local scale, however, because new development creates a cyclic and self-perpetuating system. The fact that there is a "market" for housing in an area does not necessarily indicate that there is a true social or demographic need for housing there. The housing market, past and present, indicates that people are willing to commute to or relocate at great distances in order to obtain housing of the appropriate quality. The presence of new housing units in a specific area and developer's advertising contribute to the demand in that locality, making immigration easy and attractive. This process stimulates the sort of drastic population shifts that place a variety of stresses on local government. The Planning Area is an example of such rapid growth and the problems which may follow. Because of inflation, the costs of development are ever increasing while the developer's ability to finance and thence sell his product may be decreasing. The landowners are probably paying taxes on property which reflect the developable nature of their land. These taxes will probably increase each year. Since most development occurs on the flatter land, the best agricultural land is used first. The wisdom of utilizing productive land for urban use may prove to be false as food costs rise and suitable agricultural land diminishes. F. Any Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Involved • In the Proposed Action Should It Be Approved Approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment for the Greater San Ramon Valley will allow irreversible environmental changes to occur. The same is true of the current plan, but to a greater degree. There are two reasons the proposed plan will have less impact. (1) The proposed plan projects smaller greater area devoted to low density single family uses, i.e. acre lots. This may encourage a "rural atmosphere" which often means that less area on a given lot is devoted to manmade structures leaving more open land or area for vegetation. (2) There is a larger proportion of open space provided by the proposed plan. The general plan sets the basic uses and the densities at which these uses should be developed. Once development proposals are approved within the Planning Area, the irreversible changes will "in fact" occur should they eventually be built. G. Growth-inducing Impact of the Proposed Action The proposed plan is clearly a growth-inducing action. Its intent is to guide this growth in an orderly and logical manner. One is faced with the highly probable fact that growth will occur. The question is one of how and at what rate? What kind of community do the residents want? What are the social and physical constraints on the Planning Area? The questions have been considered at length and will continue to be considered. The proposed plan is ari approach to answering these questions with the intent of guiding the future of the San Ramon Valley in order to make it a suitable living environ- ment for years to come. H. Organizations and Persons Consulted; Documents Utilized During the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports, written and oral communications take place between the Planning Department and other County departments. The General Plan and its various elements are also scrutinized regarding the proposed action. If additional consultations, contacts of consequence and documents were used, they are referenced below. San Ramon Valley General Plan, "A Draft Proposal", March, 1976, Contra Costa County Planning Department. Land Use and Zoning Inventory and Analysis, San Ramon Valley Planning Area, November, 1974, Contra Costa County Planning Department. Physical Resources for the Greater San Ramon Valley Planning Area, "A • Planning Background Report", October, 1974, Contra Costa County Planning Department. .06 Community Facilities for the Greater San Ramon Valley Planning Area, "A Planning Background Report", September, 1974, Contra Costa County Planning Department. Transportation Facilities for the Greater San Ramon Valley Planning Area, "A Planning Background Report", November, 1974, Contra Costa County Planning Department. Economic Report for the Greater San Ramon Valley Planning Area, "A Planning Background Report", November, 1974, Contra Costa County Planning Department. Population Characteristics for the Greater San Ramon Valley Planning Area, "A Planning Background Report", June, 1974, Contra Costa County Planning Department. Land Use and Transportation Study, "Sub-Area Networks and Traffic Forecasts", July, 1975, Contra Costa County. Mr. Tony Frietas, San Ramon School District, June, 1976. Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan, December, 1975, Metcalf and Eddy. Contra Costa County Soil Survey, 1974, Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Seismic Safety Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan, 1975. Statistical Report, 1975 Census, Contra Costa County Planning Depart- ment. Final Environmental Impact Report, County Development Program for Contra Costa County, California (Fiscal Year 1975-1976) . Noise Element, Contra Costa County General Plan, May, 1975. Contra Costa County Energy Resources and Conservation Study, 1976, in preparation. Contra Costa County General Plan, Open Space Conservation Element, August 1973. I. Qualification of EIR Preparation Agency This Environmental Impact Report was prepared by the Contra Costa County Planning Department. The mauority of the reports are prepared by the Environmental Impact personnel of the Current Planning Division and the County Planning Geologist where applicable. • Other Planning Department and other County personnel were utilized where necessary. Ordinarily the person directly coordinating and writing the report is listed as the contact person in the Notice of Completion or Arnold B. Jonas, Senior Planner can be contacted. EIR Team Alice Bonner, B.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology Bruce N. Bowman, B.S. Urban Planning Arnold B. Jonas, A.B. Economics Darwin Myers, B.S. Math., B.S. Geology, Ph.D. Geology Dale Sanders, B.S. Biology, Ph.D. Entomology DS:blh 6/24/76 FLS A P P E N D I X • VEGETATION TYPES Open grassland Festuca (Fescue) • (Annual grasses Bromus (Brome) and herbs, both Avena (Wild oats) native and intro- Trifolium (Clover) duced. Includes Lupinus (Lupine) areas with small Lotus subpinaatus (Bird's foot trefoil) shrubs, e.g., Rhus Erodium (Filaree) diversiloba, or Brassica (Mustard) less than 5% Brodiaea pulchella (Blue-dicks) arboreal cover) Calochortus venustus (Mariposa-lily) Native grass- Stipa pulchra (Needlegrass) land remnants S. lepida (Foothill needlegrass) Poa scabrella (Bluegrass) Festuca (Fescue) Adenostoma fasciculatum (Chamise) Salvia mellifera (Black sage) Ceonothus cuneatus (Buckbrush) $eteromeles arbutifolia (Toyon) Arctostaphylos Manzanita (Parry's manzanita) • A. auriculata (Mt. Diablo manzanita) Scrub/brushland Baccharis pilularis (Coyote brush) (Occupies more Nimulus aurantiacus (Bush monkeyflower) mesic sites than Artemesia californica (California sagebrush) chaparral; less Salvia mellifera (Black sage) adapted to golodiscus discolor (Cream bush) xeric conditions) Rhus diversiloba (Poison oak) Rubus parviflorus (Thimbleberry) R. vitifolius (California blackberry) Riparian Wood- a. Common to most streams land Salix Zasiolepis (Arroyo willow) S. laevigata (Red tree willow) Platanus racemosa (Sycamore) b. Permanent streams, rivers Alnus rhombifolia (White alder) A. rubra (Red alder) Populus Fremontii (Fremont cottonwood) Acer negundo (Box elder) Juglans Rindsii (Black walnut) Rhamnus californica (Coffeeberry) urtica (Nettle) Rhus diversiloba (Poison oak) Nimulus guttatus (Monkey flower) 6-9 �J APPEND i X (cont'd) • c. Intermittent streams Acer macrophyllum (Big-leaf maple) Umbellularia californica (California bay) Aesculus californica (Buckeye) Quercus agrifolia (Coast live oak) Agriculture and Urban Composed of introduced ornamental landscape and economic species of plants and non-native animal species. The following animals are either known to exist in the Planning Area or are expected to reside there: Habitat Common Name Scientific Name Open Grassland Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis Pacific gopher snake Piturophis melanoleucus Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Coyote Canis latrans California ground squirrel Citellus beecheyi Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus • Oak Woodland California slender salamander Batrachoseps attenuatus Arboreal salamander Aneides lugubris Western skink Eumeces skiltonianus Common kingsnake Lampropeltis getulus Great horned owl Bubo virginianus Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus Oppossum Didelphis virginianus Black-tailed (mule) deer Odocoileus hemionus columbianus True Chaparral Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis Western rattlesnake Crotolus viridis California quail Lophortyx californicus Scrub jay Aphelocoma coerulescens Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus Dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes Scrub/brushland Pacific gopher snake Pituophis melanoleucus Coast garter snake Thamnophis elegans terrestris Scrub jay Aphelocoma coerulesceus Brown towhee Pipilo fuscus Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteu. Brush rabbit Sylvilagus bachmani APPEND i X (cont'd) Riparian Woodland California newt Taricha torosa" Pacific treefrog Hyla. regilla California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytoni Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata Western aquatic garter snake Thamnophis couchi • CON'* COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPART NOTICE OF ' XX Completion of Environmental Impact Report QNegative Declaration of Environmental Significance Lead Agency Other Responsible Agency Contra Costa County c/o Planning Department P.O. Box 951 Martinez, California 94553 Phone (415) MPSMEM 372-2024 Phone EIR Contact Person Dale Sanders Contact Person PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C.P. 76-47 San Ramon General Plan Revision The project is a revision of the existing General Plan for the Greater San Ramon Valley. The previous plans (existing) are the 1967 Alamo/Danville and the 1971 San Ramon Plans. Since the implementation of the existing plans, a number of changes have occured, including State requirements for new general plan elements, the formation of new regional agencies, revision to federal V.and state laws and plans, economic changes, and new trends in residential project proposals. The result of all these factors is that new responsibilities and possibilities for general plans exist. It is determined from initial study by of the �]Planning Department that this project does not have a significant effect on the environment. Justification for negative declaration is attached. XX The Environmental Impact Report is available for review at the below address: Contra Costa County Planning Department 4th Floor, North Wing, Administration Bldg. Pine F Escobar Streets r Martinez, California n/ / e Posted JU� t0 Final date for review/appeal AL.y • By Planning Depar nt Representative AP9 1/74 Planning Department _Contra Planning ComraissionAlnebers Andrew H.Young • Costa • Alamo—Chairman amn County"'..iininiSi,ation Building,North Wing William L Milano P.O.Box 951 , Pittsburg—Vice Chairman Martinez,California 94553 County Donald E Anderson `� Moraga A Dehaesus Director of Planning Albert R.Compaglla Martinez Phone: 372-2024 Richard J.Jeha EI Sobrante Jack Stoddard August 13, 1976 Richmond William V.Walton IU Pleasant Hill RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR FOR THE SAN RAMON VALLEY GENERAL PLAN REVISION To Concerned Parties: This document is the Contra Costa County Planning Department response to comments presented to the Planning Department during the noticed review period concerning the draft environmental impact for the above noted General Plan. In order to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of • 1970 and its subsequent guidelines, an initial study was conducted for this project. It was determined that an environmental impact report should be prepared to identify areas of possible impacts resulting from the plan, and what measures may be taken to mitigate these impacts. The draft EIR was completed and posted on June 25, 1976. C3'z` ^ ,' i During the review and public hearing period for the draft environmental impact report (EIR) for the San Ramon Valley General Plan Revision, comments were submitted on the contents of the report. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, its subsequent guidelines and the guidelines for Contra Costa County, a final EIR is required. The Contra Costa County Planning Department received comments from twelve (12) sources. Each of these will be presented along with the County's response. This response document along with the draft EIR, the correspondence received and transcripts of the public hearing of July 27, 1976, will constitute a final EIR. The letters received commenting on the draft EIR are attached at the end of this document. MR. ROY S. BLOSS: Comment: The EIR does not give adequate attention to the positive aspects of low density, single family land use, and does not inquire into the adverse impacts that "efficient use of land" would bring. (cites pages 56 and 65 of the draft EIR). Response: The writer does not offer any factual data to support the • contention that the draft EIR is incorrect in its evaluation of the impacts of the proposed general plan revision. Instead the writer develops a lengthy dissertation of the benefits and vicissitudes of the 'rural view of life' in the San Ramon Valley". The draft EIR, as an information document, simply points out the potential impacts of a general plan which perpetrates low density suburban- ization, most of which are adverse. The report discusses the possible "costs" or "results" of the "rural view of life" and the potential impacts of a general.plan which promotes this life style. Comment: The writer comments that a "locally-employed population" would create intolerable traf f is problems. Response: If such an alternative were implemented it would be appropriate to reflect the need for more traffic service within the circulation element. Upgrading such downtown streets would be less costly than creating new roads or widening the existing roads in the outlying areas which serve the low density residential areas. a • Comment: The writer lists five (5) items of a socioeconomic nature which he says support the advantages of low-density land use concept (Police Services, Social Service/Welfare, Recreation, Libraries, and Fire Protection). Response: This is, generally, a philosophical discussion and does not relate to a specific criticism of the draft EIR. Therefore, the staff feels it is improper to indulge in a lengthy discourse, as the EIR is not the proper form for such discussions. These issues might be more properly explored as a discussion on the proposed plan itself and not the EIR, as they are not environmentl in nature. Comment: The writer comments that the EIR is not specific as to whom the identified impacts will be directed toward. Response: The County, in general, will be put in a position of financing certain public works projects which will result form the imple- mentation of the plan. The notion that the people living within the area of the plan will "pay their own way" is not valid. • ASSOCIATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF DANVILLE BOULEVARD (MR. RICHARD REYNOLDS) Comment: "...we would ask that the phrase (pp. 34-35) which states, "This plan... but recognizes that conditions and needs change and that adquate setbacks should be required so that if they are needed in the future they will be available" be deleted. Instead, we would suggest that existing County setback requirements be maintained for any new construction along the Danville Boulevard. "Adequate setbacks" as stated above are not applicable to this portion of the Danville Boulevard." Response: The comment pertains to a decision which the County Public Works Department and the Board of Supervisors must make. It is not an issue resolvable in the EIR for this general plan revision. SAN RAMON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (MR. MICHAEL WAHLIG) Comment: 111. On Page 9, in Table 3, the V.C.S.D. total district budget and tax rate are used. This is misleading and gives the impression that V.C.S.D. runs quite an inefficient fire protection service. This has been a source of misunderstanding and friction _�,•_ 07 J between V.C.S.D., local residents, and the County 'Govern- • ment in the past. Part of this 97� tax rate is for parks and recreation. Approximately 7% to 800 is for fire protection. I suggest that you contact V.C.S.D. to get the most up-to- date tax f igures for f ire protection only, and use these in your table." Response: The above comment is so noted and the information provided is adequate for the level of analysis required for the proposal. Comment: 112. On page 11, in the fourth paragraph, the park and recreation facilities of V.C.S.D. are discussed. An important facility was omitted and should be included here: the V.C.S.D.'s San Ramon Olympic Swimming Pool, located on the grounds of California High School." Response: The above information is noted. Comment: 113. On Page 42, on the- second and third lines of section f, reference is made to three fire districts. The "three" should be changed to "four", with Valley Community Services District listed as the fourth, since this fire district serves about 25% of the current valley population." • Response: The reference is to the "majority" of the planning area. The area is actually served by 5 districts. A lengthy discussion of this subject occurs on pages 8 and 9 of the draft EIR. Comment: 114. On Page 45, the first sentence in the Police section states that the revenue for police coverage by the Sheriff's department in the San Ramon Valley comes from local property taxes. I believe that this is incorrect. My understanding is that funds for police protection effectively come from subventions paid to the County by the State to provide such services for unincorporated areas. It is probably true that such subventions are not earmarked by the State specifically for police services, and the County budget records probably do not distinguish a direct line between the income from subventions and the expense for police services. Nonetheless, I believe that this connection is real, since, when an area incorporates, that area assumes responsibility for providing its own police services, and the State thence- forth switches its payment of subvention funds from the County to the new city to provide funds for the police services." • Response: The above statement is partially true. The proportion of funds coming from various sources may vary from year to year. This entire subject is very complex and the EIR is not the place to develop a comprehensive thesis on the subject. Suffice it to say, that portions of the police services provided by the Sheriff's Department come from the County General Fund provided by local taxes. Comment: 115. A general comment on the EIR has to do with the rate of implementation of the General Plan; specifically the land-use element of the Plan. This is mentioned in section G on Page 66, but not dealt with substantively. I suggest that this variable be treated in more depth in the final EIR. The appropriate place for such a discussion would probably be in section C on mitigating measures. I would guess that the rate of implementation of the plan would be one of the most important mitigation measures in terms of impact on the schools, service facilities, transportation, air quality, and socioeconomic impacts, including the tax rate. For example, what would be the effect in all these areas of reaching a population of 80,000 by the year 2010 or 2020 rather than 1990? Recent court decisions appear to recognize a community's right to pace their growth to the ability of • facilities to accommodate that growth. This option should be fully explored and discussed in the final EIR." Response: The comment may be true but the fact is that the plan is to run until 1990 not 2020. It is difficult to discuss the "rate of implementation" of the plan within the draft EIR when no such consideration was evidenced within the plan itself. The plan was analyzed from a face value point of view. Many schemes of "phasing" etc., could be devised. The fact would remain that rate of implementation or phasing development was not considered important enough to include within the text of the draft plan. If, after public hearing, it is considered important, the final plan can be written to reflect such considerations. The subject has so many variations that it was not felt to shed light on any specific impacts; therefore, it was not considered in any depth within the draft EIR. SAN RAMON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (MS. SUSANNA SCHLENDORF) Comment: There were numerous comments offered on the General Plan draft, and the issue of "Regional Shopping" and "planning for hospital facilities" were discussed. The following questions were raised regarding the content of the draft EIR. i "1. The EIR should address itself to the rate of implementation • of the General Plan. The effect of the Plan in terms of impact on schools, service facilities, transportation, and on air quality is crucial. The rights of a community to pace their growth should be fully explored in the final EIR." Response This subject was considered during the plan formulation stage. But as pointed out in the response above, it was not considered to be of sufficient merit to include within the plan draft text. The last sentence is an obvious reference to the State Supreme Court action on the Petaluma-Decision. This is a complex subject with little precedent to back a factual discussion. And certainly, an EIR on a general plan (which has little specificity) is not the best vehicle for such a discussion. The public hearings on the -plan itself may be a proper vehicle. Comment: "2. We suggest that the EIR should recognize that no bonds for school construction will likely be passed by the voters during the next ten years. What are the alternatives for housing students generated by the new building units. On page 62, section 3.3., reference is made to increasing the bedroom tax for new development in order to decrease deficits in the San Ramon Valley Unified School District budget. What deve- loper's policy payment would have to be made in order to • avoid an overwhelming burden on taxpayers? Response: The San Ramon Valley Unif ied School District already makes use of portables. These units could be used in the future as a substitute for more expensive permanent structures. It would be a guess as to what developers' payment would be adequate to offset the burden on taxpayers. Perhaps this question could be directed to the School District. This is an alternatiave to an identified potential impact which would require a detailed analysis predica- ted on a large number of unknown factors. Comment: 9. The EIR should single out air pollution as an important concern. An air pollution plan should be prepared for the valley. Response: One and one-half years ago a proposal was developed to do a joint study between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties under the direction of the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District. This project was not implemented because of a lack of funding. The BAAPCD was to place a monitoring station in the San Ramon Valley in 1975; this too was dropped. The request in the comment above will not be possible until these two projects are developed. • There are, however, parking management plans under considera- tion which should reduce air pollution within the Valley. Comment: Our concerns with the EIR are, in summary, largely related to the rate of implementation, and the ability of the community to maintain its quality of life in view of the pressures a high rate of growth will place on our schools, transportation, services, .and on air quality. A population of 80,000 by 1990 would result in a strongly negative effect on the quality of life in the valley. Response: The above comment is in essential agreement with the findings of the draft EIR. ALAMO IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION (MR. WILLIAM O. MADDAUS) Comment: The single comment received (in writing and verbally during the public hearing of July27, 1976) pertained to the connection of Miranda Avenue and Castle Rock Road in Walnut Creek. Response: It is highly unlikely that this subject will be of concern in the future. The East Bay Regional Park District has recently purchased a major portion of the intervening land through which • such a connection would traverse. The District is in negotiation at this time for the remainder of the intervening property. It is certain that the District would not allow a public road through this recreation property. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK (MR. GARY BINGER) Comment: The City's comment is identical to that above. Response: -See the response above. DANVILLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Comment: The District's comments are not directed at the draft EIR but rather add weight to several mitigation measures and alternatives which were partially discussed within the report. Response: None required. VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Comment: The District offers some additional infer narinn is so noted. • Some of the District's concerns are discussed in the responses to the comments from the San Ramon Homeonwer's Association. • The following is a specific comment not considered elsewhere. "In your discussion of sewage on Page 39, I suggest that you clarify that sewage from the Alamo Basin goes to the VCSD plant located within the City of Pleasanton. You state that it goes to the Pleasanton treatment plant, and since the City has its own facility, this could be misleading. You also state that no new hook-ups are allowed, and this is erroneous, since connections are permitted from time to time, based upon Regional Water Quality Control Board approval." Response: The comments are noted and no further response is required. CONTRA COSTA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT Comment: The District basically underscores certain conclusions and impacts identified in the draft EIR. Mainly these deal with the urbanization of productive agricultural land. Response: None required. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION • DISTRICT Comment: The County, under its Drainage Maintenance policy, maintains improvements to secondary and minor channels in the unincor- porated areas, but excludes major channels, except for a few specific items, such as drop structures, etc. It is recommended that the fourth paragraph on page 12 be rewritten to clarify the maintenance function. "The "unconventional means" of handling storm water flows, e.g. detention basins, etc. are not always applicable in areas that have already developed, but could be very conventional in newly- developing areas such as the San Ramon Valley. Because the maintenance of these facilities is normally very costly, it may be reasonable to assume that the area that benefits directly from these facilities should pay the additional maintenance cost, instead of an areawide entity such as the County or a Flood Control District Zone. The money to pay for maintenance could be raised locally by a homeowner group or a public entity such as a Drainge Area or Recreation District." • • Response: This is an informational comment and no further response is required. Comment: "2. Two districts, the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Contra Costa County Storm Drainage District, are empowered to form entities to construct improvements in the smaller watersheds. The Storm Drainage Zones mentioned in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph, on page 12, are formed under the above- mentioned Storm Drainage District and not the Flood Control District as the report indicates. "While both the above-mentioned Districts are empowered to form entities to do work in the smaller watersheds, it is the intent to only form Drainage Areas under the Flood Control District Act in the future. It is also the intent of the Flood Control District to convert the existing Storm Drainage Zones into Drainage Areas. Therefore, it is recommended that the fifth paragraph, on page 12, be modified to reflect this trend." Response: So noted and the appropriate sections should read as suggested. • Comment: 113. The last sentence of the first paragraph, on page 13, should refer to a Drainage Area and not a Drainage Zone. "This paragraph should be expanded to indicate there may be other entities, i.e. assessment districts, to fund the necessary drainage improvements." Response: Because of the general nature of the draft general plan revision, the Planning Department feels that the level of specificity is adequate. If further specific information is desired the reader should contact the District. Comment: 115. Item 8 on page 63 of the report mentions "a riparian or stream ordinance." It is suggested that this item be expanded to clarify what kind of ordinance is envisioned." Response: The suggested mitigation measurement can take several forms, such as a creek; setback, encroachment regulations on all streams, itemizing and mapping all streams to be excluded from develop- ment. The Counties of Napa and Alameda have functioning "Riparian Ordinances". Any person wishing further clarification should contact the Contra Costa County Planning Department. EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the San Ramon Valley General Plan Review. We have no comment on the DEIR itself; however, we would suggest that you add Camp Parks Regional Land Bank, a 445-acre park, to your discussion of Parks and Recreation on page 11 of the DEIR. You might consider changing the classification of Camp Parks Regional Recreation Area to Regional Land Bank on page 74 of the General Plan Draft Proposal dated March 1976, and include it on the Plan itself. Response: The above comments are noted. ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS Comment: In general, the criticism is that there is not enough mitigation for regional impacts. Response: The ABAG comments do not identify any specific "regional impact". They state (first line, second page) that the plan should "mitigate these impacts". Which, again, have not been specifical- ly identified. In general, the Planning Department feels, as stated in the draft EIR that most of the socioeconomic impacts identified are adverse and unavoidable if the plan is adopted as proposed. This obviously, is the premise under which the draft EIR was prepared. The second paragraph on the second page is unrealistic as the proposed plan removes much of the multiple units area which existed in the previous plan. This is an action in the reverse from what the ABAG comments suggest should take place. Comment: There are a series of comments which do not criticize but rather underscore the findings in the draft EIR. They cover such subjects as: energy conservation, transportation, economics, air quality, fiscal and land resources. Response: None required, as the comments are paraphrased statements from the draft EIR. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT) Comment: The Army Corps states that it would like to review more specific EIR's which are prepared for projects in the planning area. Response: The Contra Costa County Planning Department will be pleased to forward draft EIR's to the District for their review. DS:blh 8/13/76 r Roy S. Bloss 1490 Laurenita Way July 6, 1976 Alamo, CA 94507 �� l �7� r Mr.- Arnold B. Jonas,' Senior Planner-:: - Contra Costa County=P-IeLb ling Department 4th Floor, North Wing, 'Administration Building Pine b Escobar Streets Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Jonas: I think that the Environmental Impact Report gives inadequate attention to the positive--i.e., advantageous--aspects of low-density, single-family land use in the San Ramon Valley Planning Area. The treatment of this question under "10. Socioeconomic Impacts," page 56, unfortunately takes a strong negative slant, and does not inquire into the adverse impacts that "efficient use of land" (p. 65) would bring. The General Plan Review Committee, on which I was privileged to serve, long considered the theme, or chief motivation,of its work, and concluded that preservation of a "rural view of life" in San Ramon Valley most closely represented the sentiments of a majority of residents. The Committee under- stood that this ruled out what might be called amenities in another environment, like a regional shopping center (which was specifically thumbed down) , or a • central commercial core and its supportive ring of high density housing, like that found in Walnut Creek. Unspoken but patently evident in the Draft General Plan is the hope to save for residents the psychological and emotional benefits inherent for most people in natural vs. man-made beauty, and in the soothing euphoria of open space. What is termed "efficient land use" may be a convenient shibboleth of the professional planner, but if it means doubling, tripling or quadrupling people per acre, or if it is defined as a commonizing of all suburban areas to the level of city life, then it misses entirely the needs and demand of homeowners for single-family, detached housing-- The 1974 survey of the Urban Land Institute reported that 75% of condominium owners queried said they would not buy another condoominium. - Organized realty and developer groups report that, despite soaring costs, the traditional single-family, detached dwelling remains the bellwether of the housing market. - The concept of "efficient land use" would appear to prohibit another Beverly Hills or Atherton or Bel Aire, where beautiful homes on spacious grounds are an enjoyable sight for any eye. - The concept would seem to be a barrier to the development of the 5- and 10-acre mini-ranches of eastern Contra Costa County. The EIR critically examines the in-commute and out-commute traffic of San Ramon Valley as products of the area's affluent residents who work elsewhere, and of the area's commercial emplo:C-es who live elsewhere; and relates this traffic to -1- Mr.' Arnold B. Jonas -2- July 6, 1976 • problems of available roads and air pollution. However, the EIR does not inquire whether the alternative, a more locally-employed population, would, in fact, create an intolerable day-time traffic congestion, evident in other population centers, like Walnut Creek, Concord, Richmond, Oakland, etc., with all the attendant dis- comforts for residents and the high costs of concentratrated traffic control. What's happening now in Danville is illustrative. Ten years ago, before the attractions of the newly-burgeoning shopping centers in San Ramon Valley, most shoppers found their way to Walnut Creek or Concord. Now hordes of stay-at-home shoppers have brought Hartz Avenue traffic to a near dead halt at mid-day, and the area can now boast three traffic signals installed at considerable taxpayer expense in the last five years. Should our breadwinners follow the suit of shoppers and find local employment, the impact on available roads, traffic control and vehicle parking facilities would be enormous. There are other socioeconomic advantages of low-density land use that need to be considered: Police Services. Fewer people require a lower concentration of services. The complained "high costs" in San Ramon Valley relate to travel time of officers, not to the enforcement problems inherent in congested areas and the greater demand there for personnel and equipment. Social Services/Welfare. Typically, these services are in greater demand • in high population centers. It may be fairly presumed that continued low-density land use in the Planning Area will mean a continued low cost there in social services. The EIR missed this point entirely. be- Recreation. While local public facilities may„ below generally accepted recreation-planning standards, it is also true that few areas have so many alternative attractions--Mt. Diablo State Park, Las Trampas Regional Park and a growing number of private facilities, all mentioned in the EIR. The EIR draws no distinction between recreation facilities which San Ramon Valley is now obtaining through R-7 Service Area and the recreational programs (and consequent expense) , an inevitable corollary in high-density population centers--Concord, Walnut Creek, Oakland, Richmond, San Francisco. That San Ramon Valley wouldn't foot the bill for programs was an "understanding” that erased opposition to the second--and successful-- election that established R-7. It likely will be honored only to the extent that the Planning Area preserves its low-density character. Libraries. There is a need for at least one new library branch for the south San Ramon Valley at the present time. In the long term, another branch may be needed in the Blackhawk area. I am unaware of any long- range planning beyond those two. More "efficient land use" would likely increase the adverse cost effects of additional library acquisition and operation in the Planning Area. • Fire Protection. The EIR alludes generally to the "strain" that existing population characteristics place on public facilities, including fire protection. However, the report seems to contradict itself in citing the low-cost volunteer services enjoyed now in some less populated districts of the Planning Area- The contradiction is heightened when the EIR goes on to say that these_,rolunteer services may have to become paid-employee services with continued growth. That appears to say that the more growth 0 • Mr. Arnold B. Jonas -3- July 6, 1976 (and assuredly with "more efficient land use") , the more cost there will be in fire services. In conclusion, I think that the EIR must be faulted for asserting, without specificity, that the impact of the life-style patterns in San Ramon Valley is "enormous." Enormous on whom? Do not most of the socioeconomic costs fall on Planning Area residents? And conversely do they not save the most when they are low? Does the enormity of the impact relate somehow to responsibilities of local residents toward other County citizens? It seems to me that the essence of this issue can be found in a ridiculous, hypothetical question: Do we want to wipe out the beautiful, private Roundhill Country Club because it serves only a handful of people, or, perhaps, because its lovely golf course could be more efficiently used for 2,500 low-cost townhouses? The very attraction of this area for-homeowners is its openness and natural beauties and its low-density housing. If the costs are high,' it must be remembered that no one yet has discovered a reluctant homebuyer whose arm was twisted to make him live here. Cordiall ours, ez��I Roy S. Bloss ASSOCIATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF DANVILLE BOULEVARD P.O Box 334 - Alamo, California 94500 " - C_ _ July 16, 1976 rT1 11r. James Cutler W Contra Costa County Planning Department _ P.O. Box 951 ' Martinez, Ca. 94553 Dear Mr. Cutler: The Board of Directors of the Association for the Preservation of Danville Boulevard has reviewed those portions of the draft proposal of the San Ramon Valley General Plan which pertain to the Danville Boulevard . Our Association concurs with the broad aspects of the proposed revision, but would like to suggest certain minor modifications . In each instance, we are referring solely to that portion of the Danville Boulevard north of Del Amigo- As you Imow, our Association is most anxious to preserve the Danville Boulevard as a rural, two-lane residential road. We are heartened to note that the General Plan is supportive of this concept.. Inasmuch as future widening of the Danville Boule- vard is to be avoided, reference to the establishment of 'adequate setbacks" intended for the purpose of future widening is inappropriate. Therefore, we would ask that the phrase (pp 34- 35) which states, "This plan. .. but recognizes that conditions and needs change and that adequate setbacks should be required so that if they are needed in the future they will be available" be deleted. Instead, we would suggest that existing County set- back requirements be maintained for any new construction along the Denville' Bouleverd. "Adequate setbacks" as stated above are not applicable to this portion of the Danville Boulevard• Secondly, we note that the General Plan Kap designates the -land adjacent to the Danville Boulevard for low density residential, while the draft (p 35) further supports this designation by statim that "strip co=aercial and office uses under land use permits are inconsistent with the plan and are to be restricted-" We agree completely but would suggest that this concipt be further reinforced by rewording the sentence (p 35) which states, "The lands adjacent to these roads that are shown as residential on the Plat Map should be restricted to residential uses" to read, "The lands adjacent to these roads that are shown as residential on the Plan Map should be restricted to low density single family uses." ASSOCIATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF DANVILLE BOULEVARD �. 0. Box 334 . Alamo# California j&V . • Finally, with respect to proposed speed limits for arterials (P 35), we would ask that rather than categorically declaring "moderate speeds of 40 to 50 miles per hour" appropriate, con- sideration be given to the residential nature of the road. In our opinion, the sentence (p 35) which states, "Because arterial streets form a network carrying intermediate distance trips, they are designed to operate at moderate speeds of 40 to 50 miles per hourt' should be modified to read, "Arterials should operate at moderate speeds as consistent with the residential character of the area.tt We appreciate this opportunity to direct our thoughts to the Planning Department and we will anticipate having a representa- tive present when tLis issue is heard before the Planning Com- =ission. Yours truly, Richard Reynolds - . President RR/gc y . 59 Ne Place ` San Ra on, Ca., 94583 .. .r. ; July 10, 1976 Arnold B. Jonas Contra Costa County Planning Dept. P.O. Box 951 Martinez., California, 94553 Dear Mr. Jonas, I have just received and read the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the San Ramon Valley General Plan Revision. In general, the report has been well prepared. However, I would like to suggest four changes of a factual nature and I have one general comment: 1 . On Page 9, in Table 3, the V.C.S.D. total district budget and tax rate are used. This is misleading and gives the impression that V.C.S.D. runs quite an in- efficient fire protection service. This has been a source of misunderstanding and friction between V.C.S.D., local residents, and the County Government in the past. Part of this 97p' tax rate is for parks and recreation. Approximately 75¢ to 80¢ is for fire protection. I suggest that you contact V.C.S.D. to get the most up- • to-date tax figures for fire protection only, and use these in your table. 2. On Page 11 , in the fourth paragraph, the park and rec- reation facilities of V.C.S.D. are discussed. An im- portant facility was omitted and should be included here: the V.C.S.D. 's San Ramon Olympic Swimming Pool, located on the grounds of California nigh School. 3. On Page 42, on the second and third lines of section f, reference is made to three fire districts. The "three" should be changed to "four", with Valley Community Services District listed as the fourth, since this fire district serves about 25% of the current valley popula- tion. 4. On Page 45, the first sentence in the Police section states that the revenue for police coverage by the Sheriff' s department in the San Ramon Valley comes from local property taxes. I believe that this is incorrect. My understanding is that funds for police protection effectively come from subventions paid to the County by the State to provide• such services for unincorporated areas. It is probably true that such subventions are • not earmarked by the State specifically for police ser- vices, and the County budget records probably do not distinguish a direct line between the income from sub- Jt Arnold B. Jonas -2- 7/10/76 ven Uons and the expense for police services. None- theless, I believe that this connection is real, since, when an area incorporates, that area assumes responsi- bility for providing its own police services, and the -State thenceforth switches its payment of subvention _ urds from the County to the new city to provide funds for the police services. 5. A general comment on the EIR has to do with the rate Of innlementation of the General Plan; specifically The land-use element of the Plan. This is mentioned in section G on Page 66, but not dealt with substan- tively. I suggest that this variable be treated in more depth in the Final EIR. The appropriate place for such a discussion would probably be in section C on mitigating measures. 1 would guess that the rate of implementation of the plan would be one of the most important mitigation measures in terms of impact on* the schools, service facilities, transportation, air quality, and socioeconomic impacts including the tax rate. For example, what would be the effect in all these areas of reaching a population of 80,000 by the year 2010 or 2020 rather than 1990? Recent court decisions appear to recognize a community's right to • pace their growth to the ability of facilities to ac- commodate that growth. This option should be fully explored and discussed in the Final EIR. Thank you for affording me an opportunity to comment on this draft report. Sincerely, Michael vlahlig Member of the Board of Directors MW: jw San Ramon Homeowners Assn. cc: Susanna Schlendorf, President, S.R.H.A. Richard Fahey, Board Member, V.C.S.D. s-,in - mamoi� homcownEizs Assocution P.O. BOX 54 - SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 July 19; 1976 Arnold B. Jonas Contra Costa County Planning Department P.O. Box 951 Martinez, California 94553 Dear Mr.. Jonas, The San Ramon Homeowners Association Board of Directors has read and dis- cussed the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan Draft and the Draft Environmental Impact Report. We believe the reports to be generally well written. There are, however, concerns with both the Draft General Plan and the EIR. Regarding the General Plan Draft, we wish to make 'the following comments 1. On page 29, Special Concern Area 2, the lower Dougherty Hills, is discussed. We believe that this beautiful and scenic area should remain as open space for the next ten years. No utilities are now available for this area. School avail- ability is already in question for San Ramon. 2. The General Plan Draft does not address itself to the need for additional access to Interstate 680, especially in the San Ramon area. An access at Bollin- ger Canyon Road should be given highest priority. The area is marked for con- trolled manufacturing, and for a great many more residential units. Yet, free- way access is minimal in this area. 3. We suggest that consideration should be given to advance planning for hos- pital facilities in the San Ramon Valley area. 4. The question of a major shopping center was not raised by the General Plan Draft. Has this idea been fully explored - for possible benefits and detrimental effects? A discussion of the Draft Environmental Impact Report led us to these ques- tions and comments - 1. The EIR should address itself to the rate of implementation of the General Plan. The effect of the Plan in terms of impact on schools, service facilities, transportation, and on air quality is crucial. The rights of a community to pace their growth should be fully explored in the Final EIR. 2. We suggest that the EIR should recognize that no hnnac fnr school• construc- • tion will likely be passed by the voters during the next ten years. What are r Air. Arnold B. Jonas • " the alternatives for housing students generated by the new building units? On page 62, section 3.e. , reference is made to increasing the bedroom tax for new development in order to decrease deficits in the San Ramon Valley Unified School District budget. What developer's policy payment would have to be made in order to avoid an overwhelming burden on taxpayers? 3. The EIR should single out air pollution as an important concern. An air pollution plan should be prepared for the valley. Our concerns with the EIR are, in summary, largely related to the rate of implementation, and the ability of the community to maintain its quality of life in view of the pressures a high rate of growth will place on our schools, transportation, services, and on air quality. A population of 80,000 by 1990 would result in a strongly negative effect on the quality of life in the valley. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on both the General Plan Draft and the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Sincerely, • Susanna Schlendorf President, San Ramon Homeowners Association FOR P. O. BOX 271 • ALAMO, CALIFORNIA • FINE COUNTRY LIVING July 16, 1976 Mr. Dale Sanders Contra Costa County Planning Department P. 0. Box 951 Martinez, CA, 94553 Dear Mr. Sanders: We thank you for the opportunity to review the EIR on the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan. One of our major concerns, which was stated in our letter to Mr. James Cutler on June 18, 1976, concerning the General Plan, was the proposed connection of Miranda Avenue to Castle Rock Road in Walnut Creek. This is a sensitive issue to Alamo residents and we aid not find it discusses in the EIR. We recozmend that the EIR be updated to include an impact analysis of the proposed extension of • Miranda Avenue. Thank you for considering our request. Very truly yours, • !�l0.GQC�tcc<<L,J William 0. Maddaus Chairman, Master Plan Committee WOM/ers. ,• c1,, fn - w w 1.145 CIVIC DRIVE - WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 415-93.5-I0 July 7, 1976 Arnold Jonas, Chief Environmental Assessment Division County Administration Building P.O. Box 951 Martinez, California 94553 RE: Draft EIR - San Ramon Valley General Plan Dear Mr. Jonas: Although the City of Walnut Creek will experience a number of impacts from the proposed San Ramon Valley General Plan proposals, we would like to comment only on one item which the City feels is of paramount interest. This concern is the proposed extension of Miranda Road to Castle Rock Road. This recommended street connection was discussed briefly in the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan but was not addressed whatsoever in the Draft EIR. It is our opinion that this circulation element linkage will have a • tremendous impact, within both the San Ramon Valley area and Walnut Creek. Recently we forwarded a letter to your department summarizing our investigations and resulting policies on the Miranda-Castle Rock connection. Rather than reiterate those statements, I have attached a copy of the letter for you. Prior to developing the Final EIR, we would appreciate your investigation of this proposal and a response to our position expre sed in the attached letter. Ve truly yours, GARY BINGER Chief of Planning DS/slk T Attachment r1� �, w ck� iWgr� 1445 CIVIC DRIVE - WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 415-935-3300 June 7, 1976 c_ c r;+ Mr. James Cutler Planning Department Contra Costa County v P.O. Box 951 Martinez, CA 94553 -. Dear Mr. Cutler: RE: SAN RAMON VALLEY AREA GENERAL PLAN The Walnut Creek Transportation Commission has been working for several months on a comprehensive transportation plan for the Walnut Creek area. This plan, when completed, will replace the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. One aspect of this plan will be a recommendation regarding the proposed road connection of Miranda Road to Castle Rock Road, which is also discussed in the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan. The Transportation Commission has considered this item at length and con- clusively recommends that no connection of these roadways occur. This policy is in accordance with the November 1973 City Council decision to eliminate this road connection from the City's General Plan. The purpose of this letter is to give you the benefit of some staff traffic studies on this issue and to urge your reconsideration of this road-connection. The City's Transportation Commission considered four distinctly different alternative types of.road connections: Alternative A - Four-Lane Extension. If a wide, straight road were to be built between Oak Grove and Livorna, this route would offer a desirable alterna- tive to using Ygnacio Valley Road for numerous persons bound between Ygnacio Valley and destinations along I-680 south of Walnut Creek. The 1990 traffic projections for Ygnacio Valley Road indicate there will be a demand for 87,000 vehicles per day along this corridor. Unfortunately, Ygnacio Valley Road's capacity is only 50,000 vehicles per day. An assumption made in considering a four-lane roadway was that if Ygnacio Valley Road were overloaded, this link would be attractive and the potential 1990 demand would be approximately 20,000 vehicles per day. This great demand would create several problems along the Oak Grove Road/Castle Rock Road corridor. First, it is unlikely the Ygnacio/Oak Grove Road intersection will be able to handle this increased volume. Second, Oak Grove Road south of Ygnacio cannot handle an increase of 20,000 trips per day. In this area, Oak Grove Road is one lane southbound and two lanes northbound, with heavily-used bikelanes in both directions. It now carries 14,000 vehicles per day, with an ultimate capacity of about 20,000 vehicles per day. The City has received J Mr. James Cutler -2- June 7, 1976 • numerous complaints in recent months about existing traffic conditions on this route, and the tremendous increase in traffic generated from a four-lane road connection would be absolutely intolerable. This alternative would, however, provide some noticeable amount of relief from Ygnacio Valley Road traffic congesticn (see attached diagram) . Alternative B - Two-Lane Direct Connection. Assuming that a relatively direct two-lane road were built between Livorna and Oak Grove Road area, this type of roadway could handle about 10,000 to 12,000 vehicles per day. This alternative would result in 22,000 trips per day on Livorna Road and 28,000 vehicles per day on Oak Grove Road. If implemented, a connection of this sort would provide a small measure of relief (approximately 10,000 vehicles per day) from Ygnacio Valley Road, but would require widening Livorna Road to four lanes • and making numerous improvements to Oak Grove Road. Alternative C - Two-Lane Indirect Connection. Assuming that a winding, narrow, relatively indirect two-lane road connection were made, this type of facility would attract only local trips because of the low travel time and unattractiveness of the route. The estimated capacity for a street of this _nature would be 6,000 to 8,000 'vehicles per day. Such a connection might generate pressure for future widening and straightening because demand will exceed capacity on Ygnacio Valley Road and even a winding two-lane facility might look attractive, especially at commute-hour times. Unfortunately, the • 6,000 to 8,000 trips this road could carry would provide little if any relief for Ygnacio. Under this alternative, Livorna could probably remain a two-lane road with additional width at intersections to handle the 15,000 to 18,000 cars per day expected. Alternative D - No Connection. If no connection were provided between Livorna and Castle Rock Roads, relief from congestion for Ygnacio Valley Road will have to be sought by other means if it is to be provided at all. Under this scheme, Livorna Road will be able to function with a minimal number of improvements. Oak Grove Road ultimately will experience approximately 18,000 vehicles per day south of Ygnacio, which is about all the present roadway can reasonably handle. In conclusion, let me reiterate the City's policy of providing no road connection. We would hope that both of our jurisdictions could be in agreement on this issue and would urge your reconsideration of this item. If there is any way our staff or Commission can be of assistance to you on this item, please let us know. Si c rely yours, Gary Binger • Chief of Planning MR/GB:hn Attach. Y 0 T ALTERNATIVES LIVORNA - OAK, GROVE CONNECTION EXISTING TRAFFIC - A.D. T. ygnacio Valley Load 30,000 19,000 Q 14,000 4 Ln 4 oa < a Livorna Road • 13, 000 2 Ln ALTERNATIVE "A" - 4 LANE CONNECTION 1990 Traffic - A. D. T. ygnacio Valley Road 67,000 O38,00 m 0 Or 6 Ln C1 n 0 < � Livorna RoaadGoa- 32, 000 oa-32, 000 4.Ln ALTERNATIVE "B" - 2 LANE DIRECT CONNECTION 1990 Traffic - A.D. T. F22, 000 Valley Road 77, 000 28, 000 4 Ln co Of cc Road CL 4w=am �� 10, 000 2 Ln n ALTERNATIVE "C" - 2 LANE WINDING CONNECTION 1990 Traffic - A.D. T. Ygnacio Valley Road 81, 000 O 24,000 4 Ln • o C] or a Livo rna Road�..umv 000, ' 6, 000 18,000 2 Ln Winding 2- 4 Ln ALTERNATIVE "D" -NO CONNECTION Ygnacio Valley Road 87,000 O 18, 000 C) 4 Ln n 0 0 q < CO (D • . Q Livorna Roadalp i 12, 000. 2 Ln DI6►NVILLE FIRE PR0TECTI0N DISTRICT • 800 SAN RAMON VALLEY BOULEVARD DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526 ADMINISTRATION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU Phone: 837-4212 Phone: 937-3981 July 22, 1976 Con- i Costa otu.ty riznnin` De:artment - - ril F-C. Box 951 Hartinez, California 94553 �= Attn: Arnold B. Jonas �izhj�ct: Draft ^nvironn,:?ntal Impact ^eport for San Ramon Valley General flan Review Gentlemen: As per your letter dated June 25, 1976 the following comments have been prepzred by this fire District in regard to the Subject B.I.:2. '.-lithin the planning arca ar^ four (4) fire protection aGencies including Danville, ^an '2Ymon, Tass2.j zra, and Valley Cem,ttznity :is e Dc j�artm,.nts. of these four depart- ents, Danville is t^e lvtrg?st facility covering ^„n area of 50 squar-: miles, including thA comm»nitie, of Alamo, Danville, and Diablo, and an approximate population of 30,000 people. The Department in general is comprised of thre^ stations and 46 employees. According to current rate of population growth, fire protection demands can be anticipated but at the present time the distribution of manpower and equipment and continued planned improvement would be adequate to serve a. primarily rural, bedroom and light industrial community such as is characteristic within the planning; area. Present station distribution is predicated upon I.S.O. standards and would not require significant modifications or additions to, relative to the projected growth. In con etof related fire :�rotctio:: to projected Growth, the major concern si.ould be the water supply and thorough distribution system within the projected huildinr- area. -ull time manpower is and will continue to be the -major cost of public fire protection, Contrary to current belief, the development of volunteer reserve forces and the application of on sight automatic fire protection systems would be the most effective means of maintaining economic pace with projected growth Fs opposed to resolution of this, factor by the over simplistic consolidation of resource approach. CFpit�l Improvements, as projected, should be funder: by special tax zones specifically within the areas which have created their need so as not to be a tax burden on all �esidents who will not benefit from theta. =f '7 �'{. r com reh:nsive stud;;► to deterrine the projected maximum built un area; firs 'flow r_•-+uirements and relatedpublic and private fire protection f cilities would best s—• rve ac the criteria for determining fundinm -and related types of goverm'.1ental or6anization and functional structure. If we can be of further assistance to you, please feel free to contact us at 837-4212. ►•_r;; truly yottrs, Iiichael. U. Blodgett, Chief ` by 3mun sen, Tire I:arsbal Firs Prsvention Bureau . P.a:jc _ cc: file -2- VALIEY 14MMUMM SERVIC [ pW ( ICT I-• n^rnI CJj{tr••5: 7051 Dublin Boulrvord . )IIfRI_IPt (�j �..tlia %TCF, . (41 51 P2,13_0515 July 26 , 1976 ti Mr. Arnold B . Jonas , Chief Environmental Assessment P'1 aai ng Department County of Contra Costa P . 0. Box 951 Martinez , California 94553 s Dear Mr. Jonas : Re : Draft Environmental Impact Report for San Ramon Valley General Plan Review I have reviewed the letter sent to you by Mr . Michael Wahlig of the San Ramon Homeowners ' Association and include some additional comments for your consider- ation . Under Parks and Recreation , in addition to including the San Ramon Olympic Pool , our District has acquired a five-acre park site in Tract 4172 , next to the Pine Valley Intermediate School . In your discussion of Fire Service on Page 8 , the report failed to indicate that our District is a sub- regional organization , covering more than the San Ramon area . On Page 9 , Table 3 , the entire tax rate for our District is indicated as going for fire protection . Of the basic tax rate, only approximately $0 . 63 per $100 assessed valuation is used' for fire protection by our District. On Page 42 , the report failed to. include our District under Fire Protection . Also , it should be pointed out that our District has the authority and levies a capital fire improvement fund against costs for expansion of the Fire Department , i . e. , capital equipment. Our Fire Chief informed me that no one from Contra Costa County discussed fire protection with our agency during the preparation of the draft EIR , and you may wish to call him prior to preparing the final draft . The telephone number is 829-2333 . It L I w C I C A POLITICAL SUD"s vt5111N or TH!_ STATE or CALIFORNIA • 9•nOV1OCSMI)NICIPAL T\I•r 'r'r—/ICrS Tp rt71�•;N Or AMADOR-LIVCnMnItC ANr+ 3A14 RAMON VALLCYS r ALAMCDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUtITIES. r Mr. Arnold B . Jonas , Chief Environmental Assessment Page 2 July 26, 1976 In your discussion of sewage on Page 39 , I suggest that you clarify that sewage from the Alamo Basin goes to the VCSD plant located within the City of Pleasanton . You state that it -goes to the Pleasanton treatment plant, and since the City has its own facility, this could be misleading . You also state that no new hook-ups are allowed , and this is erroneous , since connections are permitted from time to time ,- based upon Regional Water Quality Control Board approval . Very truly yours , /General PR: rj UL RYAN Man ger • ;sz. -. WM S- - u. 87 '!' 5552 Clayton Road - Concord,California 94521 - Tel ephor� (415) 6N3GUM0 i July 27, 1976 r, -. Mr. Dale Sanders Contra Costa County ►r c/o Planning Department P.O. Box 951 Martinez, California 94553 SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SAN RAMON VALLEY GENERAL PLAN REVISION Dear Mr. Sanders: The Contra Costa Resource Conservation District has reviewed this environmental impact report and would like to emphasize that the statement made in its Annual Report of 1970 still holds true. Unfortunately develop- ments in this area have proven the wisdom of the statement (see Contra Costa • Times of July 21, 1976, front page) . Many of the problems that have been associated with developments in the San Ramon Valley area could have been avoided if, in fact, Item C-1, page 62 had been strictly enforced. It, has been our experience that in too many cases the grading ordinances are not adhered to. This report has been reviewed with mixed emotions with the thought in mind that the production of food and fiber, which is this country's strongest asset, seems to be taking a back seat to so-called "progress". Page 51, para 2: In referring to agriculture as a profitable sector of the economy seems to be sounding the death knell for agriculture in the planning area. We are cognizant of the fact that the agricultural base, not only in this county but throughout the state, has for well over a decade been eroded through the taxing philosophy of the "highest and best use". This approach to taxing of agricultural land has caused numerous sales of agricultural land to speculators and proliferation of "ranchettes" which are not an agriculturally economic unit. Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this EIR. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Yours very truly, THOMAS W. HOLMES, Di rice)*4tTAger CONTRA COSTA RESOURCCONSERVATION DISTRICT • � d .F?�"Vr� TWIT/m. Contra Costa County Verner I i ne - �4�40� FLO�D CONTROL � on � • J.E TAILOR,Deputy ChKf E4inaar 255 Glacier Drive,Martinez, Calif. 91553 & Water Conservation District Taiaphana(415)372 July 16, 1976 Our File: 97-65 Mr. Anthony A. Dehaesus Director of. Planning County of Contra Costa P. 0. Box 951 Martinez, CA 94553 Attention: Mr. Arnold B. Jonas, Chief Environment Assessment Dear Mr. Dehaesus: The draft EIR for the San Ramon Valley General Plan Review, received by this office on June 30, 1976, has been reviewed and the following comments are made: 1 . The Flood Control District limits its maintenance to major channel improvements, those channels serving a watershed in excess of four square miles, in formed zones where the District or someone else has • works of improvement. The County, under its Drainage Maintenance policy, maintains improvements to secondary and minor channels in the unincorporated areas, but excludes major channels, except for a few specific items, such as drop structures, etc. It is recommended that the fourth para- graph on page 12 be rewritten to clarify the maintenance function. The "unconventional means" of handling storm water flows, e.g. detention basins, * etc. are not always applicable in areas that have already developed, but could be very conventional in newly-developing areas such as the San Ramon Valley. Because the maintenance of these facilities is normally very costly, it may be reasonable to assume that the area that benefits directly from these facilities should pay the additional maintenance cost, instead of an areawide entity such * as the County or a Flood Control District Zone. The money to pay for maintenance could be raised locally by a homeowner group or a public entity such as a Drainage Area or Recreation District. cr1 • y � rr.J Mr. Anthony A. De esus - 2 - July 16, 1976 J 2. Two districts, the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Contra Costa County Storm Drainage District, are empowered to form entities to construct improvements in the smaller watersheds. The Storm Drainage Zones mentioned in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph, on page 12, are formed under the above-mentioned Storm Drainage District and not the Flood Control District as the report indicates. While both the above-mentioned Districts are empowered to form entities to do work in the smaller watersheds, it is the intent to only form Drainage Areas under the Flood Control District Act in the future. It is also the intent of the Flood Control District to convert the existing Storm Drainage Zones into Drainage Areas. Therefore, it is recommended that the fifth paragraph, on page 12, be modified to reflect this trend. 3. The last sentence of the first paragraph, on page 13, should refer to a Drainage Area and not a Drainage Zone. This paragraph should be expanded to indicate there may be other entities, i .e. assessment districts, to fund the necessary drainage improvements. . 4. The San Ramon Valley General Plan Review indicated a desire to maintain the existing channels in their natural state and to provide green belts and open spaces. This concept could increase law enforce- ment problems in the area. The possibility of added enforcement costs should be commented on in the report. 5. Item 8 on page 63 of the report mentions "a riparian or stream ordinance." It is suggested that this item be expanded to clarify what kind of ordinance is envisioned. Please feel free to contact Mr. Robert Conner, of this office, if you have additional questions. Very truly yours, Vernon L. Cline ex officio Chief Engineer Y - T. E: Burlingame Assistant Public Works Director Flood Control Planning • RSC:sh EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 11500 SKYLINE BOULEVARD,OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA 94619'TELEPHONE (415) 531-9300 BOARD OF DIRECTORS JOHN 1.LEAVI'".F11L 1; MARY LEE JEFFERDS.V,.Flnit•ne; PAUL J.BADGER.Ssamry; WILLIAM F.JAROIN.Trusurer;FRED C.BLUMBERG.HOWARD L.COGSWELL.CLYDE R.WOOLRIDGE • RICHARD C.TRUDEAU.Gwwrsl MsnaW 20 July 1976 Mr. Arnold B. Jonas Chief, Environmental Assessment Contra Costa County Planning Department P.O. Box 951 Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Jonas: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Son Ramon Valley General Plan Review. We have no comment an the DEIR itself; however, we would suggest that you add Camp Parks Regional Land Bank, a 445-acre park, to your discussion of Parks and Recreation on page 11 of the DEIR. You might consider changing the classification of Gump Parks Regional Recreation Area to Regional Land Bank on page 74 of the (general Plan Draft Proposal dated March 1976, • and include it on the.Plan itself. Should you need additional information, please call this office at (415) 531-9300. Since ely yours, Peter Koos Landscape Architect Planning and Design Department . C, ;Z cc: Lew Crutcher _ Bill Bettencourt - '`• , 4 • Association of Bay Area Governments Hotel Claremont Berkeley,California 94705 • (415)841-9730 August 3, 1976 Mr. Anthony A. Dehaesus Director of Planning Contra Costa County County Administration Building, North Wing P. 0. Box 951 - Martinez, California 94553 Re: Draft EIR - Greater San Ramon General Plan Revision Deas D� De sus: � Thank you for encouraging ABAG to caiment an the DEIR for the Greater San Ramon General Plan Revision. The following connents are addressed to the adequacy of the DEIR with particular emphasis on regionally significant impacts. Such information will aid staff at a later date in reviewing Federal grant applications for projects (highway improve- ments, etc.) associated with the growth to be accoennodated by the plan. • The comments provided are those of staff and ought not to be construed as policy actions of the Association with respect to the proposed plan. The DEIR does not evidence a sufficient commitment to the implewntation of mAasures to mitigate the adverse regional inpacts of the proposedan. As candidly indicated in the DhiR (p.56-57) , some of the impacts of the proposed action are: "1. Little or no provision for low- to moderate-inccme housing. 2. A relatively high ratio of in-commute for workers in the Planning Area and out-ca=e of the residents. This is an inefficient use of transportation facilities. 3.- Encouragement of diffuse development - low density development and high utilization of the land. 4. Reduction of the land uses which employ the largest number of workers (i.e. industrial or manufacturing). S. Contribution to high taxes--low density uses cost more per mit to provide urban services. 6. High canstIIrintioz of renewable and non-renewable resources." • Staff recognizes that with respect to the above concerns, the proposed plan revision w uld not have as severe adverse effects as existing plans for the Greater San Ramon Valley area. Staff feels, however, that the proposed plan revision, while noteworthy, has not gone far enough to rd-tigate the adverse regional impacts of cmtinued sp�1'�,CJAVOlap�lent Representing City and County Governments in the San Francisctf Bay'brea Page Two Mr. Anthony A. Dehaesus August 3, 1976 On a regional level, it is important for the plan revision, which is finally approved, to mitigate these impacts since projects developed under a plan with substantially adverse regional impacts may be found to be inconsistent with regional policies. This may result in a denial of Federal funding for grant applications associated with the project. Such policies from ABAG's standpoint call for City Centered develop- ment, reduction of home to work cammoting, provision in each community of the maxirmnn number of horsing choices in terms of price, etc. (see attached). In the same vein, staff feels that it is inaccurate and misleading for the DEIR to refer to many of the adverse impacts identified as "unavoid- able" (pp. 59-61). As indicated in the DEIR, there are public actions udluch may be taker. in the context of the plan revision itself which could- significantly ouldsignificantly reduce the adverse' imaacts identified. An example of such a public actian would be the multi-family residential density alternative described on page 64 of the DEIR. In lieu of much of the lo<•: density single-family land use pattern called for by the proposed plan, this alternative would allow for higher density multi-family development. As indicated below, such an alternative is likely to raise fewer regional policy conflicts. From an energy conservatism standpoint, as indicated in the DEIR, 'Multiple ramily units require Less energy single-fai£sly homes because the amount of energy required for space conditioning is decreased." From a trans ortation standpoint, again, as indicated in the DEIR (page 64) transportation impacts Csuig the need for more roads in outlying areas) will be reduced with multiple family land uses." .. . the Plan could be altered to include higher densities which would encourage the development of moss transit" (p. 62). From an economic standpoint, the recent decline in the birth rate in conjunction witn skyrocketing suburban housing costs as well as other factors, presages a shift in housing market demand to multifamily housing. Higher- density housing will have a Joker unit cost than the single family detached unit thereby increasing the possibility that lower salaried Valley workers will be able to live in the Greater San Raman Valley area. This applies to both existing and future Valley workers as well as Valley children who will be entering the labor force in the future as adults. Such lower priced housing would also be desirable frau a social equity standpoint. From an air LU!LI—ty standpoint, were this to occur, the vehicle miles Crave a associate wZ "the high ratio of incol=ting for • workers" (p. 56) , could be reduced and mobile source air pollution decreased in the Greater San Ramon Valley where "the topographic and meteorological characteristics are such that conditions as serious and objectionable as those in the Los Angeles Basin could occur." (p. 57) Page Three • Mr. Anthony A. Dehaesus August 3, 197/6 From a fiscal standpoint, a variety of public services (school bussing, utilities, roads, etc. could be provided more cost effectively with higher density development. As indicated in the DEIR, "Other things being equal, this alternative would tend to reduce the pressures upon the school system because of the smaller family size associated with multiple family units." Accordingly, bedro= and other taxes are not likely to be as great. From a land resources standpoint, greater "Open space" for a variety of non-urbanize uses would remain intact with multifamily housing, thereby offering greater possibilities that visual and recreational amenities as well as the agricultural land uses associated with a rural envircranent can be maintained. Conclusion In summarizing, although the DEIR appears to accurately identify adverse regional impacts, staff takes issue with the characterization of these impacts as "unavoidable". Staff therefore feels that the mitigation measures proposed could be expanded upon. Before Federal and. State agencies fiord various projects developed under the plan, (transportation • improvements, etc.) , plan alternatives and measures to mitigate adverse regional impacts ought to receive full consideration. We appreciate the opportunity to camnt on this plan revision of both local and regional significance. We hope the comments we have raised will be considered. Sincerely, John H. D f rector Planning and Programming ��r�� x•6,4 � . a SPARTMENT OF THE ARMY . , `� •., SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS t 211 MAIN STREET SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 9410S SPNED-E 22 July 1976 t� C- Mr. Arnold B. Jonas 1- ' C i Planning Department m - County Administration Building North Wing P.O. Box 951 Ln Martinez, California 94553 _ �•' tea.. Dear Mr. Jonas: Reference is made to your letter of 25 June 1976 forwarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report for San Ramon Valley General Plan Review. ■� The proposed activity does not appear to conflict with any current or anticipated projects, plans, or studies of this District. , Upon subsequent development of the project area, it is expected that more specific EIR's will be prepared. This District would be interested in reviewing these subsequent reports. This office appreciates the opportunity to review your report and we have no further comment at this time. Sincerely yours, !' r H. E. PAPE, JR. Chief, Engineering Division *,r 4 �40%-UTI04, �`� IC � m !►��' y - x4 SPO SAN RAMON VALLEY GENERAL PLAN REVISION RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD Comments were received on August 18, 1976 from the Air Resources Board of the State of California. This document should be considered with the previous response document of August 13, 1976 as part of the final EIR for the San Ramon Valley General Plan Revision. Comment: The Air Resources Board suggests that a quantitative descrip- tion of the existing air quality in the Planning Area be developed. Response: This subject was discussed in a previous comment and response (August 13, 1976), which is quoted below from page 5: "Comment: 3. The EIR should single out air pollution as an important concern. An air pollution plan should be prepared for the valley. • Response: One and one-half years ago a proposal was developed to do a joint study between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties under the direction of the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District. This project was not implemented because of a lack of funding. The BAAPCD was to place a monitoring station in the San Ramon Valley in 1975; this too was dropped. The request in the comment above will not be possible until these two projects are developed. There are, however, parking manage- ment plans under consideration which should reduce air pollution within the Valley." The BAAPCD was asked several years ago if there was enough data to develop a reliable description of the air quality of the area. They felt that because of the physical nature of the San Ramon Valley, there were too many variables to account for. The numerous side valleys and the presence of Mt. Diablo greatly complicates any analysis of area or regional air quality. This is why the aforementioned project was proposed. It is posible that renewed effort to implement the joint two-county study would yield sufficient interest to secure funding. •State,of California . dMe`morandum To : 1 . L. Frank Goodson D • Projects Coordinator ore August Il , 1976 Resources Agency Subject: r- dit EIR for 2. Contra Costa County jan Ramon Valley P.O. Box 951 , General Plan Review Ccrtra Costa County Martinez, CA 94553 SCh. No. 76071209 From Air Resources Board The proposed project is a revision of previously adopted :neral plans for San Ramon Valley Planning Area. Under the proposed plan, it is projected the population in the planning area could increase from 41,000 in 1975 to 80,000 in 1990. We commend the county staff for a generally well-written and objective environmental impact report (EIR) . We do have several suggestions, however, which we feel will considerably strengthen the value of the air quality analysis and provide the decision makers with the kind of information ` that wifl* permit fully-informed decisions. 1 . There should be a quantitative description of existing air quality in the Planning Area. Data from monitoring stations located at Walnut Creek and Livermore should provide a relatively good indication of the air quality in the San Ramon Valley. The • monitoring data provided should be for a period of at least 3 years to provide a clearer indication of trends. For a more _complete description of information and data needed in an ade- quate air quality analysis, see a recently developed Air Resources Board document: "Suggestions for Improved Air Quality Analysis in Environmental Impact Reports," April 21 , 1976. 2. Since projected land uses could have a direct impact on air quality, there should be a quantification of emissions associated with the land uses as envisioned in the Plan. In addition to emissions directly attributable to the land use activity, additional emissions from increased traffic flows induced by the land use activity should be quantified. For assistance in quantifying emissions from stationary and mobile sources, see a recently developed ARB document, "Emissions and Air Quality Assessment," April 1976. We would like to respond in a more general vein to a statement on page 57 that ". . . there is no direct way the citizens of a community can effectuate means of reducing emissions from stationary or moving sources _ within their appropriate areas of interest . . . ." We submit there are »' actiAns citizens can take to effect a reduction in emissions. For example, • GOVERNOR'S OFFICE _ OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH .l 1400 TENTH STREET 1, • aSACRAMENTO 95814 Luc AN EDMUND G. BROWN JR. GOVERNOR August 16, 1976 Mr . Arnold B. Jonas , Chief Environmental Assessment Contra Costa County Planning Department P.O. Box 951 Martinez , CA 94553 SUBJECT: SCH# 76071209 - DRAFT EIR FOR SAN RAIMON VALLEY GENERAL PLAN REVIEW Dear Mr.. Jonas : This is to certify that State review of your environmental document is complete. The results of the State review are attached. You should respond to the comments as required by the California Environ- mental Quality Act . You should- address your responses to the commenting agency with a copy to the Clearinghouse. Sincerely, William G . Kirkham Division Chief State Clearinghouse -- WGK/mcd Attachment (s) cc : Mary Schell , State Library William Lockett, ARB Response to Comments -2- *' Comment: The Air Resources Board suggests that air quality impacts should be projected by.land use as proposed in the plan, and that a mobile source study be done as well. Response: Such studies would be costly and time consuming; neither of which are realistically surmountable obstacles. Without the base studies discussed above, the information would be highly questionable and only marginally reliable. Comment: The Air Resources Board disagrees with the draft EIR state- ment to the effect that there is no direct way which citizens of a community can reduce pollutant emissions. Response: The statement should probably have read "significant means." What was intended was a major contribution to increased-air quality. The second portion of the comment refers to the citizens' ability to effectuate changes through influencing the decision makers. There may be examples of this working in a positive fashion with the purpose of reducing air emissions. To some extent the revised pian does this by reducing the areas of land use which contribute to more population.- Ultimately, this proposed plan gave the citizens just that opportunity--they chose to use it to the extent observable within the plan. Further, alterations to the proposed plan can be anticipated through the public hearing process. Comment: The Air Resources Board states the following: "The decision makers need to carefully evaluate such a plan and weigh potential impacts against the need for actions that will serve to reduce health damaging levels of air pollutants." Response: The staffis,in essential agreement with the comment. C.C.C.P.D. August 26, 1976 . .Mt.I.Goodson , Contra Costa County -2- - August 11 , 1976 Io citizens can consciously limit numbers of automobile trips made, numbers of single occupant auto trips, and when possible, use mass transit. How- ever, a more effective means for effecting reductions in emissions is through influence brought to bear on decision makers. Citizen opposition to land use patterns that force dependency on the automobile and that encourage single occupant trips can be effective in moving decision makers to consider alternative forms of work-living-shopping land use relationships. i Because the Planning Area is already experiencing significant air quality problems, we question the advisability of moving forward with approving plans that would serve to permit development of a nature (low, density automobile dependent) that indirectly generates more pollutants. The decision makers need to carefully evaluate such a plan and weigh potential impacts against the need for actions that will serve to reduce health damag.ing levels of air pollutants. We hope the above comments are helpful . We are submitting ` under separat-e_Cover the documents referenced in the comments above. William C. Lockett, Chief Planning Division cc: W. H. Lewis, Jr. M. Nichols J. Ryerson a 07 RECEIVJED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FEB A6 19 PLANNING DEPARTMENT J. R. olssor4 CLE BOARD Of SUPER CONT TA C B TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: February 16, 1977 Attn. : Clerk of Board FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesus SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment Director of Planni San Ramon Valley (S.D. III and V) Attached is Planning Commission Resolution No. 73-1976, adopted by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, November 30, 1976, by a vote of 5 AYES - 2 ABSENT (Jack Stoddard and Albert R. Compaglia). This General Plan Amendment was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 27, August 17, September 7, and October 12, 1976, and was approved on October 12, 1976 by a unanimous vote with all commissioners being present. The proposed amendment is directed toward revising the General Pian elements as they pertain to the San Ramon Valley. Those on the attached sheet should be notified of your Board's hearing date and time. AAD:ld Attachments: Resolution, Staff Reports, Proposed General Plan, Maps, Minutes cc: Dept. File - San Ramon Valley General Plan Supervisors, Districts I, II, III, IV, V Etcicrofilmed ,with bcard order -� 0 RESOLUTION NO. 73-1976 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN IN THE SAN RAMON VALLEY AREA. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, in adopting the Open Space- Conservation Elements of the General Plan in 1973, instructed the Planning Commission to initiate a review of the General Plan as it applies to San Ramon Valley; and WHEREAS, in May of 1974, a Citizens Committee to review the General Plan for San Ramon Valley was established; and WHEREAS, the Citizens Committee, after a two year review, produced a proposed amendment to General Plan for San Ramon Valley which was given wide distribution in the area; and WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the General Plan amendment; and WHEREAS, notice therefore had been lawfully given, public hearings before the Planning Commission on the proposed General Plan amendment took place on July 27, 1976, August 17, 1976, September 7, 1976; and WHEREAS, notice therefore had been lawfully given, a public hearing on the EIR took place on July 27, 1976 following which the hearing was closed; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 1976, the Planning Commission, on a field trip, viewed the areas of San Ramon Valley in question as a result of testimony received at the public hearings; and WHEREAS, on October 12, 1976, the Planning Commission held a closed hearing to consider the proposed General Plan amendment; and Microfilmed .:ith board order (RESOLUTION NO. 73-1976) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having fully considered the proposed amendment to the General Plan and all the testimony received at the public hearings; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having fully considered all the questions raised concerning the draft EIR and the responses prepared by the staff to these questions; and now therefore BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors approval of the "San Ramon Valley Area General Plan amendment to the County General Plan including both maps and text, reflecting changes in the amendment as prepared by the Citizens Committee, as referenced in this resolution and made a part hereof; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission certifies that the draft EIR together with the responses as being adequate and that the changes in the proposed general plan amendment serve to mitigate the concerns and questions raised during the hearing process; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission adopts the changes in the Draft Plan referenced in the staff report dated August 31 , 1976, the supplemental staff report dated September 21 , 1976, inserting specified lan- guage regarding the southeast corner of Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Ramon, and hereby also instructs taff to make appropriate editorial text changes; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following maps are approved and hereby made a part of this resolution: Map A. "San Ramon Valley Area General Plan" dated October 12, 1976 drawn to a scale of 1" = 2000' . Map B. "Proposed Alamo General Plan" dated October 12, 1976 drawn to a scale of 1" = 300' . -2- • (RESOLUTION NO. 73-1976) Map C. "Proposed Danville General Plan" dated October 12, 1976 drawn to a scale of 1" = 300' . Map D. "Proposed San Ramon Townsite General Plan" dated October 12, 1976 drawn to a scale of 1 " = 300' . Map E. "Proposed San Ramon General Plan" dated October 12, 1976 drawn to a scale of 1 " = 300' . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a hearing draft, including the changes referenced above, be prepared by staff and forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and that all other written and graphic material developed for and pertaining to these proceedings are made part of this record; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and Secretary of this Planning Commission shall respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors all in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Laws of the State of California. An instruction by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution incorporating the above and aforementioned was given by motion of the Planning Commission at a regular meeting on Tuesday, October 12, 1976 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Jeha, Young, Stoddard, Compaglia, Anderson Walton, Milano. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. I, William L. Milano, Chairman of the Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the fore- going was duly called and held in accordance with the law on Tuesday, November 30th, 1976 and that this resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the following vote of the Planning Commission: -3- j 0 (RESOLUTION NO. 73-1976) AYES: Commissioners - Jeha, Young, Anderson, Watton, Milano. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - Compaglia, Stoddard. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. ^Chairman of the PlaKning Commission of the County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: RECEIVED ,�agy o the Plan ng Commissioji of the f Contra Cos State of California FEB /6 1977 J. R. OLSSON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Z4CON.TR STA Co. -4- F . f-J t 2 t/-t-4GGm -� t Y—G1:N-t;I�A1, 1 IatN 1'lri:�� pr•opmcrl arnendmcn ?w---� �, r-� -G4ener_a ' 1n.__ rc San Ramon alley Area Gcneral Plan encompasses approximately 112 square miles, generally bounded on the west and south_by the J" Alameda County line, on the north by the City of Walnut Creek and on the east by Morgan Territory Road. This is a coin pre]iensive revision of the County. General Plan including changes to all the State mandated general plan elements. U. U. u3 a11aw of J lbbuc. G. H. Kissin Valley Action Forum P.O. Box 1022 215 Loch Lomond Way Attn: E. B. Cooper Danville, CA 94526 Danville, CA 94526 P.O. Box 993 Danville, CA 94526 San Ramon Homeowners Assn. I Rick Olsen Box Bill Meder 835 E1 Cerro Blvd. Sann�Ramon,4CA 94583 3767 Via Granada Moraga, CA 94556 Danville, CA 94526 Peter Cole Jensen, Inc. Donald Lawrie P.O. Box 553 P.O. Box 806 Danville, CA 94526 Danville, CA 94526 ! , Shaste Beverages Jerry P. Loving H. & W. Engineering Con . 26901 Industrial Blvd. 1200 Mt. Diablo Blvd. 156 Timberline Ct. Hayward, CA 94545 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 r Danville , CA 94526 Atten: B. E. Huddleston Sunny Glen Adult Community ! Fred Se7inger F. V. Kresre 9000 Graydon Circle 21 Adair Ct. 22101 Redwood Rd . San Ramon, CA 94583 Danville, CA 94526 Castro Valley , CA 94546 Atten: Herbert Newkirk San Ramon Valley Community Chris Burford Mary u ad ro s Plan Committee P.O. Box 5168 3202 335th Ave. P.O. Box 902 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Oakland , CA 94619 Danville, CA 94526 Wm. Struthers Mr. Tim Lokkesmoe Robert Hoster 1789 Fourth St. G. L. Lewis Co. 229 Aptos P1 . Livermore, CA 94550 1200 Mt. Diablo Blvd. - 1 Danville, CA 94526 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Robert V. Read � Roundhill Homeowners Assoc. Dennis W. Ball 169 Front St. i Daniel J. McNamara 400 Erselia Trail { Danville, CA 94526 260 Bolla Ave. Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Laurence A. Harper Claudette Lucey 52 Oakwood Road ; 95 Stephanie Lane Orinda, CA 94563 Alamo, CA 94507 L. A. Davidson Blackhawk Dev. Co. 4787 Norris Canyon Road ; Attn: Owen Schwaderer P.O. Box 807 San Ramon, CA 94583 r Danville, CA 94526 f 0 0(Y-11(I ; Fred Schmid Sycamore Tassajara 14 Adair Ct. Investment Co.. Danville, CA 94526 Attn: William Sage 1301 Ygnacio Valley Road Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Robert J. Arrigoni Lawrence W. O'Brien j William 0. Maddau 626 Bridgewater Circle 132 Vista Drive i 9 Via Cerrada Danville, CA 94526 i Danville, CA 94526 • Alamo, CA 94507 4 M. Christopher DerickRichard S. Olson Gordon C. George 24 Mira Loma Lane 1250 Country Drive 23 Mary Ct. Danville, CA 94526 Pleasanton, CA 94566 '; Danville, CA 94526 i i George C. Filice Thomas E. Randlett Brad Hirst 117 Montair Drive645 Morninghome Road 3014 Lakeshore Ave. Danville, CA 94526 Danville, CA 94526 Oakland, CA 94610 I . James D. Graham Robert T. Raymond R. S. Bloss 605 Park Hill Road 1707 Las Trampas Road 1490 Laurenita Way Danville, CA 94526Alamo, CA 94507 j Alamo, CA 94507 Lloyd M. Ives Mrs. Betty Roberts Jack Weightman 1761 Calle Arroyo 292 Smith Road 196 E. Linda Mesa Diablo, CA 94528 Danville, CA 94526 Danville, CA 94526 � I Mr. Harold W. Smith Pete Jensen Richard F. KeefeP.O. Box 367 P.O. Box 553 72 Dubost Court Diablo, CA 94528 Danville, CA 94526 San Ramon, CA 94526 Charles W. Lowell Mrs. Janet B. Swope R. E. Towery P.O. Box 298 2100 Mt. Diablo Blvd. 355 Cliffside Drive Diablo, CA 94528 Danville, CA 94526 Danville, CA 94526 f • i Engineering Science Inc. John W. May Mr. Howard Wiedemann ` 9 9 867 Danville Blvd. 3686 Norris Canyon Road i William 0. Maddaus Danville, CA 94526 San Ramon, CA 94583 600 Bancroft Way Berkeley, CA 94710 Hap Magee Patrick Whittle Alamo Improvement Assn. 1025 LaGonda Way ' 176 Watermann Circle P.O. Box 271 Danville, CA 94526Danville, CA 94526 Alamo, CA 94507 Mrs. Beverly J. Messineo Mr. Dan C. Helix Assn. for the Preservation 9791 Broadmore Drive 3430 El Monte Dr. of Danville Blvd. San Ramon, CA 94583 Concord, CA 94519 P.O. Box 334 Alamo, CA 94507 - , - A Mrs. Linda A. Moody Boise Cascade Corp. City of Walnut Creek P.O. Box 635 P.O. Box 101 1445 Civic Drive Diablo, CA 94528 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Attn: J. W. Steffen • I Gelderman Inc. Shapell Industries Edmund G. Thiede Goo San Ramon Valley Blvd. � 1287 Lawrence Station R 138 Megan Ct. Lanville, CA 94526 Sunnyvale , CA 94086 Alamo , CA 94507 Atten: Roy L. Towers 1 Madeline Hewitson Better Homes Realty Stanley C. Lord 31 Sara Lane 3146 Danville Blvd . 79- Mariposa Ct. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 j Al amo, CA 94507 �: Danville, CA 94526 Louis F. Plummer L. B. Nelson Corp: Barbara Hahn 161 Bolla Ave. Robert B. Friedman 18 Winding Glen Alamo, CA 94507 f 64 Willow Place Danville, CA 94526 Menlo Park , CA 94025 Charles E. Suter 1 Wilbur Duberstei n ; John Boscarel l o 184 Vernal Dr. 45 Quail Ct . P.O. Box 257 Alamo, CA 94507 Walnut Creek , CA 94596 San Ramon, CA 94583 Mrs. Phil Fay � Wm. W. Foskett j Wm. V . Cardinale 4U0 Vernal lir. 100 Vernal Dr. 1020 El Canitan Dr. A-amo, CA 94507 Al amo, CA 1 Danville., CA 94526 . j Judy Hole Lawrence A. Harper Ray Peters 209 Vernal Dr. 52 Oakwood Rd. 3190 Old Tunnel Rd . Alamo, CA 94507 Ori nda, CA 94563 Lafayette, CA 94549 i Tne Alison co. J . L. Hirsch James Lyndon Henderson 4440 Van xarman 300 Diablo Rd. 1055 Ina Dr. Newport Beach, CA 02660 Danville, CA 94526 ! Alamo , CA 94507 Atten: Walter Hann j r{ ' I The Alison Co. i Carole Ryan 10960 Wilshire Blvd. j 122 Erselia Trail Suite 2100 Alamo , CA 94507 Los Angeles , CA 90024 I Don Atherton Wm. W. Morison -Doris Joule P . O. Box 3 40 Jennifer Lane 76 Bunce Meadows Dr. Orinda , CA 94563 ! Alamo , CA 94507 Alamo , CA 94507 Robert H. Falk Joseph R. Barber A. D. Hachquet P. O. Box 432 146 Diablo Rd. 35850 Fremond Blvd . D rville, CA 94526 Danville, CA 94526 Fremont, CA 94536 . T. W. Oiilson , D. V.M. Z. H. Anderson Gary Green 312 Camino Ramon Rd. 1151 Livorni Rd 125 Bunce Me dd Danville , CA 94526 Alamo , CA 9507' Alamo , CA 958s Vz4F Valley Action Forum PO BOX 993 DANVILLE.CALIFORNIA 91526 August 31, 1976 RECEIVED Mr. Andrew Your,*, Chairman, SEP 10 1976 Contra Costa Planning Commission, 651 Pine Street, Martinez California R. oLssonl CLERK ARD OF SUPERVISORS OSTA CO. B .... . . _ ..Deu Dear Mr. Youu->rr, After several months of study --:nd discussion, the Valley Action Forum at their August 25th, 1976 meeting, passed the enclosed resolution concerninf; the proposed General Plan for the San Ramon Valley. 1-e hope that our comments and suggestions will be helpful to the Planning Commission in their considerations for adoption of the final General Plan. Sincerely, E.B. lioope J President enc. cc: Anthony dellaesus Jim Cutler James P. Kenny Eric Hasseltine .Q. � '0; 7 Vz4F Valley Action Forum PO BOX993 DANVILLE,CALIFORNIA 94526 Be it resolved that the Valley Action Forum has reviewed the draft :;proposal general plan and environmental impact report. We find that the proposed plan is a major improvement over the previous plan, and as such, support it. 'r:c have, however,several general comments and concerns about the plan, discussed below, which require attention: A. The projected maxirmim growth to 80,000 residents by 1990 will have a strong negative impact on the lifestyle and quality of life in the valley. An increase in population of 40,000 people in 15 years is so rapid that it will have major detrimental. effects. Many of the present valley problems, especially in schools and Praxes, are clearly a consequence of the need for rapid expansion of facilities to handle the increasing population. To reduce the magnitude of the problem we request the following changes to the proposed general plan. (1) There is presently no development east of the lower Dougherty Hills and the seismic stability of the land is uncertain. Conscquently the discussion of the Special Concern Area 2, page 29, should include the statement: The inner valley should not be developed before 1990. (2) Much of the area shotm as low density development in the general plan map should be changed to Country Estate. Parti- cular areas include Special Concern Area 1 (Sycamore Valley) and lower hills and ridges which have not been zoned as open space. B. The valley is dominated by hills and ridges. The general plan describes several major ridges, but Map 8, pafie 44, which describes these rid,ges is not detailed enough to designate clearly the boundaries of the protected areas and appears to ignore many minor ridges which have significant visual impacts on the valley. A more detailed map should be prepared and published for comments. C. There is no discussion within the Goals and O,i( c Ives section, page 10, of air quality and other vital areas of public health and safety. As a consequence, these areas are not given the importance they require. 'Ibe general goals :;mould include the following state- ment: "To protect and enhance the public health, safety and welfare." In addition, a subsection should he added discussing such items as air quality, noise pollution, seismic safety, flood control, and so forth. D. We find it shocking that so mulch development h..s been per- mitted in the absence of an adequrte study of air pollution and that there is so little discussion of the problem in the proposed plan. We doubt that the valley can support 130,000 residents and maintain satisfactory air quality. Indeed, the present air quality GL:4z;� is marfTinal. A .specific section on air pollution shorild be incl,ided as one of the general plan elements. This section -should identify the nature of the problem, detail what is known, and outline the action required I.o handle the problem. In addition, the Policies and Ordinances should include a section on air quality. E. A general plan, no matter how good, cannot be satisfactorily implemented in the absence of strong ordinances. The general plan should require the immediate prep—,ration of ordinances import: nt to the success of the plan. pian Rn G ; ra1. Ply. Decision Due m , Mr , iei�Mtwera .ae,>��ire it��•: �� ; cow aai pian 0 for ft&ai70%W ltaaw 1Tai� .µ ilu �o"'/w°r: 70 gra a dKi- a�y d..M rM -MiatrrelMtlireiar� preri c alie�riM '.isir[M�.r .r.�►WKVW�r .�a� t� Awa w �e r+ qtr �• K i��r��r' . at taw ILL—i -N AIL— taa�Mi Ite wheiMr a. lame arae Mf ,} camas V ��uir$r A Y ova bmw at. a d in ft K" � is Vie: ge�� ri i1�eYriiieiaadait�iieirf+MMM �t�f �u�t a[� z P4ed BRYW��it� 'rMf art Cam" caNna wcW fdke- -------------- TiME tl41�' ---Bum rep e- prior ba !� �� r-..c '♦ .,{ i ) !, "r inn 3 +r r Thum . 9 1)x76 r Yowl* No SY s -r..nary ��'+ r ; �" �x'.� }raa.:. �I �z•: vi tvrU a..-"h�3 ''sd e ? .._ •' � � . ?�Y.F k.41 lay �tLa°�`..^JF. d •"+�u.,c�+�'j m""r� � '"Y .�Lvu"1;,. by ';,."y k1 -w s fl'�Ar:rvY f .4 y «• r ANGEM ( ) — ate:..! b3;v b a t 1 dttet Ye *w is no t d� aW for ' paW r E. Tap* Carr ; _. that Le Mr at1�cMDr _ ha�:�rt Ind time- Nr reM a t,i1� Alla . F _. . /�RZ. 7 A� pyo P Q •` YO. -.W i Mr. akwu � h7ildak , that he was adv S�ci ! E J ws; and um Jw1R ,. to :whWa the - - man .r r ision .0sRev S n County Land Revisions in the new general plan for the 112. the latter's *year-old cheat akewly bas:.';been square-mile southeastern quarter of Contra Costa waiting for a.dedsion durmg,tbrpe:years.®f:pi*., County were requested by a score of speakers from regarding other propeetnes+'gym'' the county planning commission at a heavily attend- ala AdI o d that their-IMA be taken ovL d the ed public bearing last night in Martinez. "general open space" icb dre" The beating will be continued Sept. 7, also in general pin stipulates for wet tile' Ili ,"NO Martinez. miles. It allm a*b Ift home five accts: The, major dispute between residents on one �� of Boned hand, and property owners and would-be developers low density ane* to aM 10,lots at►aaglwg .0 as the other, is bow far south of Danville should acres each to be- dleve ei ft—me itrw's -21&Wre commercial zoning extend along San Ramon Valley bolding i ad.above ilio 9W"Cwse Road, especially at its intersection with Sycamore and 46-borne devdopmsat ; Valley Contiguous sutgle�famiL home owner groups 975 :hft acres-.to agriculture prase CatElemm.Htp Ape, . rvt aae; 'asted want a Wt new to business rezonmgs, their "coW1tY estate" .28" fat ,_:a> R.t' ll6j . spokesmen argued, citing the wisdom of the existing holding be.RM',with-s. brattier, Jerome. "W tb the general plan. Moderates, including some planning beef bitW the way it is,.,and nonr4lMr commissioners, apparently favor a compromise you've abort @A va.".ort ofd s iI` '" he said. which would limit growth to another 12 acres. The Twoeovpha,` dW-%JAW2 lis mdthe San Ramon Valley Citizens Planning Committee BnseCt-I eINI.k- IM F ars s errated b9 the open d . favors adding 17 acres, a view backed by developers spaceea IN es they bought Acres ut l� as a :the desirability of buffer land uses. retirement lay . Noting that gra>�t'`leaaes lir�awiniie; the planning staff, recommendingnever paid ilio property tatoe� ani .tot tie: ntnitw>taw ding a measured check of noise and � Mwe' hie'04K *vw criticism from an attomey #pat r>tft*ffl° EIR Report Shows Less Impact Revised SR', Plan---., - B-dUer Valley MA •general plan osewoud visions in the San Ramon - tlttilf4i! was: � oras& MARTINEZ Prn re allow Irreversible envirorn- transit a PW#lhit meatal chap s to occur if implemented, but to a lesser cost- gra a left 000 aN,m de ren tistn the preseat land use plans. 1� 101111 That summarizes the revised plan's draft enviremnee- �Oi° MIaalAr�itilaNa3letr[maty sore_ tal impactsport (EIR) released last week. It cites two as� reasons whys the-new plan would have less Impact: An hwiom Lt . IM The proposed plan projects more land for low densi- and bdustrial we . =t sons 04,a<�atNtMt t*tr ami ti�lr ty, a�gie�family hwmes, thus promoting a rural atmos- air pbe --There is a larger proportion of open space provided t� �a�iaN!il��r left b tie by thereposed plan. tM! pars. thb ire A in, hearing on the EIR,_prepared by the Contra not a Costa County Planning Department,-has been tentatively Tbe_jn- ' t set for J 27. Copies of the EIR are available from the fullywtt woaN ire plimo g department in the county administration build- irate 1tirlli 7= :"" 7r t + Ina."I Pille St. - Bsie�r '"l1 �tri M e e Tbi revised Dian would take the place of theIWT Ala parte a � MO-Vanym am 1101 ban mon The ealstMtt. steer Generalns pro r o rly and helical MAO aeras tO.. growth of an area, while the EIR predicts possible eetflects i#the plan is implemented. plant N The EIS alsofourakemtives to tiepeoposed watee, p a araallttfaf geaerd plan ai� . of aM __ Ey cosaent�resideat uses alsta aag eabblLMrei Aiweserprk tatAe>>QIt; tt don rs (such as Alcoft ; inclNil.'a>�le e Valley Road and Diablo Road), transportation its- ; � ttaMae�lll' plats be red ced. wiwr-tNi raestiat 'ea■ 'ear- hos4-Alm*p"sibility of lower development costs ►' 8011amt vel arY nil to income families to purchase -loend tafiNt*sadMaattt tkit ori :` i tRar area. :+Daae sdwi�M uy rw'1ie e�Maap� n.. _ ar ani fM hal + L:wL.- .. qtr ate , adoptinofastrkta� Mi�+s #[ general,piaaside a�poeat areas, d use of tlMe! a�e�r +M li�swe M tMa $Im Ramon "gal Uliie+oa�a tai as new Irma&, st of win tttgtWt s3- - as ice.to=faaaa.Mtia it;11i-.ieesation iMrtehea> mab+e�aaerr lMs tar int l e and+vir_ Abis, ' ,K a k sMpoi tr atis■s� MW iesli prs�aaetrb -- lftfd !!1M!*".level!!1Matloas. 4 77 ti D AdMIL eW - or all t « { w T+Mt 466iib6iee4 +iii 11Md Wrt eli II wbe .ariwe 'M"'c'thie tieAmm wtilor t�Irk +r iwrt'M itN1tF 4, avow of Castes btaWi�tl itr " r the ixeil: giaKrN �►�i��rMM �w�llt; The s`. Ail dem >lonld he eaeeiri.att 'Yab's:.iAlIr1�/ ti ht Mttk: . ,. .: "er ame z lave ed .*come integrated vw alum !rR ai ttic a lh s M�- f 'uaile5? +wst.ai. and �e ,hlaer ' aree,no t ai11t film Diinstierb►Ailit an am the est the ' i*ow eue; Olsl aml hiitr wfMb 1i l :a w became of their laatiaa and r ^'� ,� "ie ; . is 's thiM area at � F y�� Valiey Rand and Saa Q 1 M!!Oe 1e1�i 1 tht htlls are B01&Va['d t0 a atria, ".they ttt !t « talMEtCw'!t'�MfM de+reloprneut brbg between . .aid t�t .xboMid eerna�a vunbie` �r. .♦W down�'��att4heaertl�er �'� �j.,,.. ,N «MN11iL.4� tvtra 'Datvdhs, k • Y, • R:. t o A low per cent of theliedad .aAt! Me ' a► luted."w MwiaMieiatiiR aiiii :�fit ±fit tom: �'a`t�■�, tht pi+eree�aeiM . ac be- hilar ¢es ! the va tey and aa:act a t ekal ai tratlk A JtM tt fi t1r► ! Cruk;ue emmadat far a s bvriec aide .wwM ,a raIMt re1i ,, drieMr rt�illiri. iueted r The criek demes fhaa tlrte iirrri ila1 �` rwr ,. 3 is its Low doua aM e" ,.. t�111d be Fmtected ty, IRM atalt "arat i%ariimiaaut ictal spe►eti'aiii. at tM '� 1fiM1► �►1! '"� ".� wildlife in, their n♦a� ffi The tur�a�ll{ date 'is canal It thfrty, tR tt M x. roughwl th .. r SAN RAMON VALLEY AREA; GENERAL PLAN A Draft Proposal was Prepared by the San Ramon Valley General Plan Citizen's Committee with the Assistance of the Contra Costa County Planning Department in March 1976 Approved by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on October 12, 1976 FIL ED f�lA 2 4 1977 • K J pf TPERVI R5 COC • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 The Regional Context .2 The Valley Today - 4'' BACKGROUND FOR PLANNING 5 Population Characteristics 5 Economics and Development 6 Land Use and Zoning 6 Transportation 7_. . Community Facilities 7 Physical Resources 9 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 10 THE GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS 16 • Land Use 18 Housing - 30 Circulation 32 Scenic Routes 37 Open Space and Conservation 39 Recreation 44 Public Safety and Seismic Safety 50 Noise 57 Community Facilities 58 Community Design 64 IMPLEMENTATION 66 • TABLE OF MAPS MAP TITLE PAGE 1 Location 3 2 Danville Land Use Plan 23 3 Special Concern Area 1 Plan 27 4 Special Concern Area 2 y 29 5 Circulation Plan - 33 6 Scenic Routes Plan 38 7 Scenic Ridges and Riparian Vegetation 42 8 Recreation Plan 45 9 Trails Plan 48 10 Generalized Slope Steepness 51 11 Earthquake Faults and Seismic Special Study Zones 53 • 12 Flood Zone 3B Planned Improvements, Drainage Zones 63 San Ramon Valley Area General Plan Map Inside Back Cover A draft revision of the San Ramon Valley General Plan was prepared by the San Ramon Valley General Plan Review Citizen's Committee with the assistance of the Contra Costa County Planning Department. The citi- zen's committee includes the following persons: Willima V. Cardinale, Chairman Thomas E. Randlett, Vice Chairman Robert J. Arrigoni Roy S. Bloss M. Christopher Derick George C. Filice James D. Graham Joseph L. Hirsch Lloyd M. Ives Richard Keefe Charles W. Lowell Hap McGee John W. May Beverly J. Messineo Linda A. Moody Lawrence W. O'Brien Richard S. Olson Robert T. Raymond Betty Roberts • Harold W. Smith Janet B. Swope Patrick Whittle Howard Wiedemann s w z r r INTRODUCTION The San Ramon Valley Area has long been considered one of the most desir- able living areas in Contra Costa County and the Bay Area because of its great scenic beauty, good climate, the suburban charm of the neighbor- hoods, and its proximity to the major employment centers of Oakland and San Francisco. Since the 1950's the character of the valley has changed from a rural area with walnut groves and ranches to its present charac- ter of large suburban lots intermixed with walnut grove remnants and pas- ture. A rural feeling is substantially retained by the open and natural character of the highly visible hills, and by the rural tree-lined roads characteristic of the older developed areas, with narrow road pavements lacking curbs, sidewalks, and street lights. It is this "rural view of life" and its implication of low density land uses over major portions of the Planning Area, including a semi-rural neighborhood design and long views to open space, which is essential in preserving the area's present aesthetic qualities. As lovely and desirable as San Ramon Valley is for living and rearing a • family, there are concerns which have become apparent in recent years, most of which are related to the increasing rate of development. This, in itself, is a consequence of the attractiveness of the area and its accessibility to freeways and regional employment centers. Orderly and • appropriate growth in the future requires the provision of adequate fa- cilities and services for new development as well as maintenance of a satisfactory level of facilities and services to all residents. Avoid- ing the overtaxing of facilities is as important as retaining qualities of quiet beauty in planning for a future community which is efficient and liveable. This plan revises and combines the existing General Plans for the area, which include the 1967 Alamo-Danville Plan and the 1971 San Ramon Plan which are parts of the County General Pian. Since those plans were adopted a number of changes have occurred, including State requirements for new General Plan elements, the formation of new regional agencies, revisions of federal and state laws and plans, economic changes, and new trends in residential project proposals. As a result of all these factors, new responsibilities and possibilities for General Plans exist. The broad purposes of this General Plan revision are: - To update and bring together all the various land use elements of the General Plans for the area. - To integrate the special purpose elements into one comprehensive General Pian document. - To integrate zoning and General Pian land use categories. { 1 T • - To relate development proposals to necessary community facilities. - To consider the proposals of regional and state agencies in County government decisions, such as the plans of the East Bay Regional Park District and the State Department of Parks and Recreation. - To analyze trends in residential development and make recommenda- tions for controls on land development. While recognizing the validity of the goals of previous General Plans for the Valley, this revision provides further detail necessary to insure compliance with General Plan provisions in day to day decision making. It should be noted that the projects previously approved were considered as a "given" in the preparation of this Plan. The General Plan revision delineates an approach to growth, development, facilities and other community needs which will enable the Planning Area to develop properly with adequate public services while retaining the natural beauty of the region for the Plan period of fifteen years, to 1990. The Plan consists of maps and text. The maps are useful for orientation and generalized land use statements, but the Plan text must be used for policy guidelines and to understand the concepts relating to suitable types and densities of development, provision of facilities, safety from hazards and environmental protection. • This Plan is part of the County General Plan and is set in the framework of the policies of the countywide General Plan elements, but it concen- trates on the special concerns of the Greater San Ramon Valley area which differentiate it from the County generally. Thus, the plan modi- fies the County General Plan, but is not separate from it. Findings and policies for the subjects discussed in this document are further .explored in the General Plan elements for the County. THE REGIONAL CONTEXT The Planning Area, covering approximately 112 square miles, is an inte- gral part of the county. The Planning Area is somewhat separated physi- cally from the rest of the county, being connected to the central county through one narrow entrance to the north. It opens into the Amador basin to the south in Alameda County. The General Plan reflects coordination with plans and programs for transportation, roads, open space, and urban development within Contra Costa County, with the adjacent City of Walnut Creek, and with the Dublin area to the south. Additionally, the plans and program of special purpose agencies and districts are reflected in the plan, including the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the East Bay Regional Park District, water and sewer service areas, County Service Areas for recreation and open space, and the County Agricultural Preserve program. 2 Concord MAP I LOCATION Mt.Diablo Walnut Creek State Park Oakland and S -, • San Francisco ` LasTram �:�xa`. s;`:...: ri Vit',<.�:r• ,r.::< ..� as P k Morgan Regional Par :: ,`�.. '� a .. :r �. '� to qq Ter r itoryCCO } ParkALAM ��rR CQUNtq COtIN7 MOW N PLANNING AREA ' - ;�• WK COV' COS-1 N MIC •: Y J.i , Hayward interstate 680 �. Livermore :.. .. .. Pleasanton.. THE VALLEY TODAY From its heritage as a Spanish and pioneer ranching region, the San Ramon Valley Area has become a mix of suburban living in and near the central valley with agriculture in the outlying hills and valleys. The predominant development pattern today is one of single family homes on large lots interspersed with orchard remnants and pasture. It is this character which the community desires to retain. The north-south alignment of Interstate 680 through the central valley corridor facilitates convenient commuting access to major employment centers in Hayward, Oakland, and San Francisco. While the freeway is an excellent connector of the valley to outside areas, it also hampers the flow of cross traffic, dividing the east from the west and causing congestion problems near concentrated cross-traffic points. Business districts are oriented around freeway access points in Alamo, Danville, and San Ramon. The area is developed predominately in low density single family resi- dences. Residents tend to have higher incomes and more education than the county median, and include a relatively large number of business and professional persons. Family size is larger than the county average. ' Development patterns in the Planning Area reflect its topography. At the north, rugged Las Trampas Ridge and the Diablo Range foothills separ- ate the Planning Area from central county cities. The valley opens into the Livermore-Amador basin on the south, and to small narrow east-west trending valleys in the eastern foothills. Development has taken place along the central valley and side valleys in the northern Planning Area, and is now continuing southward in the central valley and farther out in the eastern side valleys. Las Trampas Ridge, Mt. Diablo, the highly visible Diablo foothills of the Black Hills, Short Ridge, Sherburne Hills and the Dougherty Hills, and the Wiedemann and Harlan Hill area, are quite steep thus directing development along the valley floors and the lower, more gentle slopes. The future of the Planning Area for the period of this Plan is largely set by existing and approved project areas. Development can take place in the additonal land areas assigned to residential and other urban uses without destroying the suburban and rural charm which is highly valued by the residents. Nevertheless, the community is facing situa- tions which often occur when growth is rapid, as it has been here for over a decade, and where the settlement pattern is primarily one of low density housing. When the capacities of roads, schools, utilities or other facilities become overtaxed, the systems must be improved or expanded. New and innovative means of providing services and facilities may be re- quired to provide a satisfactory level of services and facilities to the entire community. This Plan explores some possible means of achiev- ing the objective of satisfactory facilities and services. The methods selected in each case should not be pre-determined, but should reflect conditions at the time projects are needed. 4 • BACKGROUND FOR PLANNING Six reports were prepared to provide background information as a founda- tion for this Plan. Reports were prepared on population characteristics, economics, land use and zoning, transportation, community facilities, and physical resources; the population report also includes material from the 1975 Countywide Census. The following brief summaries from the back- ground reports indicate the conditions and factors which guided the preparation of this Plan. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS In the 1940's the San Ramon Valley area began a period of rapid growth. From a population of 2,120 in 1940 it more than. doubled' in population to 4,630 in 1950. This marked the beginning of suburban expansion into the Valley. During the 1950's the population tripled to 12,700 and nearly five square miles had been developed for residential use. During this period the first freeway project to affect the valley was completed; the Walnut Creek interchange and Interstate 680 south to Rudgear Road. Dur- ing the 1960's the population doubled again, and it reached 28,090 in 1970. Residential land increased to more than 5,000 acres, or about eight square miles. By 1967 all segments of Interstate 680 were opened and freeway access was available to the entire Planning Area. By 1970 the town of Danville had grown to a thriving community business center employing more than 2,000 persons. From 1970 to the present, growth has continued to be rapid; the 1975 population of the Planning Area was approximately 41 ,000 persons. San Ramon Valley Population Growth 1940-1975 50 40 40,778 v 30 c R o 28,090 p a „ 20 C a. °�— >";�. 12,702 10 4,630 . - Ii:'_Z 2,126 „ s, 2,126 0 1940 1950 Year 1960 1970 1975 01; 5 i • A significant amount of additional development has been approved for the valley. If all of these approved projects proceed they will provide for continued rapid growth during the period of this Plan, so that the pop- ulation of the Valley could approach 80,000 persons by 1990. A number of variables can affect this assumption of maximum growth, including gen- eral economic prosperity, family size, and countywide development poli- cies. If development is planned for a growth rate slower than the maxi- mum provided in the Plan, and/or if families tend to become smaller, the 1990 population may be less than 80,000. Since the area presently at- tracts commuters, the overall amount of growth and the types of neigh- borhoods which are proposed may depend on as yet unknown constraints related to air quality or fuel consumption. In any case, the Plan pro- vides adequate land for projected growth to, and probably beyond, 1990. ECONOMICS AND DEVELOPMENT In 1970 approximately 6,000 jobs existed in the Planning Area for a pop- ulation of over 28,000. In 1974, approximately 8,000 jobs were avail- able in the Planning Area for a population of 36,600. These jobs were filled by both commuters and local residents. A strong commuter pattern is evident in the Planning Area. Clean industry and major regional of- fices can be encouraged in appropriate locations in order to broaden em- ployment opportunities for managerial and technical people in the area and to provide a more balanced tax base. • The development pattern in the Planning Area makes it costly to provide services as compared with a more densely settled and compact type of community. Rapid growth itself makes it difficult for any community to provide capital investment in public facilities without heavy tax bur- dens on the existing residents. Property tax revenues to the County and to the districts and agencies which provide facilities in the Planning Area have risen sharply in recent years as a result of re-assessment, but the cost of providing facilities and services has risen at least as fast, and in some instances has risen more than revenues. LAND USE AND ZONING The 1970 land use inventory for the County indicated over 5,000 acres in residential uses in the Planning Area with 12,650 dwelling units, 700 acres in business and public uses, and over 65,000 acres in open space uses, primarily agriculture. 8y 1974 residential development had oc- cupied an additional 2,000 acres for a total of approximately 7,000 acres. Minor subdivision activity (lot splits) is occuring on the periphery of Alamo and Danville, along Crow Canyon Road, and in the eastern Plan- ning Area particularly along Lawrence Road and Finley Road. In rural areas parcel split activity indicates a conversion trend from agricul- tural to residential . State law requires local zoning ordinances and development projects , to be consistent with the General Plan. Ordinarily the General Plan 6 a{ ea' 1� 11� Qe o�efi��r�Gr afia co�o�'�Q ZQa 4 Az {Gr 5oJfi G`e o �fi a �� Gq' ofi ` � e �' G� k` �' as {`�' 11' aG N e efiae �° �Qa ° ;ire aC�fio,• ,4� a�';�G~{e a` {eas��;�G °fi`' r awe G°�`�ee fi fi r �• fi � a e G '� Q a� �, ell e�~ fide�JG,tofi ae�1 a 4e as a{ �fi J1aQJr{e�{ F,4y �aSPQ'� A1�� :o a{eG��fia�fie• °k ��fi 'o,\°Q Qt ;�e afi' ;�t • fi { 3 fi� �4 -4of 4V{e GQ' Qa e 1fi aJ 'vr be•�e '� ° �a �c,`'' .Gr akQ1a eb �G �r afi a {� a WV O 4° a� -\a �, G Qa afi N 's GaQ ZC �G a tifi J� °1 ��,� yG`o,ya N�, { 'A fi { a { �e G�' 4{��fi ,o° V~ 2 a�' �, QJ C, a N e • • a '� 'ti a G 'c, G J F e 'C. J J G SZ v� a� {1 {� {a 4'� ;�a 14 r Ga 1r 5 Co eG NP ��aaQa�°�^�°� �� rfiK' t°Q �aa�°ore °�� `r° �� ° e�'e� 4 x"46 a to , � e aQ4 1°��o �`��a �'�a1'� a�'� {�, ,y1`o�a,�'c. 4X.; fi'o' a°1fiG red G�"yap ea �a� ° �fi a�' `¢, fi a 41' '°'�{a `Q t��a� � `fie a~ fi�e;�fiQ'� hea o{{ as eefi QoCN �°.�5 �r a,4� �y deb �' �Qt 5 tea{ J G afi a '04a fi© �`L ofi �, r°° �t� � ,G4,` �C:t°'�•\N a, Q, a 1fie � 1a.�.�, eafi �{ fice� 1`'�a�©°� > ;,�g ' r Q{ �r '� y"�+ '�' {� �'�. r g� e{ Jfi �G {� `�`b ea Gr 5c`L e�' �° {�, ofi r� Q a{e y4J Q �G �. Kp e5 r�a�fie,oe a titi'C o,�re�a{�Q{ QJZ Cy` �` o�.ey G�;�°S,toe o V%' Pty{•.G,o�o {e 22. G 'o �.� 'c° fire �C44 Safi �fi e�ea�o Ga1e� ae e Q ya�.�a�• {e �fi0'a,�� { �11� N,.'` o' ea ° xv j4A��°411 o� J°'r�efi e`a 5• o ('01 ��efia eC'a�a �„�J {;� �� 'a �r�eJ afi a{ {�G a�'1 °{ {tea e� or Jfi'c'1`�' yea{�G�c.�aob�fi {�c'�` fie '�'oG"`��k {QG ay'` ayg N C2 .°�1fi��r ��a�fi�re r1fi Q,a{a{ .4 .ofi ea �,° ��• {� Qa �� ° �'4 a� �fi Q o{ o ,�. G 4QF;0 �,ae, e a 'o ea ofi e �r o Nfi ea. a{ r 1 .yy.ti. f1, Fy- ! "'ti'r. �I �� Y^+-vuAl+.A"'-♦ Y"^'�a: !M Y 3.• ._.;�Y 1 �, .�T S.�Y •.. . .. +J S x land use designation defines the maximum development potential in any area, to be modified by environmental constraints, circulation and facilities needs, and ancillary uses such as churches and other uses which are per- mitted under the conforming zoning. TRANSPORTATION Roads in the Planning Area are provided by the State (Interstate 680 and a portion of Mt. Diablo Scenic Highway) and the County. According to the "County Public Works Department Road Deficiency Study, 1968," sev- eral of the major roads in the Planning Area are deficient in structure, alignment, capacity, and/or drainage. There are also congestion points, including downtown Danville. Because of rapid increases in traffic in the years since 1968, an update of this study would find additional road segments used beyond their capacity as defined by Public Works Department criteria. Correcting these deficiencies may be the responsibility of the County, an assessment district, land developers, or may be achieved by other means deemed appropriate at the time improvements take place. Limited public transportation service includes the Sierra Lines commuter bus to the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory in Livermore, and a BART feeder from Interstate 580 in Dublin to the Walnut Creek station. COMMUNITY FACILITIES Although the Planning Area is served by four school districts, virtually all students are in the San Ramon Unified School District, which in 1975 operated eleven elementary schools, two intermediate schools and four high schools. Two major private schools are also located in the Plan- ning Area. No college campuses exist in the valley, but it is served by the County Junior College District's Diablo Valley campus located in Pleasant Hill . Other community services include a library which is part of the Contra Costa County Library system, fire protection provided by eight stations in four fire districts, and police services by the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department and the California Highway Patrol . Private security patrols are maintained in several areas. The nearest hospitals are located in Walnut Creek to the north and Livermore to the south. Outdoor recreation within and near the Planning Area is provided by the State, East Bay Regional Park District, local districts, school districts, private clubs, and homeowners associations. Mt. Diablo State Park and /. Las Trampas Regional Parks provide informal outdoor recreation opportun- ities, but there is a need for local recreation facilities which will be ameliorated by the projects of the Valley Community Services District in the San Ramon area and by Park Service Area R-7 in the Alamo-Danville area. Sewer services are generally located in the central Valley. Some service, has been extended east of the Diablo Country Club and further easterly extensions will be required for the Blackhawk Ranch development. Resi- dents of the Planning Area receive their water from the East Bay Muni- cipal Utility District except for smaller outlying neighborhoods, indivi- dual homes on wells, and ranches. Water service areas generally follow the same boundaries as sewer service areas. Refuse disposal and elec- tricity are available throughout the Planning Area. The following list of agencies which act within the Planning Area is not complete, but does give an idea of the multiplicity of services re- quired to sustain the community. PRIVATE UTILITIES AND SERVICES 1 . Diablo Disposal Service Company 2. Dublin Disposal Service Company 3. Pacific Gas and Electric Company 4. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company 5. Valley Disposal Service Company PUBLIC AGENCIES 1 . Acalanes High School District • 2. Amador Valley Joint Union School District 3. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 4. Contra Costa College District 5. Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District 6. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Flood Zone 3-B, 4 drainage zones 7. Danville Fire Protection District 8. Diablo Community Services District 9. East Bay Municipal Utility District 10. East Bay Regional Park District 11 . Green Valley Recreation and Park District 12. Livermore Valley School District 13. Recreation - See Recreation Section R-5, Danville R-7, San Ramon Valley 14. San Francisco Bay Area Air Pollution Control District 15. San Francisco Bay Area Water Quality Control District 16. San Ramon Fire Protection District 17. San Ramon Unified School District 18. Special Police Services P-2, Danville P-5, Roundhill 19. State Department of Parks and Recreation 20. Tassajara Fire Protection District • 21 . Valley Community Services District 22. Walnut Creek School District 8 • PHYSICAL RESOURCES The pleasant climate, with mild winters and warm, dry summers, attracts people to the Planning Area. The natural beauty of the hills which frame the view and contribute to a rural feeling is also a great attrac- tion. The environment contributes a few problems along with many bene- fits, however--problems characteristic of similar areas throughout the region. These include the natural hazards of landslides, earthquakes, and wildfire, and a tendency to concentrate air pollutants in the valleys, particularly during the sunny days of summer and fall . Much of the scenic beauty of the` Planning Area is attributable to natural vegetation and topography. Stands of oak and bay along streams and roads, oak woodlands and the free-standing old oaks set in grasslands, individual specimens of mature walnut and oak remaining in commercial and residential areas, and the "mosiac" of grass-chaparral woodlands characteristic of the Las Trampas region, contrast with miles of rolling grasslands to the east to create a landscape equal to any in the Bay Area. Mt. Diablo State Park provides a refuge for rare and endangered plants, including the Mt. Diablo manzanita, the Mt. Diablo jewel flower, and the Diablo helianthela. Abundant wildlife can be observed in the Planning Area. Mt. Diablo State Park and Las Trampas Regional Park are safe havens for large deer populations, the Golden Eagle, and many other birds and animals. Las Trampas Ridge, Rocky Ridge, and the Diablo • Range provide habitat areas for the rear Alameda striped racer. Creeks and their riparian vegetation are particularly important in maintaining wildlife populations throughout the Planning Area because they provide water and shelter as well 'as abundant insects and seeds to sustain life. 9 • GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Residents of the Planning Area recognize a community of interest in retaining values presently perceived and in requiring future growth to reinforce and harmonize with these values. The basic goals of the General Plan are: - To reinforce the rural view of life as perceived by area residents. - To couple continued growth in the Planning Area with the ability to provide the facilities necessary to maintain quality of service. - To protect the livability and usefulness of existing development. - To achieve harmony between the area's development and its physical setting. From. these generalized ideals, the following goals and objectives are derived for each of the several elements of the General Plan. Each goal reflects the broad goals for the Planning Area as related to the subject matter of a Plan element. The objectives are means of acheiv- ing the goals by various kinds of decisions over a time period. These • goals and objectives are not absolutes but are ideals which may not be met in every case and their practibility may vary throughout the Plan- ning Area. LAND USE-URBAN GROWTH Goal To provide for a balance in land uses with a development configuration which promotes a distinctive identify and character for each community based on existing community images. Objectives - Encourage the emergence of a suburban pattern in the Planning Area which promotes the individuality and unique character of each com- munity. - Discourage premature or "skip" development which can constitute an undue economic burden on the general public, require extension of facilities, and result in growth pressures in inappropriate areas. - Foster a rate of growth which is coordinated with available commun- ity facilities and public works, and which is compatible with the ability to provide essential services and facilities such as schools, • roads, and flood control works. 10 • - Protect agriculture for a balance in land use, to meet the long- range needs of the County and for resource conservation. - Encourage urban expansion in areas where it will minimize conflicts with the agricultural economy. - Apply appropriate land use controls in potentially hazardous areas, such as on active earthquake fault traces, in order to reduce risks to life and property and to minimize public costs for emergency remedial actions which may be required. - Recognize the implications of suburban growth in the regional set- ting. - Insure that the cost of providing adequate levels of required pub- lic facilities and services to newly developing areas will not be- come an unreasonable burden to existing property owners. LAND USE--RESIDENTIAL Goal To preserve and enhance existing residential areas and provide new resi- dential areas which will complement existing patterns of development. • Objectives - Develop the character of the Planning Area as one of predominantly single family residences, and provide multiple residential units in suitable densities and locations. Offer a range of densities in order to provide for a variety of family sizes, income levels, and age groups. - Protect existing residential areas from intrusions of incompatible land uses and disruptive traffic. - Utilize techniques of land development that protect or enhance the natural landscape. - Decrease development densities on steeper slopes. - Provide the highest residential densities near the existing centers of Alamo, Danville and San Ramon. LAND USE--COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE Goal To provide for commercial districts of appropriate size and location to serve the existing and anticipated future population of the Planning Area, • including adequate circulation and transportation facilities, and to encourage the development of administrative offices to expand employment opportunities. Objectives • - Encourage commercial development for neighborhood and community service and sales businesses. Major regional-scale shopping cen- ters are not considered appropriate. - Establish the limits of business areas, where practical , by the use of boundaries set by creeks, major roads, significant changes in topography, and other physical features in order to avoid conflicts between commercial and nearby residential uses. - Improve existing business areas to create better pedestrian circula- tion, bicycle paths and adequate parking. - Prevent strip commercial development. - Establish design criteria for new and redeveloping commercial areas which will lead to more attractive business areas in order to enhance property values, attract shoppers, and encourage a village-like atmosphere. - Approve small convenience centers in residential land use areas where they would reduce travel time and traffic congestion, and if they can be visually integrated into the area. - Encourage large regional offices in designated areas to enhance local • employment. LAND USE--INDUSTRIAL Goal To provide for the continuing orderly development of research facilities, regional offices, and light industrial uses in order to improve the ec- onmic base and provide local employment. Objectives - Concentrate industrial development in select areas adjacent to exist- ing major transportation corridors and interchanges. - Design employment centers and industrial areas to be harmonious with adjacent development. - Encourage types of industry which employ the skills represented by residents. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES Goal • To preserve open space for agriculture, recreation, public safety, the maintenance of native vegetation, wildlife, and visual quality. 12 • Objectives - Recognize the importance of retaining agriculture in the Planning Area and devise policies to protect agriculture from urban encroach- ment. - Protect significant hilltops and ridges and their visual quality. - Prevent erosion and landslides by appropriate use of engineering techniques, by revegetation and by avoiding development in particu- larly vulnerable areas. - Maintain the natural appearance of hillsides and ridges to the great- est practical extent. - Require drainage improvements which will enhance the natural appear- ance of streams and minimize the man-made characteristics of flood control projects in so far as it is practical and reasonable. - Protect natural tree cover and vegetation to ensure the preservation of the watershed and the natural beauty of the area. Significant trees should be preserved where possible. • - Design development in flood-prone areas to minimize the risk of flood damage in order to protect property and reduce long-term in- surance costs. - Require drainage and flood control rights-of-way to be dedicated for public purposes where the stream is designated in the General Plan for trail use. - Maintain the highest levels of air quality which can reasonably be obtained. - Require individual homes in outlying areas surrounded by unirrigated vegetation to incorporate fire safety features. - Promote policies to protect the rare and endangered plant and ani- mal species of the region. CIRCULATION Goal To provide a multi-modal transportation system which will serve local and through traffic with a minimum of congestion and maximum safety and which will provide adequate access to new development with a minimum of conflict with residential neighborhoods, shopping areas, agriculture and • other land uses. 13 C, Objectives • - Route new arterials around rather than through existing neighborhoods. - Coordinate proposed roads with existing and planned roads of adjoin- ing areas and the State. - Develop roads in hill areas to conform with topography and to mini- mize disturbances to the slopes and natural features of the land. - Reduce dependence on the automobile by construction of a system of bicycle paths and hiking trails to connect community facilities, residential areas, and business districts, as well as to points of interest outside the community. - Encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation, especially transit, to help minimize automobile congestion and air pollution. - Maintain the visual quality of scenic routes. - Allow development only when necessary transportation facilities are in place or committed to be developed. - Prevent the encroachment of unsuitable uses on the railroad right- of-way and encourage the use of this right-of-way for trails where • feasible. COMMUNITY FACILITIES Goal To obtain maximum benefit from existing public facilities and to provide a high quality of public services and cultural and recreational facilities for all residents. Objectives - Develop easily accessible civic, cultural , and recreational facili- ties of a size to serve present and expected future demands. - Promote the development of a system of large and small outdoor recrea- tion areas conveniently located to meet the needs of all segments of the present and future population. - Utilize existing and future public facilities, such as schools, for neighborhood recreation as much as possible. - Utilize publicly owned lands for recreation to the fullest practical extent. - Link local recreation areas to major regional and state parks by • trails. 14 - Preserve areas and buildings of historical significance. - Maintain and upgrade existing public utility, fire, police and all other public services as needed to adequately protect and serve existing and new developments. - Carefully assess the approval of developments in the light of the demands they may place on existing community facilities. COMMUNITY DESIGN Goal To ensure that communities are visually and functionally compatible with the physical character and desired images of the Planning Area. Objectives - Approve buildings in commercial areas which are designed for a low profile appearance and which will contribute to a village-like atmos- phere. - Preserve the visual qualities of the Planning Area by restricting development on significant scenic ridges, and by preserving signifi- cant stands of trees. - Improve the appearance of the community by the elimination of nega- tive elements such as non-conforming signs and overhead utility lines, and by encouraging aesthetically designed screening with ade- quate setbacks and landscaping. - Design public improvements to avoid removing mature trees or other scenie features insofar as it is practical and reasonable. - Protect the visual qualities of designated scenic routes by review- ing projects with respect to their visual impact on the public. 15 THE GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS State law requires local governments to prepare and adopt General Plan elements for land use, housing, circulation, scenic routes, open space, conservation, public safety, seismic safety, and noise. All of these are included in this Plan to the extent that local issues are presented. Optional General Plan elements include recreation, trails, and community facilities and are also included in this revision. Findings and policies regarding problems of countywide distribution are found in the respec- tive County General Plan elements. An additional section on community design is included, because several design concerns are evident and be- cause of the aesthetic sensitivity of the residents. Taken together, the General Plan elements provide for future residential , commercial and industrial development of a suitable type and density, and desig- nate areas where expansion of roads and other community facilities will be required to serve the future population. The elements also delineate areas which should not be developed during the effective period of the Plan, and identify special features, such as significant scenic ridges, which will remain essentially in a natural state in order to preserve visual quality. Since future growth will require new roads, road widen- ing, flood control works, and other costly public projects, it is particu- larly important in the Planning Area to coordinate suburban expansion _ with essential public investment without causing undue increases in property taxes. In these changing times it becomes difficult to pre- • dict the future with a considerable degree of confidence. Therefore, observed changes in the trends assumed in the Plan will lead to review and possible revision of one or more of the Plan elements. State law requires that zoning and subdivisions be consistent with the General Plan. The Interpretive Policies on General Plan-Development Ordinance Conformance, adopted by the Contra Costa County Planning Com- mission in January, 1974, serve as a supplemental reference for deter- mining zoning consistency. This Plan provides considerable acreages of land for the continuing development of the Planning Area. If built out at the mid-range of the densities specified for each residential use category, it would result in more than doubling the 1975 population by 1990, for a total of over 80,000 persons. Some public facilities are presently strained to capa- city because of past growth rates. If this build-out rate of areas designated for development continues, a result could be that neither the community nor the County would be able to provide facilities as rapidly as required to service that growth. Therefore, the Plan encour- ages mechanisms which relate allowable additional development to the pro- vision of facilities and services. By these means new residents will be assured of satisfactory levels of services without unduly burdening Planning Area residents or the County. 16 This Plan provides for balanced growth in that it includes appropriate areas for commercial , office, and industrial expansion. The develop- ment of these areas will improve the tax base and reduce the tax bur- den on residents. It will also provide local jobs for technical and managerial people, thus minimizing the dominant commuter pattern. The Plan will strengthen the Planning Area economy, provide for continued development, protect environmental resources, and preserve scenic beauty. A General Plan consists of maps and text. The Plan Map, found at the back of this document, delineates the location and extent of various land uses. The map alone cannot give the level of detail required in General Plans. Special considerations are discussed in the text per- taining to each element. _ . 17 :',rxr';�,� a LAND USE ELEMENT This section includes a description of the land use proposals shown on the Plan Map. Considerations for providing facilities, avoiding hazards, and other refinements of this basic element are found in the appropriate following sections. The five basic land use types; resi- dential, commercial , industrial, public, and open space, are described by limitations such as extent of land area, densities, and general re- structions designed to avoid inappropriate or conflicting uses. These limitations also determine the extent of needed facilities and services. RESIDENTIAL USES The housing stock in the Planning Area consists mainly of higher priced owner-occupied single family homes. This trend is expected to continue, as reflected in the large land areas assigned to single family resi- dential uses. Multiple family housing units, including townhouses and apartments, are not as large a proportion of the available housing in the Planning Area as in other parts of the County and the Bay Area, yet these types of housing are attractive to retired persons, young mar- rieds, and single parents. The housing trend in the Planning Area is expected to remain the same as in the past, with a predominance of higher- priced, owner-occupied, single family homes. In keeping with the general residential character of the area, the preservation and enhancement of existing single family residential areas is of paramount importance. New residential areas should be compatible with and complement the existing pattern of residential neighborhoods. Residential areas, identified by the density of dwelling units considered appropriate, range from Country Estate to Multiple Family Medium Density. Within each density category variations will occur which reflect topo- graphy, scenic preservation and other features. Single family areas may include a limited number of attached units, where appropriate, yet the area as a whole is not permitted to develop at densities greater than the range specified in this Plan. A present land use concern is the encroachment of non-residential but permitted uses along San Ramon Valley Boulevard, Hartz Avenue and Danville Boulevard. This Plan calls for residential neighborhoods to be developed along these roads and discourages legally permissable non-residential uses, to protect the scenic quality of these roads and the desirabil- ity of nearby residential uses. Another area which warrants special discussion is the southeast cor- ner of Sycamore Valley Boulevard and Camino Ramon. The Plan designates this area as Low Density-Single Family Residential , but recognizes that uses other than single family residences, allowed through the land use permit process, will most probably be the future uses of this area. • 18 i Single Family Residential Country Estate. Minimum lot size 1 acre. Country Estate areas are located in topographically difficult areas and in outlying areas where a large compact population is not appro- priate. As the name and minimum lot size imply, the character of these areas is to be rural . Keeping livestock for pleasure is appropriate in these areas. Lots larger than one acre are desirable and may be re- quired on slopes over 15%, where hazardous conditions are found, or for other reasonable purposes. Existing residential zoning categories of R-40 or larger parcel size are compatible with the County Estate designation. Low Density Single Family Residential . 1 to 3 units per net acre. A major portion of the land designated for residential uses in the Plan- ning Area is assigned to this category. The allowable range of one to three units per net acre provides flexibility in planning projects to reflect topography, proximity to existing development, and the capa- cities of facilities. It is intended that the lower densities occur on steeper land and in outlying areas and that greater densities occur on level land close to commercial districts and major arterials. Densities calculated for Planned Unit Developments will reflect these variations, so that the areas as a whole will be built out at about two units per S net acre. Clustering will be considered to some extent, but will nor- mally consist of clustered detached homes. Attached units are accept- able where they can be made visually compatible with the large lot- single family home character of the area. It should be noted that both the Alamo and Diablo communities have special characteristics which preclude this clustering in established areas. The Interchange Transitional Zoning District, G-1 , conforms with this General Plan category. Two Low Density Single Family Residential areas, Sycamore Valley and the lower Dougherty Hills area, have been identified as requiring spe- cial care in development. They are described separately in this ele- ment as Special Concern Areas 1 and 2. Medium Density Single Family Residential . 3 to 5 units per net acre. The Medium Density Single Family Residential designation allows for flexibility in project design with a permissible range of 3 to 5 units per net acre. Development in these areas should be encouraged at an overall mid-range average of four units per net acre. This density provides a large lot for family living with room for gardens and pets, and is expected to lead to neighborhoods which are attractive to sub- urban families. Medium density areas are located reasonable close to shopping, arterials, commuter routes, and facilities, so the greater • traffic generated from these more intensively developed areas will not severely impact traffic on rural roads in outlying areas. High Density Single Family Residential . 4 to 7 units per net acre. High Density Single Family Residnetial areas are located on level and gently rolling land in San Ramon, and reflect the more intense develop- ment of adjacent Dublin in Alameda County and convenient commuter access to freeways. As is true of the other single family detached areas, housing in these areas will conform with the single family character of existing neighborhoods. Multi-Family Residential Multi-family areas are a type of residential use considered as an appro- priate transition from commercial and office areas to single family neighborhoods. The Plan recommends several multiple family areas located near shopping and transportation corridors. Multi-family residential areas are not confined to a separate district but are located in or near each of the three communities of Alamo, Danville and San Ramon. The purpose is to integrate this housing alternative into suburban commun- ities and to provide the convenience which is attractive to the retired, young couples, and single parents. Very Low Density Multiple Family. 4 to 7 units per net acre. The Very Low Density Multiple Family dwelling category was developed for the 1971 San Ramon Area Plan to provide for clustering of single family dwellings. Designation for multiple family use does not prevent clus- tering of detached units, but does provide a measure of flexibility for efficient use of land. Luxury townhouses with many outdoor and rec- reational amenities can be anticipated in this category. The County Zoning Ordinance reflects this General Plan category in two compatible multiple zoning categories; M-5 and M-6, which allow up to 4.5 and 6.8 units per net acre respectively. Low Density Multiple Family. 7 to 12 units per net acre. Low Density Multiple Family areas provide for a higher density still compatible with the suburban life style. This designation allows den- sities ranging from 7 to 12 units per net acre with an average of 9.5 units per net acre. The upper range is the maximum practicable for townhouse development. The emphasis here is on convenient location, transition from residential to business use, and a suburban atmosphere through landscaped open areas. Medium Density Multiple Family. 13 to 21 dwelling units per net acre. This is the highest residential density considered appropriate for the Planning Area. Several projects in the Planning Area are developed in this range of densities. They, and the several additional areas shown on the Plan Map, are located to be convenient to transportation, shop- • ping and local employment. 20 • EMPLOYMENT AREAS Employment-related land uses are divided into four general categories which reflect the predominant land uses in each. They are: Commer- cial , Administrative Office, Limited Office, and Controlled Manufactur- ing. Commercial areas provide for local shopping and business needs. Admin- istrative Office and Limited Office areas are intended to differentiate between large scale regional management offices and smaller locally oriented services. Limited Office areas are located for convenience to residents and are associated with general commercial areas. Con- trolled Manufacturing implies light or "clean" industrial and manufac- turing businesses. Basic industries such as food processing and found- ries are not permitted. This Plan encourages the orderly development of businesses and local employment within the framework of basic goals to retain the natural beauty of the area. Commercial Four major commercial areas are identified in the Plan, with secondary commercial uses in conjunction with already approved development pro- jects. These four major commercial areas are Alamo, Danville, San Ramon and San Ramon South. The Plan encourages the expansion of business in specific areas to meet the needs of a growing population, but it does not envision a regional scale shopping center. Strip commercial development is to be avoided. Other small commercial areas are planned throughout the Planning Area in conjunction with approved development projects and designed to serve the residents of the projects. In addition, this Plan recognizes the need for a limited number of local commercial convenience centers within the .Planning Area. Exact loca- tions are not designated in this Plan, but recognition should be given to the need for a limited number of small convenience centers in out- lying residential areas. Each proposed center should be considered on its merits and should be acceptable to the residents in the vicinity. 1 . Alamo Commercial development in the Alamo area is not intensive; only sixteen acres are occupied by retail business establishments including finance, insurance and real estate offices. These businesses are situated near the intersection of Danville Boulevard and Stone Valley Road. At pres- ent, there exist three medium size shopping centers as well as a number of smaller complexes and individual businesses to serve the day to day needs of residents. Alamo provides the most northern commercial district in the Planning Area. It serves primarily the surrounding residential areas. The Plan allows for continued commercial growth within the defined commer- cial area, which is separated from existing residential areas by the railroad on the west and transitional office uses along Orchard Court. The Plan limits the expansion of these transitional uses to their exist- ing boundaries north and south along Danville Boulevard. 2. Danville Downtown Danville is the major commercial center within the Valley. It is an older commercial area which has grown north and south along the main raod. Downtown Danville is confined by Interstate 680 on the east, the railroad tracks on the west, and San Ramon High School on the north. Only areas north of Sycamore Valley Road have the potential for future commercial expansion. A portion -of downtown Danville at the in- tersection of Sycamore Valley Road and San Raman Valley Boulevard has been designated a Specific Plan Area, because of possible conflicts in land uses and because of its importance as an entrance into Danville. Map 2, Danville Land Use Plan, designates the several land use areas. The existing Charlotte Wood School site is designated for commercial uses in this Plan. The use of this site for a school is expected to continue for some time, but in the long run it is felt that this area should be converted to commercial uses to stimulate the privately spon- sored rejuvenation of downtown Danville, a goal strongly supported by this Plan. Designation of this land for commercial uses is intended to provide maximum flexibility for the redevelopment of this area, and to allow a mix of uses rather than strictly limit future development to • commercial uses. Residential units, especially for low income persons or the retired, should be encouraged to be part of any redevelopment proposal . Larger office complexes should also be considered acceptable within this area. Appropriate circulation for commercial uses in the Charlotte Wood School area will require an additional access from the prop- erty north to Diablo Road across San Ramon Creek. 3. San Ramon Although most of the commercial area designated around the intersection of Crow Canyon Road and Interstate 680 is vacant, it is expected to become an important business and shopping area as the surrounding resi- dential and industrial lands develop. 4. San Ramon South Alcosta Mali , a community shopping center, serves the southern part of the Planning Area. This center is planned to expand into adjacent vacant land. Administrative Office A large area around the Interstate 680-Crow Canyon Road interchange is designated for Administrative Office use. This Plan encourages the Crow Canyon Road area to become the major employment area of the San Raman Valley. The Administrative Office designation requires a mini- mum lot size of five acres, as differentiated from the approximately 1/3 acre minimum required for Limited Office uses. The large acreage 22 MAP 2 DANVILLE LAND USE PLAN .............................. . . . . •i�'•:�: '• . . . . . . . . . N •,��k }:• :L ;`" : .. r� 6� r ::��:::�:;::. 1000 1500 ;.A: ::;::::•::�::: :�:.. 1:� : .Z;\cis` :;::•:•::;:' • . • •::•::. :::. v>.::f ::r• ter$ '}�Y .: : Diablo Road +ice r;} '`.-:•`,{;;;: 3' '`�v3kx•. •: :ti:•::•: :•::�•W — t: .: • ..� ..�"12 :� —; LEGEND Sycamore Valley Rd. • • • • :j. • Country Estate ;;. f : Single Family Residential Low Single Family Residential Medium Multiple Family Residential Low •• •• Multiple Family Residential Medium Retail and Commercial Office -•=� Public Semi-Public ':y�?rr. Specific Plan Area ^••ask. 23 requirement for Administrative Office uses is intended to encourage an office-park setting more compatible with adjoining residential and open space areas. Limited Office Limited Office areas are located around the Crow Canyon-Interstate 680 interchange and in downtown Danville. This designation is intended to accommodate general office uses on a minimum lot size of approximately 1/3 acre. Controlled Manufacturing Controlled Manufacturing, the only industrial land use designation in this Plan, provides for "clean" industrial uses, although the exist- ing ordinance code allows for a range of manufacturing uses. Some manu- facturing is more intense than is desirable for the San Ramon Planning Area. The Plan allows a range of light industrial uses but excludes heavy industry in order to ensure compatibility with surrounding resi- dential uses. Existing manufacturing is light industrial in nature, which includes the manufacture of agricultural chemicals, communications equipment, fabricated metal products, pharmaceuticals and electronics equipment. • Also included in this designation are contractor construction yards. Research and development firms are not specifically included because they are considered services although they often locate in light indus- trial areas. Although larger firms are primarily located near the Crow Canyon-Interstate 680 Interchange, numerous small fabricating , operations are located near. Danville interspersed with general businesses. The San Ramon area contains the greatest amount of industrial acreage within the Planning Area. Because of good access to Interstate 680 and 580 and the railroad, this location is ideal for firms which depend on regular shipments of materials by truck or by rail . The eventual industrial development of the Bishop Ranch area will make a significant contribution to the tax base of the Valley. This sub- urban manufacturing area should also enable technical and managerial workers to maintain suburban homes without the need to commute long distances to work. PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC USES Substantial land areas now used for public purposes including schools, libraries, parks, and military lands, and electrical power transmis- sion. These areas are designated as public and semi-public on the Plan Map and are discussed in the Community Facilities section of the Plan. • 24 • OPEN SPACE Three categories of open space are designated in the Plan: Park and Recreation lands, Agricultural Preserves, and General Open Space. The park and recreation designation includes publicly-owned parks and lands utilized for local recreation. Within the recreation and parks designation are facilities owned and operated by the State of California (Mt. Diablo State Park), the East Bay Regional Park District (Las Tram- pas and Morgan Territory), recreation districts and service areas (neigh- borhood and community parks), and private facilities (golf courses). Publicly owned parks are permanent open space. As new community and neighborhood parks are acquired they also assume the Parks and Recrea- tion designation and should be included in the General Plan as such. Agricultural Preserve lands are those under Williamson Act contracts with the County, which are expected to remain in agricultural uses for at least ten years in exchange for lowered property assessments. The Plan recognizes agricultural values by designating these areas in an open space category, though they are not permanent open space as are publicly-owned lands. The other category, General Open Space, includes the remaining open space and agricultural land found within the Plan- ning Area. These open space categories are discussed in more detail in the Open Space and Conservation section of this Plan. • SPECIFIC PLAN AREA This category covers a small area located along San Ramon Valley Boule- vard at Sycamore Valley Road which forms part of the southern entry into downtown Danville. The purpose of this designation is to ensure that detailed studies are initiated through the environmental impact report process which will explore the unresolved issues concerning this area. These studies will examine alternative land uses and traffic patterns. Before development would be allowed, detailed developmental scenarios for the area would have to be agreed upon which provide for a coordinated design of these properties. • 0o r :� 25 • SPECIAL CONCERN AREAS Two areas have been designated as Special Concern Areas because of their key location with regard to environmental and scenic qualities; they are: Special Concern Area 1 , Sycamore Valley, Map 3 The Sycamore Valley area has long been planned for low density single family use on the adopted County General Plan. The Plan recognizes that development will occur in the valley and expresses concerns about the character of this growth. The Sycamore Valley has two dominant visual features which warrant protection: Sycamore Creek and the hills flanking the Valley. The goal for development in this area is to achieve an appearance of suburban-rural charm in keeping with Planning Area objectives, and to ensure that the Sycamore Valley as a whole will appear to be unified and well-designed, rather than an incremental accumulation of separate conventional subdivisons. Hillside and creek preservation are essen- tial to this concept. The area provides opportunities for innovative design and construction for homes, flood control works, outdoor amen- ities, and other features which will enable the area to retain its beauty and economic value. The following principles will aid in achiev- • ing the General Plan objectives for the area: - Development will be phased in conformance with the present sewer and water sphere of influence area as adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra Costa County; and the remainder should be developed in coordination with approved district boun- dary changes. - The Sycamore Valley parkway will be continued throughout the val- ley on Camino Tassajara; it should be constructed to provide views of the creek where feasible. - Hillsides and ridgetops will provide a backdrop to development. Housing units should be clustered on the valley floor with mini- mum disturbances to the higher ridgelands. Densities should de- crease as development ascends the hillside. All clustered hous= ing is to be of -low profile with emphasis on detached dwelling units. Sycamore Creek and its riparian vegetation should be pro- tected in its natural state, as it is a dominant visual feature of the valley and is of value to wildlife. - A green belt at least a quarter of a mile wide, running in a north- south direction, should be provided for visual relief from devel- opment. This greenbelt should occur near the center of the Special Concern Area. • 26 3 SPECIAL CONCERN AREA 1, SYCAMORE VALLEY PLAN • ctr pt a ••s tea.. rt^•• O n SM 2 Gj•.i . .. —_ '��•� .�f ti•QCs?�f's•r�• •'r �{:.F A G� r• sees ON!e a LEGEND •�:;.r :;Zs:;:;�. Country Estate �P:4•- os �D.. Single Family Residential Low Density o d .0 General Agricultural Preserve . General Open Space 10 Extend parkway from Sycamore Valley Road along Camino Tassajara OProtect natural environment of Sycamore Creek O3 Protect hillsides and ridge tops. Density decreases as slope increases o 2000 soon ® Phase development from west to east in conformance with sewer and water Sphere of Influence lines Low density cluster housing in lower elevations in valley © North-south greenbelt at least'/. mile wide OAll major projects should be Planned Unit Development with continuity in Design and an integrated trail system. 27 Vi` �'� ' - To insure that developments are integrated by trails and to create • a sense of community, all major developments are required to be Planned Unit Developments. - Owners should be encouraged to develop their properties jointly in order to achieve the objectives of this Special Concern Area. - Architectural style and landscaping should reflect the natural beauty of the valley. - Although Boone Hill lies to the northwest outside the boundaries of the Special Concern Area, it is part of Short Ridge. The ridge- lands from Boone Hill to the Sycamore Special Concern Area should remain in an open state and should not be obscured from view. Special Concern Area 2, Lower Dougherty Hills, Map 4 Historically, the lower Dougherty Hills area was a part of the San Ramon Village development proposal . Since that proposal was made years ago, community attitudes and legal requirements have changed. There is now a strong feeling among Planning Area residents that the hills are valu- able in their natural state, that they should be protected from devel- opment, and that they should remain visible for public scenic benefits. Also, it now appears that building to accommodate a large population in the outlying valley is not appropriate. Since virtually the entire • area lies in the Special Studies Zone established by the State for seismic investigations, (see Seismic Safety section) efforts must be made to locate and avoid active or potentially active earthquake fault tracts. The following principles will aid in achieving General Plan objectives for this area: - All major developments should be Planned Unit Developments. Prop- erty owners should be encouraged to work together in order to achieve the objective of an integrated plan for the area rather "than the appearance of an incremental accumulation of separate subdivisions. - Encouragement should be given to developing mixes of densities and structure types ranging from County Estates to very low dens- ity multiple family residential units to allow advantage of site adaptability. - Provision of trails is of particular importance here to provide connections to the Camp Parks recreation area and to provide for alternative circulation to schools and shopping areas. - Architectural style should reflect the natural open beauty of the hills. - Development of the area should be related to existing and proposed • development of adjacent areas in Alameda County. 28 MAP 4ECIAL CONCERN AREA 2 EWER DOUGHERTY HILLS PLAN i Ij •:�. '.«:� �j� •' Gdr .r <.• �a r• eta .'OM1 : ::�:�': :'� :•.1 ':i:'� +.r{•.r'1.��r1P j.a;^�t.j f j'� .i: •' ::-:•''•':•::'.;:C.::'$::;.::�:'•::+�,,,r.•.: ' •fin•,-� r�'ri. �f r• .tom -'.• •i.:''•,'• :N•: .t r �2 1 ;...-:. t r .. i•r�- ...�r•:::.. :.w d :� .::•: +may"'•' ; `. G :: ` �� •Camp Parks .o r / r::r::;:•ar•'• t r- yus�, t : .................... . . . ........ 'cam- ::.......................... ..... / 0 e�•�'• :! ' .' . .. .. . .4 1000 1500 .. tit_ t stir �r '.:1 ::: :.'........ .: :• .:.•:;. rte. s---' !: r-. :'... .. y: ~�.- �;;:: ..'.�[i.J'^•' •.........•..,....,...•.•.........•.• -+: t*+ :�`.'.�.":fir LEGEND Develop west facing slopes first Single Family Residential Low \.`J Cluster development on lower slopes �.1 Ridgeline to remain open General Open Space 4 Provide trail connections linking Camp at`1),;,� Parks and San Ramon Valley c• ; •; Agricultural Preserve .�...... Area Boundary Public 29 HOUSING ELEMENT Housing policies were formerly incorporated into land use elements, but since 1969 a separate Housing Element of the General Plan has been a State requirement. The purpose of the Housing Element is to make ade- quate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. Low income persons comprise a very small proportion of the population of the Planning Area, about 200 families in 1970, and an even smaller number are of a racial minority. The economically disadvantaged and racial minorities therefore do not represent a significant propor- tion of the community. Thus, the Plan does not provide directly for low income housing. However, it does attempt to provide for sizeable minority social groups present in the community; the retired, young adults, and families with only one parent. State or federal housing programs available should be reviewed to determine whether housing for a low income population can be provided for in the Planning Area. Areas designated for low and medium density multiple residential units are intended to provide for the retired, young adults, and families with single parents. Many of these housing units will be smaller and lower in cost when compared with other housing in the Planning Area, and will require less commitment of time and income to home maintenance. Areas designated for these units are not confined to a special district but are distributed in several small areas for better integration into the larger community, and their proximity to shopping will add to their • value to persons who do not drive or who have little time for the es- sential chores of running a household. These locations will also be accessible in the future to improved public transportation. The following principles should be observed to encourage the types of housing units and social settings which will meet the needs of minority social groups in the community: - Encourage development of some smaller housing units. The densi- ties shown on the General Plan remain constant, but the-actual hous- ing units chouid be smaller. With the strong trend toward decreased family size, homes can be built with less living space than is common in the Valley at this time. For instance, fewer bedrooms would be satisfactory for some of the population and would reflect the trend to smaller families. - Units which are partially incomplete can be constructed and sold, to allow the purchaser to acquire the home at a lower cost and to complete the unit as time and money become available. - The land use element of the Plan described general densities of development. The Plan also supports the use of the cluster devel- opment concept on the lower elevations of hill areas, and on level lands where clustering can be harmoniously integrated into exist- ing residential areas. Certain cost savings are inherent in this approach, and it can preserve significant amounts of open space and other amenities. 30 - Specialized housing for the elderly should be encouraged. These should be small scale projects and should be integrated by design and scale into the surrounding neighborhoods. Recognizing that the greatest housing asset available in the Plan- ning Area is its existing high quality housing stock, the Plan encourages the conservation and improvement of existing residen- tial neighborhoods. New development will be designed and located to avoid damaging the value of the present large investment in housing. 31 '`''' 1 • CIRCULATION The purpose of the Circulation Element of the General Plan is to desig- nate a system of highways and streets which will provide adequate links within and between the proposed land uses and which will meet the trans- portation requirements and objectives of the community. The Circulation Pian is shown on Map 5. THE HIGHWAY SYSTEM The San Ramon Valley is served by a skeletal network of highway trans- portation facilities. The backbone of the system is the Interstate 680 freeway running north-south for the entire length of the valley. It is augmented by a series of east-west county roads which serve adjacent suburban development and rural areas. The road system in the Planning Area was originally developed to serve an agricultural economy and a small population. As development occurred the transportation system was improved, but not rapidly* enough to keep pace with the growth of development. The system's general layout, however, is well planned and works adequately in most locations. Interstate 680 is the major traffic corridor from the Planning Area to regional employment centers. At one time the State had planned to • build additional highways to help move traffic out of the valley. The San Ramon Valley generates a substantial volume of traffic destined for the San Francisco and Oakland employment centers. In consequence, the intersection of State Route 24 and Interstate 680 is heavily con- gested during commute hours. A second major flow of traffic utilizes Interstate 680 south to Interstate 580 in Alameda County. As develop- ment in the San Ramon and Amador Valleys occurs, traffic on these facil- ities will increase. Widening of Interstate 680 to six lanes should provide the capacity needed to avoid severe commute congestion. Danville Boulevard, Hartz Avenue and San Ramon Valley Boulevard form a continuous route extending the length of the Planning Area, which connects all the major commercial areas in the Valley, and was the main route for through-traffic prior to completion of the freeway. It still plays a major role in Valley travel . For years there has been conflict between those persons who would improve portions of the road and those who would preserve its existing tree-lined character. Por- tions of this road have been improved to carry heavier traffic, while other sections remain narrow and rural . This Plan supports the concept of keeping the scenic route aspect of the road, but recognizes that con- ditions and needs change and that adequate setbacks should be required so that they will be available in the future if needed. The portion of Danville Boulevard north of Del Amigo Road should remain a two lane road, however, minor improvements to provide additional safety and in- crease capacity are acceptable. The lands shown as residential on the • Plan Map adjacent to these roads should be restricted to residential uses. Strip commercial and office uses under land use permits are inconsistent with this Plan and are to be restricted. 32 MAP 5 f� CIRCULATION PLAN r W W M�NnteN�� \ \ \ \ LEGEND Existing Major Roads Proposed Roads .........._...,. Project Related Major Roads • The Plan calls for few major additions to the roadway system. Most road improvements will be provided through the development process on frontage rights-of-way or by off-site improvement requirements. Public safety requires a degree of separation between high speed ar- terials and residential uses. Driveways should not open onto arterials, nor should yards where children may play. Flexibility in site design, an important principle of the Plan, can be used to avoid driveway en- trances onto arterials. New arterials should be so located as to be separated from new residential areas. Freeways The function of a freeway is to expedite travel between relatively dis- tant areas. Freeways are designed for high speeds and large volumes of traffic. Construction of Interstate 680 began in the Valley in 1962 and was com- pleted in 1966. The completion of this freeway provided a major stim- ulus to development of the area. Interstate 680, six lanes for most of its length in the San Ramon Valley, was widened in 1974-75 to pro- vide adequate capacity for the increasing traffic. At that time a new interchange was added at Diablo Road which further established downtown Danville as the primary commercial area in the Valley. • Arterials Arterials link major areas within the community with each other and carry traffic from the collector streets to the freeway. Arterial streets should be designed to operate at moderate speeds consistent with the residential character of the area. Major arterials in the Planning Area are shown on the Circulation Plan. In addition to the existing arterial system, the Pian includes several new major arterials. The Crow Canyon Road extension and the Sycamore Valley Road extension are tied directly to the Blackhawk Ranch project and will be completed if required, as a condition of approval for that project. If the Sycamore Valley Road extension across Short Ridge is constructed, a connection to development on interior valleys .should not be allowed. An additional project-related arterial is the Bollinger extension to the Crow Canyon extension shown on the east side of the San Ramon Valley. Although its construction is not a condition of ap- proval , it also is intended to accommodate the Blackhawk project. The Bollinger extension should only be constructed concurrently with the interchange at Interstate 680. The remainder will be built concurrently with the developments for which they are needed. The recent completion of Alcosta Boulevard northward to Crow Canyon Road provides a parallel north-south connection to serve the Valley. It is recommended as a high priority item that the County consider the extension of Railroad Avenue to improve Danville circulation. 34 Collectors Collector streets connect portions of the Planning Area, collect traf- fic from the minor streets in residential areas, and carry local traffic to shopping centers, schools, arterials, and freeways. A system of collector streets is currently being developed in conjunc- tion with Assessment District 1973-3 (Bishop Ranch). When completed, this system will provide a functional integration of the previously developed road networks of Danville and San Ramon. It is proposed that a few incomplete links in the existing collector system be constructed to eliminate "dead-end" streets and to provide more direct access to various points in the community. These include El Capitan in the Danville area, and Davona Road in the San Ramon area. These links should be completed as development occurs. Some neighborhoods are isolated by reason of a single access road which may be narrow and provide inadequate access for fire equipment, or may be subject to severe traffic jams in case of emergencies. Considera- tion should be given to linking such neighborhood roads to improve safety, where neighborhood values would not be damaged by attracting - through-traffic. • Minor Streets Minor streets provide construction from individual properties to the rest of the road network. Most of the streets in the Planning Area are of this type. These streets are developed in conformance with the County Subdivision Ordinance. The Plan allows certain deviations from existing standards to preserve the rural view of life. Roads in Open Space and Country Estate land use areas may be considered for lower standards as long as adequate public safety concerns are met. PUBLIC TRANSIT Existing public transportation in the developed portions of the Plan- ning Area is marginal. The existing system is built around the bus feeder line provided by the Bay Area Rapid Tranist District (BARTD) . It is anticipated that public transit will play a bigger role in trans- portation throughout the Valley. Improved transportation service is encouraged by this Plan, especially for the trip to work. The Plan recog- nizes that additional transit operations will be required to service future development needs, and encourages efforts to provide this ser- vice. C 35 OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION Rail Traffic A Southern Pacific Railroad line extends through the Planning Area parallel to Interstate 680, and two sidings in the Planning Area, one at Danville and one in San Ramon. The Southern Pacific Railroad oper- ates freight trains from Martinez to San Ramon twice a week, but there is no passenger service along this line. The Southern Pacific right-of-way is a valuable resource for the Valley. It is proposed to serve as the north-south spine of the trail system running the full length of the Planning Area. Major efforts should be made to limit encroachments onto the right-of-way by urban uses, which would preclude its future use for trails or other public purposes; the use of this right-of-way for trails is an important part of the trails component of the Recreation Element. 36 • SCENIC ROUTES The Scenic Routes Element of the County General Plan is one of the State mandated elements of City and County General Plans. A scenic route, as defined in the County Scenic Routes Element, is a road, street, or freeway which traverses a scenic corridor of relatively high visual or cultural value. A scenic corridor consists of much of the adjacent area that can be seen from the road. Scenic Routes are shown on Map 6. The Board of Supervisors adopted the Countywide Scenic Routes Element of the County General Plan in September 1974. The basic premise for that Plan was that much of the perception we have of our surroundings occurs while traveling in the automobile. The primary purpose of the Plan was to establish policies for the protection of the aesthetic quality of these roads. Since the adoption of the County Element by the Board of Supervisors, the City of Walnut Creek has adopted a Scenic Routes Element which in- cludes Tice Valley Road as a scenic route. This Plan includes the Tice Valley Road-Hillgrade link and is compatible with the Walnut Creek and Countywide Scenic Routes Elements, though it provides additional scenic routes, not shown on the County Scenic Routes Map. Implementation of the Scenic Route program will be through a scenic route combining district. The purpose of this district is not to re- place existing zoning but to add policies and restrictions to protect the visual quality of each route. 37 r �iUfr�'��.rd _ MAP 6 SCENIC ROUTES PLAN rf • 00 • M �t t j r t i LEGEND to Scenic Routes i OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES OPEN SPACE ELEMENT The State law requiring an Open Space Element of the General Plan de- fines open space as essentially unimproved land used for the preserva- tion and continued production of natural resources, outdoor recreation, and public health and safety. This General Plan includes three categories of open space. They are: Parks and Recreation Agricultural Preserves General Open Space These categories are intended to provide information on the current status of the land and should not be considered separate categories for the purpose of determining General Plan compliance. Any changes in the open space status of land between these three categories is con- sistent with this Plan. Together, these open space areas include approximately seventy percent of the 112 square miles of the Planning Area, indicating that the Plan- ning Area includes agricultural districts as well as suburban commun- ities. Parks and Recreation This designation on the land use map includes Mt. Diablo State Park, Las Trampas Regional Wilderness, Morgan Territory Regional Park, and local areas including County-owned Sugarloaf Hill in Alamo, the site of Athan Downs Park in San Ramon, and the community park in Danville. The designation reflects presently owned and committed parklands, which are permanent open space. Suitable general locations for future parks are shown on the Recreation Plan. Agricultural Preserve Agricultural Preserve lands are under Williamson Act contracts with the County to remain in commercial agriculture and compatible uses for the ten year contract period, renewed each year, in exchange for lowered land assessment. These areas are given a separate category on the map in order to reflect and support the commitment of the owners, and are expected to remain in agriculture for the effective period of the Plan. They are not permanent open space, but may be designated for other purposes at some future time by a General Plan amendment. Conversely, a General Plan designation other than open space will not prevent pro- perties from entering into open space use contracts, and such contractural arrangements are considered in conformance with this Plan, if these • lands participate in the Agricultural Preserve program, or are subject to other similar enforceable restrictions. Decisions on contracts will be made on the merits of each case, and will not be restricted by the land use classifications in this Plan. z r. 39 General Open Space Lands designated as General Open Space are primarily in agriculture. Much of this land is expected to remain agricultural for the effective period of the Plan, although open space areas associated with large development projects will be recreational , either as unirrigated nat- ural areas, golf courses, or recreation centers. Existing golf courses are also shown as open space, as is P. G. & E. 's power transmission right-of-way in San Ramon. These are all privately owned lands and are not permanent open space unless development rights are deeded to the County. Open space areas associated with development projects are compatible with urban land use categories. CONSERVATION ELEMENT The Conservation Element is concerned with the conservation, develop- ment, and utilization of natural resources. The retention of large land areas in open space uses will result in the continued utilization of land for agricultural production. Large natural or agricultural areas also provide the benefits of wildlife maintenance, stream preservation, and conservation of soil and vegetation resources. The concepts delin- eated here conform with urban conservation policies in the Countywide Element and provide details suited to the Planning Area. Conservation in the Course of Development • Important conservation considerations affect areas designated for urban expansion. Utilization of natural resources for industrial, commercial , residential , recreational , and support facilities requires a sensitiv- ity to t-he nature of resources and their capability to sustain various levels of urbanization. The Plan designates types and intensities of uses appropriate for differing land areas, as well as the considera- tion of proximity to freeways and similar facilities. Lower densities of housing on steeper lands will tend to minimize soil erosion, wild- life habitat destruction, and destruction of trees. The policies relat- ing permissible densities to slope steepness, to encourage clustering of housing units in order to avoid steep unstable slopes, scenic ridge- lines and waterways, and provision for flexibility in site design, will act to reduce environmental damages from development further. Air Pollution Air pollution problems are of great concern to the community. The rapid growth rate of the Livermore-Amador-San Ramon air basin has re- sulted in air quality problems in the Planning Area. The effects of vehicular emissions which accompany urbanization are compounded by the surrounding hills and the characteristic temperature inversion layer which confine the air mass in the basins. Air quality management is the responsibility of federal, state, and • regional agencies. It is difficult to predict what regulations may 40 be imposed on the Planning Area by these agencies. Current proposals include continuing efforts to reduce vehicle emissions (a benefit rapidly lost as traffic volumes increase), greater reliance on public transit, shifting to a less polluting vehicle power source, and restrictions on the type and extent of land development. Until more is known about air pollution in the Valley, community con- cerns about air pollution can be reflected in evaluating the potential air quality impacts of new roads, road extensions, opening additional landareas in outlying valleys to development, and by locating certain uses such as school yards, bike trails, and fire stations at a distance from pollution corridors along the freeway and major arterials. Consid- erations of agricultural productivity and livestock health are required in land use decisions which would expose agricultural districts to higher levels of vehicular emissions. Scenic Conservation Scenic conservation is extremely important to the residents of the Planning Area. The Plan provides for the retention of visual quality through the basic distribution of land uses and by Plan references regarding refinements in each area which are essential in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Plan. Scenic Ridges and Riparian Vege- tation are shown on Map 7. In areas designated for development, and • particularly residential development outside the floor of the central Valley, the following principles should be strictly applied: - High quality engineering of slopes is required to avoid soil ero- sion, downstream flooding, slope failure, loss of vegetative cover, high maintenance costs, property damages, and damages to visual quality. Particularly vulnerable areas should be avoided. Mas- sive topographic modification should be avoided. - Where flood control and drainage works are required along natural water courses, special consideration should be given to using in- novative means of retaining the natural appearance of the water- way, and preserve the vegetation and wildlife it supports. Where rights-of-way are designated in the General Plan for trails or other public uses, the right-of-way should be made available for multipurpose uses. - Conservation of the scenic.beauty of the Planning Area requires the restoration of natural contours and vegetation after grading and other land disturbances, and the design of public and private projects to minimize damages to significant trees and other vis- ual landmarks. - Development in outlying areas should not overtax the capabilities of the aquifer or the capability of the ground to absorb sewage effluents. 41 0 IPARIAN VEGETATION SCENIC RIDGES AND � l•':P:e t. ti's'' �•�' Q• '::'.;.:+i•::.t.., �^ �•• /�:. .�� :::,;::,;: s�9„d�y�,,�,✓'�r� .;4'i: %•`%''I:fIi:`•�: ,�+ p :';IFL:.(i,F�o1s.tf.i.titl�•::i:lt• ' ` ••�,'p;fAN"G•tiEitsi%^::r:� l #tfRi ::•'i:%'•:�:}}•f�::•: �i.:+iX.'::l::i:�i:�;'; �� ':';.•..5;.:.:. ;t•: ON, ;: :.t;;.:•:..i,;.,:t it r%GlackhawkRidpe• ,':• 4v 4F q.: t 1 rr a rr aiam r t. r.8 i. Ridge .r 9 is .r s' .I .r n' t o' :t•w:' 1 Vit' .'ii :��•Y. •:'2•; •'rs�s �'::• :r: :x. v� ::jj• �1 r� •":SiY .r' s P •t ,t�;: b ..t r' s. r •.y :.J } r ,rx r ,JP•. is r y• :l. A 11; d J• t•• >r' 9� .� ar r,. tt NO 7i• r Y r P .f r i 2 •:t., ir: t tiF •S� 't• I rf. Jt '..•. f•. ••x .r to•. ..�. '�t; {{��,,.,,57�••��:�:�• :,+•:'.::!:iii:: ;.`: 4 : :i•.::::,,;.: .. .:,:: LEGEND ''r * P7��f;.:;' y. •'•::::f:�?'i;,' :. e c�iidg V getation : .�Jjrtlff=J :.:;::: ° •�'' ` ' Riparian Niil' ' open Space Marian HHt • Proposals for major developments in outlying areas should be re- viewed from the point of view of their potential impacts on agri- cultural production and economics. Public facilities for outdoor recreation and alternative modes of transportation should remain an important land utilization objec- tive in the community, to promote high visual quality, air qual- ity maintenance, and to- enhance outdoor recreation opportunities of all residents. 43 RECREATION • The provision of recreation areas and facilities is a function of sev- eral government levels as well as the private sector. Recreation areas within or very near the Planning Area are provided by the State, the East Bay Regional Park District, local park agencies, school districts. private businesses, homeowners associations, and county service areas. Local public recreation facilities, neighborhood and community parks, are largely lacking in the Planning Area. Adequate local and larger-scale regional recreation facilities are an essential part of any urbanized area. Parts of the Planning Area which are not now developed to the fullest may not have an immediate need for public outdoor recreation. However, if land is not acquired prior to full development it will be costly to acquire at a future time. Gen- eral locations and types of planned recreation facilities are shown on Map 8. REGIONAL PARK FACILITIES Several regional agencies provide recreational facilities in Contra Costa County. The State of California Department of Parks and Recreation owns and operates Mt. Diablo State Park, approximately 10,000 acres in size. This park is planned to expand to the south, east and west during the next decade. Over 2,000 acres of land are scheduled for • dedication to the State as part of approved projects, with additional buffering to be provided by project open space. The State's adopted acquisition schedule calls for land acquisition to supplement these dedicated lands. The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) provides the 2,600 acre Las Trampas Wilderness Area, of which one thousand acres were acquired in 1974. Additional acquisitions are anticipated from time to time. Probably additions are designated as General Open Space in this Plan. The Master Plan adopted by EBRPD calls for the acquisition of the Mor- gan Territory Wilderness Area on the eastern side of the Planning Area along Morgan Territory Road. In 1975 the EBRPD acquired an initial 1,000 acres to implement the plan, with additional lands to be acquired in the future. Also, there is the prospect that the Camp Parks Recreation Area now located wholly within Alameda County will be expanded northward to include the federally-owned Camp Parks lands within Contra Costa County, if the area is designated excess federal land. Local Public Parks The Planning Area is presently served by four public agencies which provide service to limited geographic areas--the Green Valley Park and • Recreation District which operates a swimming pool and grounds on two acres of land, and County Service Area R-5 which operates a one acre park for the Danville-South subdivision. 44 s MAP PLAN RECREATION 'i'. •t Lin ND tt ,'j•: :,:• 'i• ((1177 •t:' ••: •S=i. .'t.' 'fit:::'. t•.t. :�•' 'S•. /'fir"/f .l::;::!• :f•:';' .�{•: :i• t• fr•.. ` Sl• •r �•{ •'r a •is •t •J '7:is•. •'t• t2• pJ. it •i".. `ti• t 'S ..�.''r,• :'�::•:`:is�:. t' � J '.v'r'' r't:• i :i. •t ri• ... r.: •:t •:1'' t:'t •'t •L•• •t •�i .t. is .•.:' Y• •t: •r +'r: '1 •t• •t':: •'t•. t• .,f! :i .. ;'�:�.':• ,Sid::• i:r•• i•• •'iti ':ti': Vit..• ;.S�':.,, 't{_; 'tea�'�:� .,:•;tom•,•;'{;}IS:.::.';{,..: �' '!':i....'.'l:;;...:: (,: :•:'',i,.Vii::;:-•;�..''t .t{{r'Z' .. LE hood Park Neighbor commu�_' ::,r •' #:;.: ,�, � pity Park i'>::•,;, • ......; . Special Use Area o Area a. .„ Open Space Two other agencies the Valley Community Services District and County Service Area R-7, have more extensive service areas and are charged with providing most of the public local recreational facilities for the Planning Area. The Valley Community Services District in the southern San Ramon Valley includes parts of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. Its existing neigh- borhood parks are Armstrong Park at Neil Armstrong School and the Country Club Tot Lot at Country Club School. The Valley Community Services District is also acquiring land for the Boone West neighborhood park and has provided an olympic-size swimming pool adjacent to California High School in cooperation with the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. Valley Community Services District also owns a twenty acre park site on Montevideo Drive. It is planned that some additional land to the north will be dedicated to complete this community park, which is to be developed jointly by the Valley Community Services District and County Service Area R-7. County Service Area R-7 is a park and recreation County Service Area approved in the June, 1974 election. The Service Area will acquire and operate parks using property tax revenues and the park dedication fees required by ordinance from new residential developments. It will also receive funds from the State Parks Bond Act to aid in land acquisition for a park site in Alamo, and has recently acquired a ten acre site adja- • cent to the Tibros Intermediate School which will form the nucleus of a community park in the Danville area. The Iocal parks portion of the Recreation Element has been coordinated with the plans of the park and recreation agencies serving the Valley. The Plan includes some park sites not included in the respective plans of these agencies. This is especially true in areas beyond the boun- daries of park agency jurisdictions, where parks will be needed to serve the planned future population. The location of park sites as shown on the map reflect a need in the general area; the actual details on the size and location of facilities will be determined as park development occurs. Special Use Areas The Plan includes the designation of "Special Use Areas" to distinguish specialized and complementary recreational areas which are not normally considered local parks. The special use areas shown on the recreation map include trail staging areas, equestrian facilities, roadside rests, and passive natural areas that could be utilized for environmental ed- ucation. This concept may also apply to flood control and water recrea- tion areas, natural habitat preserves, or other special recreation uses identified in the future. 46 • Private Facilities A growing number of private recreational facilities are available to community residents. Three golf courses, Diablo, Roundhill , and San Ramon National , currently serve the community. Additional golf courses may be developed as part of approved projects. In addition, several private golf driving ranges and tennis clubs are coming into existence. Commercial stables provide an additional source of private recreation and are to be encouraged in appropriate locations to conform with the theme of maintaining the Valley's rural view of life. In recent years private receration areas within Planned Unit Develop- ments have gained in popularity. These recreation facilities are avail- able to residents and their guests, and may include swimming pools, ten- nis courts, riding stables, golf courses, informal park areas, and recreation buildings. .Although private recreation facilities can meet some of the recreation needs of the homeowners, they should be viewed as complementary facilities since they do not totally replace public parks nor can they meet all the needs and demands for public recreation. The provision of additional private recreational facilities, in appro- priate locations, is encouraged by this Plan. Trails • Map 9 shows trails for bicycling, horseback riding and hiking in the Planning Area. These trails are part of a Countywide and regional trails network and connect to proposed facilities in Alameda County and the City of Walnut Creek. Bicycle trails may function either as rec- reational trails or as complementary transportation routes within pub- lic road rights-of-way. Trails are planned to connect all major parks, numerous schools, and to provide a basic pattern to supplement the circulation system of the Planning Area. Trails are not intended for use by motorized vehicles unless so specified. Horse trails are planned to link all portions of the Valley, but emphasize service to the Country Estate and rural areas of the Valley with primary regional connections to Mt. Diablo State Park and to Las Trampas Regional Wilderness Area. Hiking trails are associated with horse riding trails in most cases. Most separate hiking trails are located in already established park facilities and do not represent connecting links. Rest stops are needed along the regional trails. Where practical , these should be associated with parks, schools, or other community facilities. In addition to the major trails shown on the map, there is a need for minor connections (feeder trails) between various community facilities and the regional trail system. Feeder trail requirements depend on the location of future community facilities and can be identified when new schools, parks, and other community facilities are sited. The major north-south route in the trail system runs along the South- ern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. If this route cannot be developed for trail use, San Ramon Creek should be considered as the primary alter- MAP 9 _ f TRAILS PLAN r � ^ti .t f Co :t rr 1 �• LEGEND -..-..-.-...� Bicycle Path ______ Riding and Hiking Trails --------- Bicycle, Riding and Hiking 0 native. Trails shown on the Plan map are schematic in nature; while engineering studies will probably show that most, -i f not all trai l s _ - can be installed in ways that are well-located and safe, detailed design plans may require the shifting of specific locations. Trail goals and objectives are those of the Countywide Riding, Hiking, and Biking Trails Pians, while the Trails Plan Map modifies trail-lova'., tions shown on previous trail plans, TM 4 r r. _, .. .. .. .. ... - .... _ .. .•.} •-,..- t.tel. .. .:.S�S.. �1.?S� 49 J .r ..a PUBLIC SAFETY AND SEISMIC SAFETY • The Seismic Safety and Public Safety Elements, mandated by State law, require local governments to recognize seismic and other hazards and incorporate policies for public protection from these hazards into the planning processes. Geologic Safety The topography and geologic structures of the Planning Area include three physiographic regions, the Las Trampas Ridge and Rocky Ridge area bordering Bollinger Canyon, the central Valley corridor along San Ramon Creek, and the Diablo Range and its associated foothills and smaller valleys on the east side of the central Valley. The Las Trampas Ridge area consists of a series of folded rock strata with a predominance of slopes greater than 30 percent at higher eleva- tion. Much of this region is underlain by the Orinda Formation which is known for its propensity to slide, as is evidenced by the preva- lence of landslide deposits delineated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The general case is that existing slide deposits have the highest risk of movement, but it is also true that development operations increase the instability of any slope, a hazard that can be at least partially overcome in many cases with exceptional engineering care. The central Valley is a narrow alluvial corridor composed of water- • deposited materials from the bordering hills, mainly by San Ramon Creek and South San Ramon Creek and their tributaries. These flood plains attracted the earliest development and continue to be desirable for industrial , commercial , and residential uses because they are relatively level. The eastern Planning Area includes steep hills, narrow valleys and the higher mass of the Diablo Range. Alamo Ridge, Short Ridge, and the Sherburne Hills are underlain by folded sedimentary rock of the Orinda Formation. The Dougherty Hills are underlain by nearly vertical rock strata of the Tassajara Formation, which has characteristics similar to the Orinda Formation. All of these hills tend to be slide-prone. Moderately steep slopes of approximately 15 to 25 percent appear to be more stable under natural conditions, but may show increases in slide risks when developed. Some properties on the gentle slopes of the Sher- burne Hills, along Tassajara Road, have sustained slide damages. The U.S.G.S. has delineated many slides in the easterly part of this region, with a definite pattern of abundant and massive slide deposits occurring on steeper slopes. The smaller number of slides recorded on the south- ern Dougherty Hills is due to the more moderately steep slopes. The generally unstable nature of slopes in the Planning Area indicates that great care should be exercised in locating homes or other build- ings on all but the most gentle slopes, and that slopes over 25 percent • are not suitable for conventional pad grading or other severe land disturbances, such as vegetation clearing, which would tend to increase 50 + i %r» .1. l• :•l:' •l: ::J i• t.• r: s:Y t. :•:. r: .f •f r'r',%t:r•%?fr%ti•i%tiff:,:•.. r. .......... } •T. i fi :':.•i.:'::.:•.•:::':•: '::•:•. .r:.. ti•'•: i• .. t • native. Trails shown on the Plan map are schematic in nature;. while . engineering studies will probably show that most, if not all,-trails can be installed in ways that are well-located and safe, detailed design plans may require the shifting of specific locations. Trail goals and objectives are those of the Countywide Riding, Hiking, and Biking Trails Plans, while the Trails Plan Map modifies trail loca tions shown on previous trail plans. 49 Oruo;1>07 ,ti i slope instability. Where assigned to residential use, slopes of 15 percent or more should be developed in the lower range of densities es- tablished in the General Plan and clustered housing on the less hazard- ous areas of large developments should be encouraged, as is recommended for the Special Concern Areas. Virtually all slopes of 30 percent and over in the Planning Area are designated for open space uses. In small areas where steep slopes of 25 percent or greater are designated for resi- dential use, clustering to avoid hazards should be recommended where practicable, and when lots are formed each should be large enough to ensure that a safe buildable site for house and driveway can be found. This may require a lot size larger than the minimum specified for Country Estate areas. Flexibility in site design and lot layout will also pro- vide a measure of safety in potentially hazardous areas. Development of steep areas, or areas underlain by major slide deposits not easily secured by engineering, should be avoided to the greatest extent pos- sible. If development should occur on steep areas, extreme land dis- turbances from grading and vegetation clearing should be avoided. Special engineering for property safety may be required in these areas. Each project should be evaluated according to these principles in order to permit the maximum in project design flexibility while protecting subsequent owners from geologic hazards. Seismic Safety Seismic hazards in the Planning Area are related to active and poten- • tially active faults and to groundshaking resulting from local and regional earthquakes. Many fault traces have been discovered in the Planning Area, some of which are part of the active Calaveras and Pleasan- ton fault zone. (Map 11 ) The Calaveras fault is the major fault in the Planning Area and it is, at least in part, responsible for the wide, trench-like San Ramon Valley. On July 3, 1861 a major earthquake on the Calaveras occurred in the vicinity of Dublin. Contemporary reports tell of a nine mile long fissure opening on the west side of the San Ramon- Valley. Many other faults cross the Planning Area, some of which are subsidiary zones of faulting which branch off of the*Calaveras fault while others are radial and concentric faults which owe their origin to the uplift of Mt. Diablo. The Calaveras fault zone has been desig- nated as a Special Study Zone by the State Division of Mines and Geology pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act. Within the Special Studies Zone geologic investigations are required by State law to discover the precise location of active fault traces prior to pro- ject approval , and similar investigation may also be required by the County in other areas believed to have potentially active fault traces. Structures to be built near any active fault trace will be set back 50 feet or more from the trace. The unbuildable areas may be used for roads or vehicle parking or, where practicable, they may be incorporated into open space or recreation plans. The act affects only new real estate developments, not existing development or open space. The purposes of the seismic investigation program are to ensure that • persons and property are not exposed to the risk of fault movement and that construction methods and utility installations reflect seis- mic hazards. 52 ♦ . •• :'"% "•'•. MAP I I �I� 1\� ~� •,,,/�"•1� EARTHQUAKE FAULTS AND • �•► �♦ SEISMIC SPECIAL STUDY ZONES 00 a • • woor ." '► 000 .• �., / • ♦ •r Ln •• w 00 ». » y •• •• • . • '00 • fir\ ••• x.01 »`••�• r •• .4606 LEGEND :• ` ` »` FAULT MAPPING STATUS Fault Location .`' ...._.»,. Approximate Location ..•...... Location Uncertain State Special Studies Zones {as of July, )975) Damages from earthquake groundshaking are usually greater than damages from the movement of the fault itself. The risk of damages from ground- shaking is more closely related to the nature of the ground and type of building construction than to proximity to the fault. Landslides and rockslides may be triggered by earthquakes, and the deep alluvial deposits of the valleys may increase the amplitude and duration of ground waves. Thus, buildings on "poor ground" may suffer damages far beyond damages to similar buildings more favorably located. Soil investigations for major subdivisions are required by the California Subdivision Map Act. Geologic investigations are also required where adverse conditions are suspected. These reports enable the soil en- gineer 'and geologist to provide the best known methods of improving soil and bedrocks conditions and avoiding particularly hazardous areas. These reports also enable the County Grading Engineer and County Geolo- gist to bring potentially hazardous conditions to the attention of the project engineers, and to require measures which will reduce the risk of seismic and other geologic damages. Studies and reports for lot splits are relatively superficial , so it is especially important to provide large lots in any area which is likely to be unstable in earth- quakes so that the subsequent developer can have some flexibility in locating a stable building site. Lot split proposals should be reviewed for hazard probability before being approved. Interstate 680 is essential to the Planning Area for disaster evacuation • and the movement of emergency vehicles. The failure of one freeway overpass, as could occur during a major earthquake, would severely hamper the disaster response and recovery efforts of individual per- sons and public agencies. Access to hospitals, for example, could be cut off. The State Department of Transportation should be urged to examine freeway structures in the Planning Area and to make any needed reinforcements to resist probable maximum earthquake forces. The Plan- ning Area does not contain many unreinforced masonry buildings of the type which are particularly susceptible to total collapse. The one and two story frame buildings which predominate throughout this area maybe damaged in a major earthquake, but very few would be likely to collapse. Fires started from broken utility lines could cause more property dam- ages and risks to life in the Planning Area than the earthquake itself. The Uniform Building Code, enforced by the County Building Inspection Department, is satisfactory for homes and one or two story commercial buildings. Critical and "lifeline" facilities such as fire stations, schools, hospitals, and electric power stations may require additional measures to reduce the risk of earthquake damages. Other Hazards Flooding Flooding in the Planning Area is not believed to pose a significant hazard to life, but some areas along major creeks and near the conflu- • ence of creeks are subject to inundation by a flood with a one percent chance of occurring in any year (100 year flood year), and smaller 54 more frequent floods. Flood control and drainage works are constructed by land developers and by the County Flood Control District in certain areas according to the District's adopted plan of improvements. Out- side of Flood Zone 3-B, the Walnut Creek Basin including San Ramon Creek and its tributaries, there are no established Flood Zones, adopted plans or property tax revenues for flood control works. Projects pro- posed for outlying areas will be provided with adequate drainage by the land developer, but it should also be recognized that off-site flood- ing can be made worse by development in the watershed. All possible efforts should be made to avoid off-site flooding where there is no public mechanism to construct flood control improvements in the down- stream area. The roofs and pavement of development add to the volume of water reach- ing creeks. This increased runoff from developed areas causes high flood peaks to occur in creeks, so that any measures used in land de- velopment to retard runoff from the land will tend to protect these creeks from flooding and bank failure, particularly from smaller, more frequent floods. Check dams along upper creek channels can protect downstream areas, and features on the land itself--temporary impound- ment basins, permeable areas, and heavy vegetation--can mitigate the volume and velocity of surface runoff. Site design and development plans are encouraged to incorporate these and other flow-retarding features in order to preserve natural waterways and prevent flooding. • New buildings in areas which have been identified as Flood Hazard Areas by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are re- quired to have flood insurance under the provisions of the National Flood Insurance Program. Existing buildings may be insured voluntar- ily. Flood hazard areas identified by HUD and the County are required to have reasonable protection from flooding at least to minimum Federal standards. Existing development in low lying areas will remain subject to occasional flood inconvenience and potential minor to moderate prop- erty damages. Creek Bank Failure Property damages have occurred where creek banks fail. Setting build- ings back from the top of the bank is the best method of preventing damages to structures and will also avoid demands for natural water- ways to be engineered where bank failure rather than general flooding is the problem. A rule-of-thumb guide for property safety is to re- quire a minimum creek setback equal to 1.5 times the depth of the chan- nel , as is frequently recommended by the County Flood Control District. A creek setback ordinance should be considered as the most effective means of ensuring property safety. In the absence of the ordinance, the recom- mendation of the Flood Control District should be a condition of project approval . Wells and Septic Systems • Continued development on wells and septic systems may endanger domestic water supplies in two ways. The shallow low yield aquifers character- istic of the Planning Area are subject to overdrafts if too many wells 55 Cs' e o. ci q J�1�1rJed red en`s oQ� fie` a'`G 1a1 lav e OV a��oe Qraede e1 ey1aetie og�` s r� yr rey a, aca ace .�;~de�e�� yoQeds';�a°Q e�1ye��y'{eyey1aa�e1 �e�1a ye�3�ae1 els+tar °� �reye e� �S~�°est rei��aGe aQ�e ya�'°n ca�Ne \0a°ea e:,aeya, ."; Jsea Ns�re�r �agebceacov -es dte��e a� a a��e Gr s`��o�s c� °e-(4eyG°J �,° s`°e N'\ -\°QG��d Pees a°t •`a1 .�,eb eQvaas se a\,,�1 11a4ae ae`�d��` ��fi°�ar�� e0, -(e JA aeN�.�a'OQ°ySat��,�e �,�1a, -N 4La� �1, 0, ey1 1•�' 6s oy .\,-o r° tta 60;-'ykk.'�% \y a.ce �s :,fi 1 ` 3 � a �e 04"'* ,alcy {ay Jyr ��° ey .s1 esu Qt•,�cef;�;° ass 4t'�dt� arta owe b1e �:t� eqe aP6 ds. e• ��` s e s tea•�'�` a a a�eo'�1a c��,�e,�a�' JG,�ey. col ".0ar, 'OP a .a1 d �.° �q �o d• e 1'` �� •�,g ofi �1 •e`� esQ e13 e�.'` tiac a�3-d �{� c'� 11e 1�a��°�' qe a:`y oar a, ce A e{ ce tQ°teeahaall \,\a v�J��efi,�.�oy��e,Q �e � � � �r be �'t`e�a�' s b c° -be �`� as b a• o'� .'re~ a$`acey��s. r1�11� �1y, ;� �b o�1,,,ea ,��ae ac noJ1��ae ' �1 , a Qa r`°'eay \\-, des a s s �qa ;tic ;~fiq X11 e S�oQ1�y• a'cee1� y'c.• `a° fie ro�`e ��t °co J�13a,�asa,�e a oar S1rgb`' 1.�. �r Qe ��y Q�, �1� �a,��. ao�4ye aye sea ° ey .�Q° as �a ra b�ice °Q�ela�eaaaQ��e e�`�te�b�t �°Q°ea 1 Qa{ay��rL��' �a ea�`s°,°a�a 1aaC,e s sQ t �� ov Q a� o� fie �,e a a ae a��, `ata :,Cet�r ,�1�~q� Sv a6ce�oG�a1 ;t°tt aba °Qeyy a�`,a�ea G<a aaa op b ON, as r`� �q`c' att �cYt be��.�. a'�' eea s� amt ase-. oc' Q ea b ryQceceaace k�a1s s r d ~ti't� � o a� ca'- �s1o�aQJ�� Qaaa. t° k-\ �,e�'\ r a°' ,,,e NO eQe r 1 �•-`Q � Qr e�`�" <e �� 1 Q °� �,a1GGe0, <'\ -Ae y�?�,�,,Geo�.ae( -;Y' o�� '°etio yS�a�ao5�c a�` Baa �a aha °Q Qt at• o0 a0 a'`R`re �` �� lea. day y y a o a aQQ,,ce G1e �X". �Q ye i �. '°1e ea Boit ~fit o~Z' a� Q.e ,oto b ra'� { ,ae ces <'��,rq� a�,e ys1 ea'� cos Gop q s ode se's e aG, 4 �a cea e�' �a yt a oQe aa' grey Q°y Gc,1 ease °y��o eieye o�`oQ�r co, �� are Q��1o�r 13 1oQe�,sooC,* ej`Q�,e�'� y~eagta y'°� t°s1 es ce�aQ a`G�`1 sere.yeytti'ct�y Q��tie oe eo��et ao ° ea�'ago`��re yay �rc'� q area� o'`� s° a k d e �' ea cell s�' titi`e <afi4 G�1 ,��,e •�`�' �e a�`� �e�' S aaes�a� �oeP X, ,'a e� aceto �. �,�� s� ��k a1� T1s S'de eqe h�Qeas s ° tired Qa Qe acd tta S�,o care,ire ce�,�re a� cye1cY, ace �.re ra Nio ea N?� atiat r fir.aes s. 10�` eye ey yr� r �ce'�Za.oq SQ reg ey, Ns, aqe los Z ,a'� G`� yea sro eco q, s �v� r�1 dant d e o�`1� �,s e eco GoadNe{�,�� CO a�`�at J��,t��yea�d q CoQ s ° o s - ca4 rte t�q rj QAID s °oQoq ,aay ;�eeQ o<aQ c�6 bo.�,e s'`ekNe del e ok Qe�ea�,s - ,i; �'y�R l: {` ^ �� T � ` t n � .. .'� ...,�� .y. . ._y a � � � r _ `„' � .. ,; s ^ " � r .. � � V^ f ^. _ -, _ �' more frequent floods. Flood control and drainage works are constructed by land developers and by the County Flood Control District in certain areas according to the District's adopted plan of improvements. Out- side of Flood Zone 3-B, the Walnut Creek Basin including San Ramon Creek and its tributaries, there are no established Flood Zones, adopted plans or property tax revenues for flood control works. Projects pro- posed for outlying areas will be provided with adequate drainage by the land developer, but it should also be recognized that off-site flood- ing can be made worse by development in the watershed. All possible efforts should be made to avoid off-site flooding where there is no public mechanism to construct flood control improvements in the down- stream area. The roofs and pavement of development add to the volume of water reach- ing creeks. This increased runoff from developed areas causes high flood peaks to occur in creeks, so that any measures used in land de- velopment to retard runoff from the land will tend to protect these creeks from flooding and bank failure, particularly from smaller, more frequent floods. Check dams along upper creek channels can protect downstream areas, and features on the land itself--temporary impound- ment basins, permeable areas, and heavy vegetation--can mitigate the volume and velocity of surface runoff. Site design and development pians are encouraged to incorporate these and other flow-retarding features in order to preserve natural waterways and prevent flooding. . New buildings in areas which have been identified as Flood Hazard Areas by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are re- quired to have flood insurance under the provisions of the National Flood Insurance Program. Existing buildings may be insured voluntar- ily. Flood hazard areas identified by HUD and the County are required to have reasonable protection from flooding at least to minimum Federal standards. Existing development in low lying areas will remain subject to occasional flood inconvenience and potential minor to moderate prop- erty damages. Creek Bank Failure Property damages have occurred where creek banks fail. Setting build- ings back from the top of the bank is the best method of preventing damages to structures and will also avoid demands for natural water- ways to be engineered where bank failure rather than general flooding is the problem. A rule-of-thumb guide for property safety is to re- quire a minimum creek setback equal to 1 .5 times the depth of the chan- nel , as is frequently recommended by the County Flood Control District. A creek setback ordinance should be considered as the most effective means of ensuring property safety. In the absence of the ordinance, the recom- mendation of the Flood Control District should be a condition of project approval . Wells and Septic Systems • Continued development on wells and septic systems may endanger domestic water supplies in two ways. The shallow low yield aquifers character- istic of the Planning Area are subject to overdrafts if too many wells 55 C0 -fit'0 are drilled. Because these wells are shallow they may also be subject • to contamination by sewage effluents. . These problems are most likely to occur as a result of low density residential development in outlying valleys. One serious implication of residential development in outlying areas is the inadequacy of the domestic water supply to service continued development as well as serve the agricultural needs. Residential uses in these areas should be discouraged if they would jeopardize agricul- tural use. It is not possible to predict at precisely what point the risk of contamination or dry wells becomes an unacceptable risk, since very little is known about the capabilities of the aquifers, but con- sidering lot splits and residential development in areas which must rely on wells and septic systems should include an evaluation of this potential hazard. Wildfire Wildfire is a hazard to life and property in the Planning Area during the summer and fall dry season. Since virtually all wildfires are caused by people, accessibility to dry vegetation is an important factor in fire risks. Parks and unirrigated lands associated with residential development are highly subject to wildfire. Dry grass is easily ignited but is relatively easily controlled. Fires in dry brush and woods burn hot and spread fast. Hillsides, windy ridge tops and canyon draws also spread fire rapidly. Homes in fire-prone areas are sometimes difficult to reach with fire equipment and many have little available on-site water for fire fighting. These homes should be constructed with fire resist- • ant materials and should have irrigated surroundings. New subdivisions which are proposed to include natural unirrigated vege- tation and which would be located in outlying areas where fire could spread to adjacent agricultural or park lands, should be reviewed to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are provided. The respon- sibility for fire prevention, weed abatement and other maintenance programs must be clear. Soil Erosion Surface soil erosion as a result of steepening slopes and exposing soil to rainfall damages the property upon which it occurs and also adds to the risk of downstream flooding, sedimentation and stream bank fail- ure. The steeper the slope the greater the erosion rate. Graded land should be revegetated as quickly as possible with emphasis on adequate covering of the 50 percent fill slopes created by conventional pad grading. Special measures to prevent soil erosion may be required on properties where horses or other livestock are confined to small pad- docks or pastures, which they trample thus exposing soil . Small pad- docks on steep hillsides are particularly prone to erode and cause on- site and off-site damages. The permitted size of horse set-ups should reflect topography and erosion hazards, with the minimum one acre lot considered suitable for only level land and very gently sloping areas. The size of lots in Country Estates areas and any other areas where lot size would permit keeping livestock should be reviewed to insure that lot size reflects topography and erosion hazards. 56 i • • NOISE ELEMENT The countywide Noise Element, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 16, 1975, gives the basic policy guidance for transportation noise problems in the County. This Plan incorporated the countywide element by reference. The Noise Element is intended to add considerations of noise and noise- related problems to the General Plan and to ensure their consideration in planning processes and activities. While noise is generated by many sources, the main focus of the element is on transportation noise. In addition to providing noise goals and standards, the element pro- vides the basic tools to control excessive noise for all residential structures except detached single family homes. The element establishes 1990 noise contour maps which are estimates of noise levels at specified distances from major roads in the Planning Area. These noise contours provide the basis for administering the State Department of Housing and Community Development guidelines estab- lishing maximum allowable noise levels for all residential structures exclusive of detached single family homes. Provisions of the State Administrative Code require that all new attached single family units, apartments, hotels, and motels to be located in areas that exceed the standards embodied in the contour maps must have acoustical studies made • to insure that noise levels inside new structures will not exceed the established standards. Acoustical studies are also required for non- residential projects which cause residential noise levels to exceed the standard. The purpose of the noise study, conducted at the expense of the appli- cant, is to ensure that new structures will not exceed interior noise equivalents of 45 dBA based on the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) scale with the windows closed. The acoustical analysis reports must be prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical science and must be submitted with the application for a building permit. Thus the Noise Element provides an added level of pro- tection to residents of new developments to ensure that exterior noise will not result in excessive inside noise levels. �L��tiJ4�rt l 57 • COMMUNITY FACILITIES Community facilities include public utilities, public educational , cultural , and recreational developments, land and buildings used for public protection services, County Service Areas for street lighting and other special local needs, and drainage works. All of these must be adequate so that residents may enjoy a safe, healthful, efficient and stimulating environment. Every community must have a water sup- ply, sewers, utilities, schools, and other community facilities. Each of these facilities, however, has an ultimate capacity. Requirements for community facilities and services increase as the urban area ex- pands. Populations grow, old facilities become outmoded or do not have adequate capacity, and living standards and public expectations rise. Some community facilities of the Valley are at or near capacity and may be strained to provide high-quality service to Valley residents at a reasonable cost. It is important to establish the need, general location and timing of facilities for future development so that new areas will be provided with facilities to an extent equal to that con- sidered satisfactory for the entire Planning Area without excessive costs to existing residents or a deterioration of services to the entire com- munity. This implies that planning for the location and timing of new development must be closely coordinated with planning for the location and timing of new schools, utility lines, flood control works, and pub- lic protection services so that all the essentials of a satisfactory com- munity can proceed in an orderly and economical way. The distribution and appearance of public facilities is an important consideration in this Pian. Sites for utilities and public facilities must be related to present and future land use plans and must be har- monious with the immediate surroundings, since many schools, parks, recreation and cultural centers, fire stations and power substations are set in residential locations and are highly visible by reason of a prominent central location. In order to maintain the environmental and scenic quality of the area, public features must respect the consid- erations stated in this Plan. Major drainage works, for example, should include environmental protection to the greatest possible extent. Multiple use of facilities is a concept which is widely supported in the community because it is a more efficient use of tax revenues. Schools, parks and recreation and cultural centers are the most frequently found multiple use facilities, but serious efforts are worthwhile to acheive others, including trails and drainage works, outdoor recreation and utility rights-of-way, and commercial areas and scenic landmarks. All future facilities should be reviewed to determine to what extent they are suitable for multiple public uses. In some areas trails are planned along stream channels; these natural linear elements winding through the community from the central Valley to the hills are in many respects ideal for hiking and riding. Trails may be provided by devel- opers or the Flood Control District in association with their projects. Maintenance districts can be formed as required to ensure proper upkeep • of these public trails. 58 • T I • • . SCHOOLS The provision of school facilities and their proper utilization is a continuing problem faced by school districts in every part of the County. Schools rank among the facilities most directly affected by local changes in land use and development. Schools, however, also affect the devel- opment of their districts. It is well known that the quality and scope of district educational programs are significant in determining the at- tractiveness of an area for both residential and "economic" activities (those that produce jobs and add to the tax base). School costs also affect an area's attractiveness. In short, school needs and compre- hensive planning are very closely related. Their well-being is impor- tant to the well-being of the community. Public education in the Planning Area is the primary responsibility of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. The district was formed in 1965 by combining the three existing elementary school districts (Alamo, Danville, and San Ramon) with the San Ramon Valley High School District. At the end of 1975 the San Ramon Valley School District operated eleven elementary schools, two intermediate schools, and four high schools, including a continuation school . The San Ramon Valley Unified School District also plays a role in the community beyond its educational function. As the only local political entity to embrace most of the Planning Area, the district provides facil- ities and programs which otherwise would not be available to residents. The old Danville School is used as a community center, and school facil- ities and district planning are significant components of the area's recreational system. A second jurisdiction, the Amador Valley Joint Union School District, serves a smal'1 portion of the County with facilities in Dublin and Pleasanton. Approximately ten students are bused from this area to Fairlanes Elementary School , Harvest Park Middle School, and Amador and Foothill High Schools in Alameda County. Two additional school districts which serve parts of the Planning Area are the Walnut Creek School District and the Livermore Valley School District. The Walnut Creek School District serves a small section of the northwestern tip of the study area north of Chaney Road. Children in this area attend either Muirwood or Tice Valley Elementary Schools, both located outside the Planning Area. Del Valle and Las Lomas High Schools serve the Planning Area and are located on its periphery. Although a portion of the Planning Area is contained i,n the Livermore Valley School District, no students currently attend district schools from the Planning Area. Since most of the Planning Area is within the San Ramon Valley Unified School District, and it is the district with the greatest need for new • facilities, the following policies focus on this Plan's support of the school distirct. 59 T • The proposed land uses shown on the Plan will assist the school district in providing needed facilities. The Plan contains four major policies to this end: 1 . It is recognized that the state standards listed below are mini- mum standards necessary for the well-being of the school district and the community. State School Standards For Number of Students Per Class Grade Number of Students Kindergarten 27 1-3 29 4-6 30 7-8 30 9-12 28 Laboratory Classes in Grades 9-12 24 State School Standards for Space Allocation Per Student Grade Square Feet.Per'Student Kindergarten-6 55 7-8 75 9-12 85 2. This Plan supports the general concept of a special fee or charge on new residential units until facilities adequate by State stand- ards can be provided. 3. Since community well-being is tied to maintaining an adequate school system, this Plan endorses the policy of keeping the school system above State minimum standards on a district wide basis. 4. Every effort should be made to implement these policies through zoning restrictions, or in some cases restraints on development or other mechanisms, and to work with the San Ramon Valley Unified School District until adequate facilities can be provided. These four policies are short term in nature and allow the school dis- trict flexibility to seek solutions to its problem in concert with this Plan. In the long run solutions to the problems of school finance in developing communities require the assistance of the State Legislature. LIBRARIES The library located in Danville is part of the Contra Costa County Library System. Library facilities in Dublin (Alameda County Library System) and Walnut Creek also provide library service to area residents. In addition to the above branch libraries, each school in the Planning 60 Area maintains a student library. The library facility in Danville is considered inadequate by the County to serve the population to the year 1990, and construction of adequate library facilities to serve the ex- panding population will be encouraged. PUBLIC PROTECTION FACILITIES The protection of lives and property from fire and crime is an essen- tial service which requires public facilities and funds. In the Plan- ning Area these functions are carried out by fire departments, the County Sheriff's Department, and the California Highway Patrol. Additional information on public safety is found in the Safety Element of the County General Plan. Fire protection is provided by five agencies. The Danville and San Ramon Fire Districts and the Valley Community Services District serve the Valley with professional staff from five fire stations. The east- ern rural area is served by volunteer firemen from four stations in the Tassajara Fire District. The north Alamo area lies in the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District whose nearest stations are outside the Planning Area. All fire agencies are equiped to extinguish both wildfire and structural fires. Fire services are adequate at pres- ent, but an increased population with its increased fire prevention needs, will lead to additional facility requirements. A study of con- solidation might indicate most efficient methods of providing service and utilizing equipment and facilities. UTILITIES Water is provided by the East Bay Municipal Utility District and pri- vate wells. Sewage treatment is provided by the Valley Community Serv- ices District in the lower San Ramon area, and by the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District in the northern developed areas. Con- solidation of the entire Valley into one sewerage district may prove to be a means of ensuring adequate facilities for the growth areas desig- nated in this Plan. The coordination of utility facilities and service areas with growth is necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives of this Plan. Un- dersized facilities are costly to replace, but oversized facilities or overly large service areas are also costly and can lead to pressures for growth which are inconsistent with this Plan. Utility planning and community development planning must go hand-in-hand. The avoidance of leapfrog development, a basic policy for outlying Special Concern Areas, is a major means of ensuring adequate and economic provision of utilities. FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE WORKS • Watershed development in naturally flood prone areas and along creeks risks flood damages to property. Flood control and drainage works are costly but essential community facilities in urban and suburban areas. 61 00O2C37 Most of the Planning Area is not subject to severe flooding, but cer- tain areas have been identified by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as Flood Hazard Areas subject to inundation by the one-percent-risk flood and are subject to the provisions of the National Insurance Program. Flood Control projects are constructed by the County Flood Control District to County ordinance standards of two percent-flood- risk protection (50 year flood) on major streams, and four percent-flood- risk protection (25 year flood) on minor streams. Drainage works con- structed by developers for major subdivisions and commercial and in- dustrial projects are designed to the requirements of the Flood Control District. Drainage works in areas which develop by the lot-split method, rather than as large development projects, are not required to satisfy the higher standards required by the Flood Control District for major subdivisons. Where these neighborhoods lie on the Valley floor, drain- age may prove to be inadequate to carry the larger runoff from subsequent development in the upper watershed. Drainage improvements and flood control projects are often constructed after development takes place and flood problems are evident. This makes it extremely difficult to design projects which will provide the required flood protection and retain natural stream channels and vegetation. Two Storm Drainage Zones have been formed to improve drainage, one in Alamo and one north- west of downtown Danville. Other areas may require improvements by spe- cial assessment districts when impacted by subsequent watershed devel- opment. Flood Control works are constructed according to adopted plans for Flood Zones created on a watershed basis and are paid for out of pro- perty tax revenues in each Flood Zone. Drainage improvements are paid for by additional property tax revenues from Storm Drainage Zones formed by the Flood Control District for that purpose. San Ramon Creek and its tributaries are part of Flood Zone 3-B, the Walnut Creek Basin. Exist- ing and planned flood control works in the Planning Area are shown on Map 12. No improvements by the County Flood Control District are planned in the southern and eastern Planning Area, part of the Alameda Creek Basin, since it is not in a Flood Zone and property tax revenues are not being accumulated. Development in areas where there is no provision for public flood con- trol and drainage projects should be reviewed with regard for downstream drainage impacts, and means should be devised to avoid adverse impacts. Off-site impacts of watershed development, within as well as outside Flood Zones, should be assessed in order to avoid degradation to natural streams and to avoid unnecessary flood damage risks. Public costs for flood control and drainage works may also be reduced by requiring newly developing areas to mitigate the downstream impacts of development- induced runoff. Innovative means of reducing surface runoff, such as ponds and check dams, are encouraged by this Plan and are consistent with its conservation objectives. 62 pop MAP 12 i FLOOD ZONES,-PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS, DRAINAGE ZONES 13 �, 3 B, 1 ( �,i�' , Ilii ► I i. � :::::: .. X111 �1►' ; , ,� � �,,; 10 �- i. ►I 1Ij I .... . . i I 37A W ( 11IIIII� i ij�� Mvv� LEGEND ® Flood Zone 3-13 Flood Zone 1 Source: Contra Costa County Flood Control and Zone 3B Planned Improvements Water Conservation District ® Drainage Zones Completed improvements • COMMUNITY DESIGN There is a unified interest throughout the Planning Area in preserv- ing the scenic beauty of the bordering hills. Many residents also have a strong attachment to tree-lined rural roads and homes set well back from the road. The first objective is provided for by the Open Space and Conservation Elements, but the second objective, rural roads typi- cal of older Alamo and Danville neighborhoods, may not be realistic in today's major subdivision developments which require fully paved roads with curbs and side walks, storm drains, and access for fire equipment. The suburban streets do not have the rural charm of the narrow roads bordered by ditches. Short cul-de-sac streets and other very low volume streets should be reviewed for the possibility of minimizing or doing away with design requirements, where this would not hamper accessibil- ity for emergency equipment and where public maintenance costs would not be greater than for conventional design. A third design objective for the entire area is the prevalence of the single family detached home. This is preferred to such an extent that even where clustering is considered suitable it is usually recommended to be clustered detached housing. Townhouses and multiple family units are acceptable close to shopping districts and as a transition from com- mercial to single family residential uses, but to be acceptable in pres- ent or future low density residential areas such housing units will be required to have an appearance very similar to single family detached • homes. The Planned Unit Development (P-1) Zoning provides flexibility in site planning for projects of fifteen acres or more. These advantages should be made available to smaller projects as well in order to enable smaller areas, especially these which would be in-filling in already developed areas, to provide the maximum amenities, save significant trees, avoid difficult topography, and prevent monotony in residential neighborhoods. It will be difficult to achieve the concepts of the Special Concern Areas without flexibility in site design for smaller parcels. The development of residential parcels by the lot-split minor subdivi- sion process is more difficult to control and provide with design guid- ance than the conventional major subdivision. To achieve community de- sign goals, the initial minor subdivision of a property should reflect appropriate final future property boundaries and road locations. The Environmental Impact Report for lot-split actions should discuss the final property boundary implications of the proposed minor subdivision. In some instances it may be advisable to prepare a Specific Plan to guide subsequent lot-split actions, which would provide land purchasers and developers with an accurate evaluation of the ultimate development in the area. In addition to objectives for the Planning Area as a whole, the three communities of Alamo, Danville, and San Ramon require the preservation • of their separate identities. This can be achieved through well defined entry points and preservation of local landmarks, either as public projects or through the design of new developments. 64 The shopping areas of Alamo and Danville differ in size, but both re- quire some improvement of their visual characteristics to reflect design goals of village-like scale and details considered compatible with com- munity images. This can be achieved by architectural review and by solv- ing visual design problems along with circulation problems. Guidelines for the design of commercial districts should be established to provide a desirable environment in keeping with community design values, and could include guidelines for height, surface materials, colors, signs, and other features significant to the community. Landscaping should be used, where possible, to provide a buffer between residential and non-residential uses. Neighborhoods surrounded by walls, which shut them off visually from the community and suggest an attitude of social isolation, are not considered desirable. However, as larger arterial roads are constructed there may be more developments laid out with back yards on the road. In such cases the wall does protect the privacy of residents and its harsh appearance can be softened by landscaping and trails. In other situations walls along roads should be avoided as much as possible. Continuous rapid development, as in the Planning Area over the last two decades, causes substantial changes in the appearance of rural and semi- rural areas. Wider roads take out front yards and mature oaks, orchards are converted into subdivisons, and one's sense of intimate contact with nature changes to the usual suburbanite frustrations over school and iroad congestion. Most of these "costs" cannot be avoided entirely, but with constant attention to community design and important commun- ity values the future community can have attractive and livable char- acteristics. A first and essential step is to identify important design values in a Plan. This should be followed by close attention to detail in the design of public and private projects. In some cases a historic tree, a stream or a special view may be preserved, in other cases a handsome appearance will be built into projects with the visual bene- fits perhaps delayed until trees can grow or grading can be obscured. Proposals for public facilities which would require the removal of groves of trees or other scenic landmarks should be accompanied by plans and costs for alternatives, so that the community can have a choice in project location and design. Project reviews and Environmental Impact Reports should bring design details to the attention of the Planning Commission and the public. Community identity within the Planning Area can be achieved by judicious application of the zoning ordinance and by requiring excellence in project design. �-wY-t IGQ0 _S 65 IMPLEMENTATION The text of the Plan provides the goals and policy framework which are the substance of the Plan. Implementation means are discussed in the text and are brought together here to focus attention on needed regula- tions and programs required to fulfill the expressed desires of the community as stated in the Plan. This section discussed four types of actions: specific policies or ordin- ances which should be considered for adoption, additional studies which should be undertaken in the immediate future, and additional recommen- dations worthy of consideration which reflect community needs but are not directly related to actions of the County Planning Agency. POLICIES OR ORDINANCES Several ordinances are in process of development by the County or are needed to help implement the policies of this General Plan. While there may be other ordinances which will work toward Plan implementa- tion, the following are deemed the most essential in achieving Plan goals and objectives. Plan Review The large number of variables which will affect the actual extent and location of the future development of the Planning Area include market conditions, the general economy, public funding capabilities, and re- gional , state and federal environmental regulations. In these times of rapid change a plan intended to cover a period of fifteen years can- not respond to unknown factors but can point out, as this Plan does, conditions which may outdate the General Plan in a few years. The General Plan should be, therefore, reviewed on a regular basis at in- tervals of not more than five years. Slope Density This General Plan has focused on two policies relating to the hills; first, that density should decrease as slope increases, and secondly, that major ridgelines should be protected. The adoption of a slope density ordinance or policy would strengthen this Plan. Scenic Routes The protection of scenic values adjacent to roads designated on the Scenic Routes Element of the General Plan has been of concern to Valley residents for some time. Ordinances to reinforce the scenic qualities adjacent to adopted scenic routes, and to ensure that development of land or other projects be done in a manner which maintains or enhances existing scenic qualities, should be prepared. 66 . .. . ! • • Site Plan Flexibility In order to provide the degree of site plan flexibility established in the Plan, a Planned Unit Development concept should be extended to include parcels smaller than the fifteen acre minimum now acceptable in P-1 zoning. Therefore, a new zoning district should be developed to include smaller parcels and to provide both flexibility and innova- tion in site design which fully reflects the land use plan, other Gen- eral Plan elements, and the prevailing existing development densities in the immediate area. This will supplement the P-1 district for par- cels too small to be allowed under the present P-1 district. Creek Setback Property damages from creek bank failure can be prevented by requir- ing buildings to be set back from the bank top. This would also avoid demands from affected property owners for improvement projects to be constructed by the Flood Control District in areas which are not suffer- ing actual flood damages. Where drainage is inadequate, creek setbacks also provide some flood protection. If channel improvements are required _ at some future time, creek setbacks make it more feasible to construct projects which are not environmentally damaging. A creek setback ordi- nance should be considered in the public interest as well as for provid- ing protection for creekside property. Open Space Easements The Open Space Easement Act enacted by the California Legislature in 1974 enables cities and counties to accept Open Space Easements as a means of maintaining lands in open space uses. Open space easement restrictions are binding upon the landowner, and all subsequent owners or lease holders, for the period of the contract. An Open Space Ease- ment need not provide for public access to the land involved, but may only restrict rights to develop the land. The landowner receives pro- perty tax relief in exchange for giving an Open Space Easement to the County. The County should proceed to develop an Open Space Easement program. Sign Control Signs in the San Ramon Valley are regulated by the general provisions of the County ordinance. However, other areas of the County have sign control regulations more stringent than those applied within the Valley. As controls are provided through sign combining districts, the existing sign combining districts should be reviewed to determine their appli- cability to the Valley and to determine if such districts should be developed to meet the specific needs of the Planning Area. Deed Restrictions Continued attempts by some property owners to subdivide large lots into small lots are of concern to the community because of their po- tential impact on roads and facilities. This is especially true for 67 %(3207 • • r, a • developments created as large lots and through the minor subdivision process. It is desirable to establish a policy, through deed restric- tions or restrictive covenants, to eliminate the potential for increas- ing the total number of housing units caused by subsequent lot splits in developed areas. Where a developer or subdivider agrees that a lot layout creates the maximum number of units acceptable, subsequent re- strictions should become a standard condition of approval for the sub- division of land in that area. This tool should be used when the exist- ing roads and services are sized to handle only the buildout proposed by the subdivider. Zoning - General Plan Consistency Certain zoning-General Plan inconsistencies exist in the Planning Area. A program of rezoning will be initiated by the Planning Commission to bring about compliance between the Plan and zoning. ADDITIONAL STUDIES When this Plan was prepared it became evident that certain additional studies should be considered in a planning context even though they are beyond the scope of this document: Urban Design Studies Incremental project-by-project development has resulted in major, com- mercial areas within the Planning Area without visual continuity. This mode of development has also caused problems of poor circulation, in- adequate and poorly placed parking facilities, and poor visual quality. Detailed urban design studies should be initiated based upon the Gen- eral Plan designations and policies of this, element. Studies should lead to improved circulation patterns and to proposals for integrat- ing the design of future projects in these commercial areas into attrac- tive business districts. Agriculture Viability Agricultural land is subject to the same tax rates applied to nonagri- cultural land. Urban encroachment into agricultural district adversely affects necessary agricultural activities. This Plan supports the con- cept of de-annexing agricultural land from urban service districts, where the districts do not provide the service intended. The use of the Agricultural Preserve Program is encouraged. Further studies and programs need to be undertaken to protect agriculture as an important part of the County's economy, and new means of preventing urbanization from impacting agriculture should be developed. • 68 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS Air Pollution The rate of development in the San Ramon Valley and in the adjacent Livermore-Amador basin has serious implications for air quality, parti- cularly for its effects on human health and agriculture. Air quality is becoming an important factor in the growth potential of an area, yet there is no direct way the citizens of a community can reduce emis- sions from stationary or moving sources within their community. Results of air pollution studies by the Bay Air Pollution Control District, in cooperation with the County, may lead to modifications of this Plan. Energy Conservation This Plan recognizes that the nation faces a long term energy problem, ° and it contains several recommendations relating to energy use. The most significant recommendation is an effort to minimize sprawl . It is hoped that future energy constraints and technologies can be accom- modated within the policies of this Plan but, because the national en ergy future cannot be predicted at this time, it is recognized that continued development or the Plan itself may be modified by national energy consumption policies. . Post-Disaster Redevelopment Planning Several natural hazards affect the Planning Area as discussed in the Safety and Seismic Safety Elements of this Plan. If a general or large scale disaster were to occur from any cause, an immediate study should be initiated to see if modifications to the General Plan are warranted. Recreation and Parks All four agencies which provide parks in the Planning Area are currently involved in land acquisition which implement this Plan. This Plan provides generalized locations for public park and recreation facili- ties; exact locations of future parklands will depend upon the acquisi- tion programs of park agencies. This Plan should be amended periodically to reflect actual park sites as they are acquired. Alquist-Priolo Act Seismic Hazard Zones The State Legislature requires adequate geological investigations for all development projects located within seismic hazard zones. As a result of these studies, modifications may be made in project design which provide new planning opportunities, especially in terms of trails throughout the community. The Trail Plan should maintain flexibility to respond to these alternatives. 69 6064W Transit This Plan supports the provision of public transit as an alternative mode of travel in the Valley and recognizes that the existing transit service needs to be augmented .to become an effective alternative to the automobile, especially for service and work trips. Fire Protection Services The Planning Area is currently served by four separate agencies which provide fire protection services, two of which utilize some volunteer firemen. The cost for fire protection varies considerably. As develop- ment continues in a fire service area, full conversion to paid staff will become necessary. It is desirable to restudy the advantages of con- solidating fire services in this area to determine if consolidation would provide a high level of service at a reasonable or reduced cost. Contra Costa County Community College District The Contra Costa County Community College District Master Plan shows the San Ramon Valley as a site for a fourth campus. It is hoped that the district will provide a full facility to the Valley but, if the District does not build a full campus, some provision should be made to increase community college facilities to serve Valley residents. • Camp Parks Camp Parks is shown for public-semi public use on this Plan. Currently this site is used by the National Guard. If this property is determined to be excess government land, consideration should be given to two future uses of this land; one being the expansion of the Camp Parks Regional Recreation Area into Contra Costa County and the second being establishment of a veterans cemetery on a portion of this facility. In any event, this land should remain in public use. 70 r STAFF REPORT ry on the SAN RAMON VALLEY AREA PLAN Prepared by the Contra Costa County Planning Department Including Comments on Suggested Modifications to the Plan r Made at the Public Hearings on July 27, 1976 August 17, 1976 and Letters Received Prior to August 30, 1976 August 31, 1976 INTRODUCTION Staff generally agrees with the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan as recommended by the San Ramon Valley General Plan Citizens Committee, with recommendations for only minor changes. Reasons for this recommendation are: - The Plan appears to express the desires of representative groups of residents in the San Ramon Valley. - The Plan appears to be feasible of implementation and presents a realistic policy framework for future development decisions. - The Plan builds on the existing development pattern already established in the area. - The Plan accommodates all the major approved projects for the Valley. - The Plan provides for a mix of land use types and land use densities. There are several items in the Plan that are of concern to staff and other recommendations for change suggested by the public. This staff report attempts to respond to all of their concerns. This report is formatted to discuss concerns with the map by community within the Valley in one section,. then it discusses recommended changes to the text in a second section, and lastly, it discusses broad philosophical areas of concern raised by the public in a third section. •5 1 • • RE-COMIMENDED CHANGES TO THE PLAN MAPS Alamo Area 1. REQUEST BY: Alamo Improvement Association and San Ramon Valley Planning Committee at the July 27th hearing and by letter #I. They have requested that an enlarged map of downtown Alamo be included in the f inal Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Provide an enlarged rnap of downtown Alamo as shown in Map 1 (the final graphics will be more detailed). ` 2. REQUEST BY: Better Homes Realty by letter #2. That the commercial area of Alamo be extended northerly along Danville Boulevard to Jackson Way to include a one acre parcel currently zoned R-20. The existing Alamo-Danville General Plan shows this property as low density single family residential as does the proposed Plan. See map 2. The General Plan committee discussed the boundary of commercial area in Alamo in depth and stopped it south of Orchard Court to limit strip commercial. RECOMMENDATION: Make no change to the draft Plan. 3. REQUEST BY: Alamo Improvement Association at July 27, 1976 public • hearing and by letter #1 and letter #3 from the City of Walnut Creek. In the circulation element of the draft Plan there is a proposal to extend Miranda Avenue northerly to Castle Rock Road in the Walnut Creek area. This concept is opposed by both the City of Walnut Creek and the Alamo Improvement Association. The East Bay Regional Park District is negotiating for the Annie Ford property for the purpose of establishing the Diablo Hills Regional Recreational area. The proposed road would have to cross this property if it were to be built. The Park District is also opposed to this road connection. RECOMMENDATION: Due to the difficulty of constructing this road and the conflict with other agencies' programs, staff recommends that this proposed road be deleted from the circulation element and all references to the road in the text on Page 37 be deleted. 4. REQUEST BY: Vernal Avenue Improvement Association at August 17, 1976 public hearing and by letter #4. The Vernal Avenue Improvement Association has requested that a 258 acre area between Livorna Road and Stone Valley Road adjacent to Interstate 680 2 as shown on Map 3 be shown as Country Estates rather than Low Density- Single-Family ensity-Single Family Residential. They have appeared before your Commission on several occasions opposing the minor subdivision of land in that area, with some success. The area has a rural horse setup feeling, though if R-20 splits, continue to occur in the area the area will change character. A subdivision #4879 has been filed with the County immediately south of this area which proposes a density closer to low density single family residential. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the recommendation of the Vernal Area Improvement Association to change the land use designation from Low Density Single Family Residential to Country Estates. Enlarge the area to be shown in this category to include the hillside area at Livorna. and Interstate 680 and extend this designation southward to Stone Valley Road as shown on Map 3. If this recommendation is accepted, efforts should be initiated by the Commiss- ion to rezone the area to conform with this plan. 5. REQUEST BY: Roy Towers of Elbaco, Inc. at public hearing on August 17, 1976 and letter #5 and the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee letter #6. The owners of the land behind the currently developed portion of Roundhill Estates have requested that all land owned by that firm zoned R-15 and R-20 be designated as Low Density Single Family Residential. They have that designation on the Alamo-Danville Plan. The land involved was discussed in depth by the General Plan Committee and was placed in the General Open Space category by that Committee due to the rugged nature of the topography for the area. There are also some existing limitations on water service beyond the 650 foot elevation; most of the area shown as open space is above that elevation. RECOMMENDATION: Adjust the boundary of the Low Density Single Family area to the northeast slightly to allow consideration of residential development in the area. Since we are dealing with a General Plan line, Map 4 would provide a logical boundary that would allow this consideration. The remainder of the site should be shown as general open space. It should be recognized by all that the final subdivision layout may vary from the boundary of this General Plan line. Danville Area 1. REQUEST BY: Staff report, Fred Schmid (Morris Ranch Homeonwers), G. H. Kissin (Town &' Country Homeowners), and letter V, Don Lawrie (Lawrie Development) Jerry Loving (Architect), Mr. Fred Selinger (Morris Ranch Homeowners), Chris Burford (representing Ruby Podva), Tim Loticesmoe (G. L. Lewis, Co.) Special Concern Area #3 located at the intersection of Sycamore Valley Road and San Ramon Vlley Boulevard has long been an area of concern. The San 0 • Ramon Valley General Plan Citizens Committee had a great deal of discussion over this area and created Special Concern Area #3; the Committee's views • are presented on Pages 30-31 of the draft Plan. The currently adopted General Plan for this area is residential. The westerly- portion of the area is Low Density-Single Family. Medium Density �blultiple Family is shown for a 300 foot swath along San Ramon Valley Boulevard. The major issue on these parcels is and has been how far south along San Ramon Valley Boulevard should Commercial be allowed to proceed on the west side of the road. Should it stop at Town and Country Shopping Center as shown on the existing General Plan and as recommended by the Morris Ranch Homeowners Association? Or should it be adopted for a limited commercial usage on approximately 12 acres as suggested in the draft General Plan report? Or should the commercial area be enlarged even further to 17 acres as is suggested by the San Ramon Valley Citizens Planning Committee? Some discussion of this was made at the first public hearing when the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee recommended that "commercial develop- ment south of the Sycamore Valley Road extension as far as the southern boundary of the service station." For second public hearing, staff recommen- ded the area be placed in Study Area classification. Don Lawrie recommended that commercial be adopted as recommended by the General Plan Committee. Jerry Loving, Chris Burford, and Tim Lotkesino --�cornmended that commer- cial be allowea in an expanoeo area as recw,.c,.,_i.,ea by the -ac. .. . ion Valley Committee. The Morris Ranch Homeowners Association and the Town and Country Homeowners Association spoke in opposition to Commercial for the entire area; they prefer Low Density Single Family Residential for the • entire Special Concern Area #3. Their spokesman said they were also authorized and speaking for the Ocho Rio Homeonwers Association. Special Concern Area #3 has long had a history of conflict over these parcels. There has long been a desire that the two parcels be developed jointly. One of the reasons for this range of ideas on the use of this site is the complex set of issues facing this southern entry to Danville. The following is a generalized list of the complex set of as yet unresolved issues facing this area. Traffic Congestion. The intersection of San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Sycmore Road carries a large volume of traffic. As development proceeds, congestion at this point is anticipated to worsen. The effect of a full four-leg intersection serving a shopping center at this point is at present unknown. Noise. The existing Morris Ranch subdivision area is .currently bothered by noise problems.. While the existing noise levels are not harmful to the residents' health, they are a nuisance. If. Commercial is brought south of its existing location, will it prove a further hardship on adjacent residential areas? Need for Commercial. One of the goals of the proposed General Plan is to avoid strip commercial developments. This was of .major concern to the citizens committee when it created Special Concern Area 113. That is,, the Committee was trying to create a specific, controlled, low intensity 0 ; F 0','; commercial usage for this area. There are some who fear that once the area.is • shown for Commercial usage on the General Plan, just another shopping center will be allowed on this site. Is their concern justified? Site Problems. .There are a range of site problems which need review; examples are: Currently approved Subdivision #4502 on the Otto property has a road connection committed to San Ramon Valley Boulevard in a location 500 feet north of that suggested by the citizens committee. * There are parking and circulation problems starting to occur at the Alumbaugh Commercial Center. This raises the whole question of traffic to these commercial areas using circuitous routes through the adjacent residential neighborhoods to avoid San Ramon Valley Boulevard. * County Service Area R-7 shows part of the property as a potential park site. It is staff view that this is one of the most controversial areas of the proposed General Plan revision. It is staff's further view that since. this General Plan amendment covers a 112 square mile area, and since the problems of this Special Concern Area #3 are so specialized and complex, that this area needs additional General Plan and site level review before a General Plan revision should be adopted for this area. RECOMML-NDATION: The most appropriate way to resolve these concerns is • to place the land in a Specific Plan area, and to require that applications for development include both an EIR and data from a detailed traffic study to allow full evaluation of the application (see Map 5). It should be pointed out that these studies would be required in* any case as a normal part of the EIR process. Many of the concerns raised by the local residents might be resolved if a detailed development study is made and a detailed commitment is made in this project review process. 2. REQUEST BY: Brad Hirst (Site Selection) at July 27, 1976 hearing and by letter #8, and by Dan Helix at August 17, 1976 hearing, and by Dr. T. W. Ohlson, by letter #9. For purposes of this staff report these three different requests are being treated as one unit since three properties abut and all request similar actions (see Map 6). The Brad Hirst letter requests that the area north of Navelets be placed into a Commercial designation. His letter is unclear if lie wishes the whole 7.7 acre parcel designated Commercial or only the undeveloped portion north of Navelets. Dr. Ohlson's veterinarian office is located on a large parcel on a land use permit. He appears to be confused by how the tow Density Residential designation on the Plan might affect his building since he states • i . "this building would not lend itself to residential use." The adoption of this Plan will not affect his permitted use. Lastly there is a request frorn Dan Helix that the Plan be adopted in a fashion that will not affect his G-1 zoning. The adopted County General Plan has always designated this area as Low Density Single Family Residential. This designation allows for other than R-15 homes. Both Navalets and Dr. Ohlson's office are allowed in the area by land use permit. Other non-residential uses might be allowed by additional permits. The General Plan Committee discussed this area and requests for Commercial in this area. The Committee felt that Commercial'designation should not extend east of the freeway. Whereas Navalet's was allowed in on a permit, much discussion was given to ensuring that this would not open the door to Commercial in the area, but only provide a location for a needed nursery service in the area. The land is zoned A-2. Staf f agrees with the thinking of the Committee. Staff is aware that this land might not be developed as homes but is a location that might be best used for other allowable uses within residential areas. The land zoned G-1 has a different problem. The current zoning-General Plan conformity tables state that G-1 doesn't comply with Low Density Single Family Residential. This is the only property zoned G-1 in the County. That this designation doesn't comply with Single Family Low Density Residential appears to be an oversight by staff when they prepared those tables (since this is the only such zoned property and since it does comply with Medium Density Single Family). The experience with use of the G-1 ordinance, as adopted, on this site, has not been totally acceptable. The purpose of the district is to bring needed motel services into the area adjacent to the freeway. Applicants have,repeatedly tried to overcrowd the site; to design the property not as a unit but as a motel, and gas staion and restaurant; and requested large signs to attract freeway traffic. In short, the district, as adopted, has not been completely successful. The General Plan Committee felt the area should be designated for residential uses, and keep Commercial in established areas. They did recognize that the land probably won't develop in homes but as a permitted, non-residential use in residential areas. RECOMMENDATION: A. Continue to show the land as Low Density Single Family Residential as it is found on both the Alamo-Danville General Plan and this proposed revision. B. Instruct staff to review the existing G-1 zoning district to tighten up its design provision and to determine if it should continue to exist as a zoning district or to develop special standards under which this district would apply. C. Change by reference in the Plan text on page 19 that Zoning District G-1, Interchange Transitional District, conforms to the Low Density Single Family • LJC. j'=Jyr�r? designation in this Plan. • 3. REQUEST BY: San Ramon Valley Planning Committee at July 17, 1976 hearing and letter #6. ' The San Ramon Valley Citizens Committee has asked for a clarification of the boundary of Multiple Family as it relates to the area south of Sycamore Valley Boulevard and west of Interstate 680. This can easily be done on the final map. RECOMMENDATION: Prepare the final map to read more easily. Map 7, attached, is provided now to ensure clarity. 4. REQUEST BY: Staff. Since the draft Plan was prepared, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) has acquired significant acreages of land in the Planning Area. The properties involved are: - 495 acres of land on Bollinger Canyon Road called Little Hills Ranch. - 186 acres of land have been dedicated to the East Bay Regional Park District as condition of approval of Subdivision #4502 (Otto property). 12 acres of land in two parcels which were part of the old Nike site holdings. These lands were controlled by the County, but the Board of • Supervisors released control of these lands with the intent that they be transferred to the EBRPD; this transer process is underway. All of these properties are currently shown as General Open Space on the draftPlan (see Map 8). RECOMMENDATION: Change the land use designation on these properties from General Open Space to Parks and Recreation. 5. REQUEST BY: Hap McGee at public hearing on August 17, 1976. Mr. McGee owns over 900 acres of land in the Planning Area. Most is in agricultural preserve. 167 acres of land southerly of Diablo Road are all shown as General Open Space. The General Plan Committee placed his land in that designation due to its extremely rugged topography. Most of the land has slopes over 30%. Mr. McGee has requested a portion of his land to be placed in Country Estates. There is a small developable bow on the northerly portion of his property, approximately 25 acres in size. It is across the road from R-20 zoning. RECOMMENDATION: Continue to show most of the property as General Open Space, but designate the developable bow as Low Density Single Family Residential as shown on Map 9. 6. REQUEST BY: Louis F. Plummer at public hearing on August 17, 1976 and by • letter #10 and by Robert Read at the public hearing on August 17, 1976. The Plummers and Reads own 163 acres of land northerly of the Sycamore Valley Road. The draft Plan placed the majority of their lands in General Open Space. The southerly portion is shown as Low Density Single Family but is within Special Concern Area #1. They have requested that all their land shown as General Open Space be changed to the Country Estates designation. The Sycamore Valley portion of their property can be developed as provided within Special Concern Area #1. The remainder is steep land, water service is not now or anticipated to be available to the site in the near future. Access to the northerly portion of the property is difficult and ,would have to come in from Green Valley Road area; through large areas of open space. The Plummers are concerned about their property taxes. Discussion with the Assessor shows that the portion of the property not shown for development could receive a considerable tax break under the Williamson Act. The designation of Country Estates would not make this land more develop- able. Major utility problems still restrict development. RECOMMENDATION: Make no change to the draft General Plan. That is, leave the property split between Low Density Single Family Residential and General Open Space designations (see Map 9). 7.REQUEST BY: John Moore at public hearing on July 27, 1976 and by letter #21. Mr. Moore of Shapell Industries controls a 10 acre parcel at Greenbrook and Camino Ramon. He requests that parcel be shown as Commercial. The adopted San Ramon Area Plan has previously shown that 10 acre area for commercial usage. In 1965 that parcel was included in 273 acre PUD, RZ# 1810. The use designated on the PUD for this site was for Commercial. Townhouses have already been developed immediately to the west. On August 21, 1973 this site received a land use permit, #261-73, which converted the use to Multiple Family; the preliminary development plan was also modified to show the area as Multiple as of that date. The General Plan Committee used approved projects in defining General Plan designations. Therefore, this site was shown as Medium Density Multiple Family. Additional commercial lands are not needed in the area (see Map 10). .RECOMMENDATION: Make no change in the draft Plan land use designations. 8. REQUEST BY: Staff There is a small area of land south of Sycamore Valley Road east of Interstate 680 which is currently zoned 0-1. It is shown on Map 20. An office building is already located on a portion of this land with the area Danville Fire Station located on much of the remainder. Tis leaves only a small portion of land • b �O'Lr,r '"rl undeveloped adjoining to the freeway. Since the area is already zoned for offices and is partially developed in that fashion, the area should be placed in a' limited office designation on the Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Show the land on Map 20 as Limited Office. 9. REQUEST BY: Don Atherton by letter #19 and discussed at Study Session on August 31, 1976. This letter requests the Plan be amended to allow for a restaurant use on the parcel controlled by Mr. Helix and discussed in Danville Area requests #2 (see Page 7). The parcel is currently zoned G-1 and could be used for a restaurant. pursuant to the Staff Recommendation on p. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Same as recommendation on p. 8. 10. REQUEST BY: Robert T. Falk by letter #20 and discussed at Study Session on August 31, 1976. They request that their land not "be included in the A-2 (five acre minimum) zoning." They wish the right to split their lands to acre lots. The General Plan proposal designates their lands as Country Estates. Acre lots conform to that General Plan designation and Mr. Falk has the right to apply for that zoning (see Map 21). RECOMMENDATION: Make no change to the draft Plan. Crow Canyon Road Area 1. REQUEST BY: Pete Jensen at public hearing on July 27, 1976 and by letter #11. The draft-Plan shows Mr. Jensen's 17 acre parcel shown as part Controlled Manufacturing and part Open Space. He requests that it all be shown as Controlled Manufacturing. The reason his property designation was split results from the property running from flat land up a hillside above the limits of water availability. Staff has reviewed the draft Plan and finds that it is drawn somewhat restrictively in this are_(see Map 11). RECOMMENDATION: Modify the boundary between the General Open Space and Controlled Manufacturing to better reflect topographic restraints as shown on Map fill. 2. REQUEST BY: Jack Weightinan at public hearing on July 27, 1976. Mr. Weightman requests that his 17 acres of property be changed from an A-0 designation on the proposed General Plan to Controlled Manufacturing. The 9 adopted San Ramon General Plan designates his property as Low Density Multiple. The General Plan Committee has recommended the elimination of all residential lands in the area north of Crow Canyon Road from Interstate 680 west to the Alameda County line. It was their intent to make this the hub, of new employment opportunities in the Valley. The draft Plan designates 800 acres of land, mostly now undeveloped, for Controlled Manufacturing. Only 178 acres of land are recommended for Administrative Office. Staff believes that the need for high quality office locations will increase as employers move out nearer to their employees. A trend becoming well established in the Bay Area, such as Walnut Creek's employment area off Ygnacio Valley Road (where Safeway is currently moving its regional office). Areas need to be reserved for the use. RECOMMENDATION: 1vlake no change to the draft Plan. 3. REQUEST BY: Bill Meder at August 17, 1976 public hearing. Mr. Meder controls a parcel currently zoned M-3; he wishes to retain that use. The adopted San Ramon General Plan and the draft Plan proposes this area to . be Limited Office. The General Plan Committee reviewed this area in depth and removed all residentially designated lands from the area northeast of the Crow Canyon Road-Interstate 680 interchange. This area already has mixed non-residential development and would be a poor area for new homes. Golden Skate roller skating rink is immediately to the north. The location is not appropriate for rsiden tial usage (see Map 11). RECOMMENDATION: Make no change to the draft Plan. 4. REQUEST BY: Jack Weightinan at public hearing on July 27, 1976 and on August 17, 1976. Mr. Weightman controls a one and a half acre piece of land immediately adjacent to the Interstate 680 off Fostoria Way. It is a remnant parcel created by the freeway construction. The draft General Plan, as well as the adopted San Ramon Area Plan, designate this area as Administrative Office. It is a problem piece of land and staff recognizes that it cannot meet all the provision of the A-0 zoning district. Currently it is zoned R-B. Mr. Weightman wishes to place a storage locker facility in this location which is allowed under its R-B zoning (see Map 11). RECOMMENDATION: Change the draft Plan-to show this parcel as Commercial. 5. REQUEST BY: Lawrence Harper at August 17, 1976 public Dearing and by letter #12 and by Mr. Davidson at public hearing on August 17, 1976. t ry Mr. Harper and Mr. Davidson own abutting property off Alcosta Boulevard. They state that their property "can provide some of the less expensive housing that the Planning Commission believes to be needed by seniors, young adults, and families with only one parent." They request no specific change to the land use plan. The draft Plan designates the land as -Medium Density Single Family Residential. They had concerns since their land is currently zoned Industrial. RECOMMENDATION: Make no change to the Plan draft. The Housing Element of the draft Plan, pages 32-33, support the concerns of these gentlemen. It is hoped that they can work within the private sector to help meet this need (see Map 12). San Ramon Area 1. REQUEST BY: San Ramon Valley Planning Committee at July 27, 1976 public hearing and letter #6; and San Ramon Homeowners Association in letter #13 and by the Alison Company in letter #14. On Page 29, Special Concern Area #2, the lower Dougherty Hills area is discussed. Three comments have been received on this area. The first from the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee which suggests that the boundaries for development be modified to reflect topography; specifically that the amount of developable land on the west be narrowed to correspond to the existing approved lots and that the land east of the ridge be expanded correspondingly (see Map 13). This change was initiated by request of the Alison Company. They both agree on changes to the Special Concern Area Map. Additionally, the Alison Company requests changes to the text. These will be discussed in that section of this staff report. The third suggestion comes from the San Ramon Homeowners Association. They suggest that due to the school problems in the Valley and the problems of providing necessary services, this entire Special Concern Area be shown as General Open Space. RECOMMENDATION: Approve a slight change in boundaries as suggested by the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee. The recommendation of the San Ramon Homeonwers Association should not be integrated in the General Plan, but the factors that are raised are best considered at the project stage;.these considera- tions should receive careful review at that time. 2. REQUEST BY: Staff. There are two parcels of land in-the northern portion of the San Ramon area zoned M-2. These are shown on the draft Plan, one as Medium Density Single Family Residential and the other for High Density Single Family Residential. They are shown on Map 14. The San Ramon Area Plan adopted in 1971 shows these lands as Medium Density Multiple Family Residential. The land holders • have long been taxed for multiple zoned lands. On August 13, 1976 the Board of Adjustment approved a multiple project on the parcel on Alcosta Boulevard (see Map 14). RECOMMENDATION: Show these two parcels as they are shown on the San Ramon Area Plan; that is, Medium Density Multiple Family Residential. 3. REQUEST BY: Staff. The San Ramon Valley -Unified School District and the Valley Community Services District (VCSD) have recently purchased It acres of contiguous land for a school site expansion and a new park site. This property is shown as High Density Single Family Residential on the draft Plan (see Map 15). RECOMMENDATION: Change the General Plan land use designations. The school district property should be shown as Public/Semi-public, and the VCSD holdings as Parks and Recreation. 4. REQUEST BY: Boise Cascade at July 27, 1976 public hearing and by letter Ors 15. Boise Cascade has asked for a clarification of the boundary of Multiple Family Medium Density on the southern portion of Alcosta Boulevard. RECOMMENDATION: Prepare the final map to read more easily. Map 16, attached, is provided now to ensure clarity. 5. REQUEST BY: William Struthers at August 17, 1976 hearing and by letter #16. The Sunny Glen Adult Community has written recommending that Lot 153 be shown as High Density Single Family Residential rather than as Medium Density Multiple Family Residential as shown on the draft Plan. This 7.5 acre parcel has over 3 acres as drainage easements which is not developable. The land is zoned M-4. The adopted San Ramon Plan shows the land as High Density Single Family Residential; however, in 1970 and again in 1973 your Commission approved cluster type development in conformance with the M-4 zoning (see Map 17). The location of Lot 153 is pertinent since access to this parcel would necessitate going through Sunny Glen and utilizing its facilities. Ideally, any project that is built should become a part of the Sunny Glen Adult Community. When Sunny Glen was approved, in 1962, the expressed intention of the Commission at the public hearing was that Lot 153 should become a park and be rezoned to A-2 in keeping with this use; this rezoning never took place. The residents of Sunny Glen still maintain that the questions concerning title to this property are not resolved. RECOMMENDATION: Change the draft Plan to, conform with the adopted San 12 Ramon Area Plan and put everyone on notice that whatever development is allowed • on this property be integrated into the Sunny Glen community. Other Changes 1. REQUEST BY: Public Works The Circulation Element Plan Map needs two modifications, they are: - A project related road on the Bishop Ranch property is shown extending to Pine Creek. This is an error; it should only extend to Montevideo. It should be shown as a proposed road and not as project related. - The road connection referenced as needed on Page 23 of the text if Charlotte Wood School converts to Commercial usage should be shown on the Circulation Element Map. RECOMMENDATION: Make the changes as mentioned above and shown on Map 18. 2. REQUEST BY: Staff. The Trails Plan map found in the draft contained several errors. RECOMMENDATION: The attached map (Map 19) should be substituted for the map on Page 50. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE PLAN TEXT 1. REQUEST BY: Bill Maddaus, Alamo Improvement Association at July 27, 1976 public.hearing and by letter #1. They recommend that the wording dealing with Danville Blvd. be changed to "shall remain a two lane road" from "should". Staff agrees with this suggested change. That the last sentence on Page 19 be deleted. It deals with allowing attached units into selected areas. Throughout the Planning Area this is a. reasonable statement. To handle AIA concerns, an additional sentence at the end of the referenced paragraph should be added which states "It should be noted that both the Alamo and Diablo communities have special characteristics which preclude this clustering in established areas." On Page 34 they recommend deleting a sentence dealing with defunct Alamo- .Burton Freeway proposal. This sentence is unneeded and can be dropped. They suggest that the need for architectural review suggested in the report be strengthened. This is inappropriate in the Plan but should be considered i f outside the context of the General Plan process. RECOMMENDATION: Make all but the last wording change suggested by AIA. 2. REQUEST BY: San Ramon Homeowners by letter #13. The San Ramon Homeowners Association also had three other concerns. First, that the Bollinger Canyon Road interchange is not specifically mentioned in the General Plan document. This is true, but it is a part of the,Circulation Element. Second, they suggest that consideration should be given to planning for a hospital facility in the Valley. Hospital planning is under the jurisdiction of the Health Systems Agencies. They do not project a need for a hospital in the Valley at this time. Lastly, they state that consideration of a major shopping center was not given in the Plan. The citizens committee did consider this idea and rejected it. The Goals section on Page 12 specifically states that "regional scale shopping centers are not considered appropriate." RECOMMENDATION: No text changes recommended. 3. REQUEST BY: Association for the Preservation of Danville Blvd, by Roy Bloss on July 27, 1976 hearing and by Madeline Hewitson at the August 17, 1976_ hearing, and by letter #17. The Association for the Preservation of Danville Boulevard has raised several points concerning Danville Boulevard. First, the association wants deletion of • the section calling for maintaining adequate setbacks along the boulevard. This issue was well debated by the citizens committee and they arrived at the consensus wording after much debate. The citizens committee felt that continuing to require "adequate setbacks" would allow for possibilities of trails, improved safety, and better protect future residential uses against the noise problems of backing up to the road. The draft Plan restricts land uses adjacent to the road .to strictly residential uses. The association recommends that this be changed to read "Low Density Single Family uses". Since this section deals with the whole of that road, not just the section referenced by the association, this change is inappropriate. Finally, the association suggests that wording discussing arterials be modified on Page 35 from "moderate speeds of 40 to 50 miles per hour" to "arterials should operate at moderate speeds consistent with the residential character of the area." RECOMMENDATION: Accept the last wording change referenced above 4. REQUEST BY: Staff. The discussion on the Housing Element on Pages 32-33 should be updated. On Page 32 in the first paragraph, the sentence, "It is evident .that at this time low income housing cannot be constructed by the housing industry, and State • l .� 0007-107 and Federal aid programs are not at present available", is no longer true and should be deleted. On Page 33, first full paragraph, the words "of 50 units or fewer and" are too restrictive and should be deleted. This would not modify the intent of this section. RECOMMENDATION: Change the text as specified above. 5. REQUEST BY: Alison Company by letter 114. The text section on Special Concern Area #2 is on Pages 29-30 of the draft Plan. The Alison Company requests deleting the objective stating "Clustering of single family homes on lower elevations should be used as a means of ridge and scenic view protection." Their letter suggested 3 alternative wording which relate directly to their proposed development. Their concern was this forced all housing to be clustered. By phone communication they have withdrawn these requested changes but prefer more flexible wording, e.g. "Encouragement should be given to developing mixes of densities and structure types ranging from Country Estates to very low density multiple to take advantage of the possibilities of the site." RECOMMENDATION: Change the wording to that shown above to provide more flexibility in development. 6. REQUEST BY: Vern Cline, Public Works Director by memo #13. The Public Works department is concerned with the text on Page 35 which • restricts Danville Blvd. from Del Amigo north and San Ramon Valley Blvd. from Bollinger Canyon Road south to two lane roads. His concerns are that increasing traffic will make this text impractical. Staff has already supported the wording of the Alamo Improvement Associati- on (see Page 15) on restricting the Danville Blvd. portion of this system. The General Plan committee's thoughts on the widening of San Ramon Valley Blvd. were that if it were made a four lane road, people would use it instead of Interstate 630. However, the development allowed for by the Plan would imply that San Ramon Valley Boulevard should be four lanes. The second comment deals with the ease of flood control easements for other public purposes such as trails and emphasizing the development of "natural type" flood control facilities. No change in the Plan is suggested, but the Public Works Department may be forced, if this is.implemented, to suggest restriction ofdevelopment in certain areas. RECOA4MENDATION: Change the wording on Page 35 of the draft Plan to allow widening of San Ramon Valley Blvd. to more than two lanes south of Crow Canyon Road. 7. REQUEST BY: Public Works Department for minor wording changes. • 1 •�l • On Page 16, there are two objectives that apply particularly to Public Works improvements. The first refers to preservation of mature trees or other scenic features "to the greatest possible extent." This is too strongly worded should be modified to read "insofar as it is practical and reasonable." RECOMMENDATION: Make the text change referenced above. 8. REQUEST BY: San Ramon Valley Community Planning Committee at public hearing July 27, 1976 and by letter # 6, and by Staff. There is much 'discussion on the restriction of allowable uses in residential areas. The San Ramon Valley Planning Committee recommends that "land use permits should be for secondary uses which are in harmony- with the neighborhood." The text discusses restriction on land use permits, e.g., Page 35. There is some wording on Page 21 which appears unduly restrictive. It reads, "in order to achieve this, conditional land use perinits for nonresidential uses even though allowed by land use permit under the given zoning, should be avoided, particularly in areas designated for residential uses on the Plan Map.'.' This sentence should be deleted. As has been discussed elsewhere in this report, there are areas where allowable non-residential uses should be encouraged in residentially designated areas, e.g., the Navelet's property. RECOMMENDATION: Adjust the sentence referenced above to refer to Danville Blvd. north of Del Amigo only. Instruct staff to develop standards and criteria for granting of land use permits in other areas. • 9. REQUEST BY: San Ramon Valley Community Planning Committee in letter #6. They recommend that wording be added to the text suggesting that where possible "suitable and substantial landscaping be provided as a buffer between residential and service and employment designated areas." This concept is integral to the goals of the Plan. It can be satisfied by inserting the sentence "Where possible landscaping should be used to provide a buffer between residential and nonresidential land uses." This should be added to the Community Deisgn section of the Plan as the last sentence of the first full paragraph on Page 69. RECOMMENDATION: Add the sentence referenced above. MAJOR AREAS OF CONCERN 1. REQUEST BY: San Ramon Valley Homeowners Association in letter #13. One concern addressed to the EIR and not directly requested as a change in the Plan is concern with rate of implementation. Their letter addresses two major concerns: air pollution and the school problem. Each are discussed separately below. Air Pollution • Air pollution is a concern in the Valley and is discussed in the responses to the EIR in some depth. On Page 73 of the draft Pian air pollution is addressed in terms of further studies that are needed in the valley; they may lead to modification of the draft Plan. Efforts to initiate these studies are currently underway. • School Facilities As was suggested in the EIR, providing school facilities will continue to be a problem during the planning period. To date the only request for assistance by the County Planning Agency from the San Ramon Valley Unified School District has been to support the District's "Developers Policy." This the County has done. A lawsuit has recently been filed against the County and the District on this policy. Its results bear careful watching. Of greater concern is the large number of already approved projects in the Valley. If a large portion of them are constructed it could lead to a serious school capacity problem. The letter suggests that new bond issues for schools may not pass in the District; this could lead to severe problems. The school district situation is . discussed on Pages 62-3 of the draft Plan. It provides for a range of solutions. The staffs of the District and the Department are working on a review of the problem. Suggestions on ways to proceed on the problems should be available this Fall. Actions outside the purview of this Plan may be required at that time. RECOMMENDATION: No changes to the Plan need be made at this time: As studies are completed the Community Facilities portion of this Plan may require substantial review and amendment. C.C.C.P.D. 9/2/76 f "t ALAMt' '.ANIJ USE PLAN S 4' . . . 1�•. l� .�•. Q . ilAtyL€'t 2O �t+y _ tQ��" r . . . . . . . . . . . N a eon o00 �'- LEGEND !•'� Situ;le Family fiesidential Low Muftil)le Family flesitlential Low Multiple Family Residential Medium ►./� Retail and C-ommercial "i/ • . . Office General Open.Spacedo �. 1.. 156 _. „ �/,•\' +�a 1560 •� ,r `• c• n y4+t�" 1559 =� \/o'r ^ ` •�.. 1558 ��;;` r* � .''/ »t r ,�, _• t _' �•4 1r V1, 16 it 00 _ {1j 111 i'•' \. �•_ �/ y'�•\+!� 411 X1,11: .� oo1 Ift ♦Q. � \ �:�2 Fes(,, •Jr?,� Imo: ../ .. .�!' '•'o\\�:• l ` ..' '.��„� 4,t ems• � '�'~ Yi � `.� is ScN04L tr � • .\bt ' CRAEFIT �•�.�..�� '. �fe. .f��•t, =J(,�y!rs Veen ,� � ' :r tn...,, j i N •_ :; .....� `» .9'97 .ry ALAMOso '•• ` •: '.�. ' ... »: vir iwdf;Jet`•a •`'. ••-:t--- t •r7 • s a �• r i vrY' SCHOOL T.. .. ,. ��. ..,. •r •� Tr• • u 'r`� felt `r. •• •.,� �� f »�� j Y LY•' •. _ moi' �`rl�.."`•...� 41 jo f ttrONy M.l L.T:•,M ••7�S!'l•i'y.r.! .•►�..''""r•...... is �f .'-{•--i �+ • J '' �r• .f _ t ' tr• .�\L •{ice}:r�':��}:�• j^.• ` u' F � n.� is.. s_ ,`. rt �+S •, ri �1 tt r (N' s •h •a ``spit+ -r t� Los w r t 1 t \ if. , t Y•,+ s 1 ...r SCHOOL i+tit .a+ ,» •%n •, S ' '� DIST •-�" � i... /, t X11� � """-.•-......."� � .' i `, 1 KERNEL ARE =Y •o _ ,,�,, is •-:so Put-I T • � �: _ •+`+f, ==;:� 0SIAS 14 to '• \+ 1t m - •� ��w_ , ` •,a t7.4 �, H •� tt'+t`i .. _L)A■`a�I To. VE "Aj ;` t t,., VUEST , • I 1 {,., t •L N t i M { { t ..r 1 1 r a * ,yw*HAL mac►:;;:•�:? % t A81- so ocar -07 rr,'P •' 'j�'• .t ;�..lei +..... .�. ` 14A 3 I • e.4 cAle, a� r , 1 -- ' •GEMEQ4L OPER/ SPACE 1 , AL 1 i .M1 �001"•••LL. G0. CCYfrCt~ •1• �r rX ` ^^j_. '.7 11~'x. .l'•`��•' Y� :� . If ` 43 ArmicmTuitm- 9 V• r f `-��.' .. � S1NGl.E.FakstiY 2G�io�►irht, 'Low Dcrm: lx c3jK%f4Wit . •rte �� •«` ... �` r h; • /�1J ••1 ��l ` • r��.. _.ter... •SLS •�N.'�.\.'A'•• � , tom. .1 \j��' �,� ' �-`� rr 1• � i 1 ';.,�(` ✓:\ _.•w",i• ••,•;.• ..'l. .j;. -AS Low r)Lkl51TY SIN i • FAMILY RESIDo-WIA•-• . sv., •• , PANCI 10 iNC110 p RA' car in Z* wo 333 ' •� SZ OraNLO .44,DO RANCHO ri SAN 'RAI YON IN. N- W100 9 sc"00Igo. 4. 110 it th, HEIGHTS t 3 NO is 39 so \ 04 to 61 ".i. C .`* � S21 ,; y.:.. int, � •i :yy. ' { .. 'i, G; ~•'• at Is • Ga. tit. a .22 a 2056 4e, bk .47 SUB. -"SUB ,17 3 it WA cl an is Allft \SPSCIFI It11 f C4, cl PLAM 41 It Aveir .,_� _ y .�vj � iii � :� '�.•i t e! tE ?0 j," two Di 87 4- 0 p 1570 uls + 1567 /� ItUtl+tl. t CI I I ..`!A•uy 1, tilt lA It. AND ILEI. FAMIVe, IDE lea 4 LOW f+_ii lf_1m - at t�` t ,1 �� t• ,t,;i '•�i It s /.r�j i� " !! Not vs 10 tj 20 1� 2»'..t'6`{ �`tR.0�li1�r.! j" t• 1 �, r 712 JD.ia ' , tpIEXRND 2. V2S ,[.L« vt� 14r ,S'. F..�'• _..--.,, 'w ..1 `•i;S `•:��.{�}::. r em C"40 '123 30 ��. !o a,aOtrEa t y:,3�. - 36 sl' tt „~r '1t\ `s: Oftt ? _ 1\ trI;� •tilt t1 { ! {,�S, ro s s 1 .tz qj tt•n•�•3 -ak}t. peUS . •�1; 29;y'\ih } JS w� T 9 t ! - `i ,j.).l 't:••.� '',•• t r l •;�•t!. �\ \ +tM ♦ SK t '�` Z 3 ;� P` , � �� 39 (42 .aMl;`�`\,r ' �VA!!•A•lifl "�� •♦ .R Is fS 'V� p 9\ �•t' 7 (Q23•l'�� jr.1 / j112 o + 0 }.{ '�' (.`:•A'iL� t V,�+.�• \, t•, •It ,+ ;� ,.ji ♦ IS�i•+2 � S+,t ':� i +:•a v ` - r Z6 '�• SAIA z Ir Z2 , � tri♦ r tl }r}R N ; � T �'MA��'�r.,"jrtri R ','t �w r tS - ' `1 It '`a� ! ♦•7' �• . ,.t« IS ,/ 2� a •� ,. r C" t• "� PNQCT—l. .•�Y,:v::} C 'T '�'r.�'r '�,, �tA.l .t,j►A 't`-''':' ,+. '•r i q ::tiff{ � ';. Or REQUEST IO tV'rds' Ct-!At\1G Tb COMMERUAt.. ,, F',. ,o t. • _ to s .• _�•: n PARCEA- REQU E5T ;:OR coma 1U"CE.. ,ort r j,•i '7 • _ ( • . �•pV �a_ rf y \ • \\l • d•. Q\',�'� t� Mme} t 11 '. � If 16 WEm1f ,,,wt {{I V►:Irt�iS t 1 1 S Grp' 3 715 14 COMMUCI Flop OA 2Q i ` �� 1 •1 ,1 �()4 ''1 to p„1NCCTt+N �_ �_► , SUBol ..L—,� 3333 . soft woo +• .1we inglG .20 r`''�� R • C4J5 :r \\\ \ GLL+-" `t2 12t : ,t,t•' t0 .f.�ii'tf.r �. '�r.I �' :y,% tyA4:.. _<•• ��'; -y ��=.. \ ` \ •1:11151'1,1 , ,• ..1�.,'�'.i \. .D` eWw � •1•` ' • CVA , n. J �• i t, B � ,. :, �. • tjo !0 � 38 }! .t1�= a•' '\•i'a � , •\ `1tY: !! 1 t tiil.��it:11�!•a�`�•'�'�•� • .t: Ct.1f iSt, ,.�St J t i s _"• \ 1.,`,'a a t I, . V AnA,SU »9 9't '` 1�.�/.�\\''e��(t 3 rtY•' ,\•�yZ `a`.',•\ S1 •yw�F. '` r y`itl •'1'' _ `` \a. � t• »w"J• tS �Q,/+9`p � .{�..'��`�ti •- , ,' nj• ,R ," YA • !+ gel t r pG q , 'ti•' •�, .•, 2', r. . ar J, •y"'."�., �r\ Ia : '.-`_i�, a.* SAN �, :,�� as j �.,r :t •� ..� 2,•� 8 'i•.�,)�:-'i'. •,• `�:. w• ',� $�$ as Z A• II i s , , :`n� CAN9 N' Ian '� \ . '' s• , y '• �r• '. •, cetyl � � ':.:�i •t !t t ll . ',",t t•�� fat •\.; }} ��.•.• � /il ',� \��.1, �•1' +I,,..- i a tN ,! � (/,��r 1 t� j iii.••• ;, , \ • •��' , , '�� •� �� MDQ 7 t,ti t ": � �� rye }. } '�.+•_•�� •n . sU Y' .Y' i 1 . .r � y� � `� � F+ •t �h . � /'_': ' •r,;-.r-�--�� tt� tr ,(': •�+' ,�y1 �\ \ .1St 1 •kn . „� _ •►- a • _',t,..i '• i.. • .. •. • .. . , •wwr••. ..,,. by y b r �1. sanRamon �9T DAY REOIOAA K DI SL ( l 'Yx • .,,�A . s•s+:. ♦ * . ` „• '♦ .� ' a11� ! 'T4 '1 _ _ 'JAI .Ar "a • 1 �i r • 1 '� ..t •• tt f {{�� i t 199 AC { 'T• r fii` , d ail ry"w / 121 AC yy CORDURO"f HILLS •13 ( t,. ; �' . `` r �• .� t\,f��r'� �-r J i j o I 0 AC 1+19 .61 AC 1 ig t �' jI fr '! �wjr.. '�`` r i♦ `�` ' 't} L.�� 1 �. Y N r '� 1 .`• : 1_" ... •.rp•.•♦• ••"'� •1. }fes•• rtY. .,,_• r\ s' . •`' �"",`.. � � 1 O•,rF'� �•^ 3 R ! ` 1 .� � • . t, 7 � �• �, a l' � 'Y'\. atm ••{Y+��ray �v� w J � , T � . ` •a'L.V: •L 14"1) ,• I•" ♦ J \ 'l./f��t�.i 1 w -- - � �.-.�...�.—...�1.�._..�._.:�.,. � •_ � �� ra � � �j; ',, M,�„ ,..! 1. 1•� Yt� ... • fir/^ 75.32 AC /� .. .v'• � .. to V 'f.„ /L..»• �, J AST BAY RECtGMAL. P4RK 01ST ! �_ r '"? ♦ *� ' "s N is so . y 166 AC , ACS"' *'s r .. `♦ ` tir EAST DAY REr&fQ"+AL PARR DIST :� +L.wsa `' J sKM a "•. • ,{ ,L 4 0. ' -� rweti ••♦ .+� 0 t 12001 aC w 80 AG R+ l4:•c % t, ry 1, Ot _ .tea _�4, 18.59•.'AC. ..`• r `J l '♦ ; ..i , --- `tet *iOkfrr � 1 J �1,J• Lid 1� � J •* l � � t'�.tai•.1.qa' Y �.'TV"?.' ^• It .^T •::y ORA ; "+1• •`...) "a.`_'. ,�.�r��t"�,•/� '}"J'. i i•- ....� . , h r " a.a_ K 11 ' 26 •� ''':''�T;•,+•,y' ;y,,f ♦ 1 M Ah 4 " °•Y'J/ '•7 I�Q�y . .ti•p 4 a.za1 A a1 >:•:''' o fr 11o. 2d 1 KIMnA:l. ?.04 Al' } e� 01 % \ %;!e:�•} Y;•%%�•4 +;%'�'1%:{�' rT �' r.ww' 1 6Si5 t .1d1 "!.•..,1 n)y .+ p' , a•'r' +¢ ♦` ` �"}��.yl�:•K;'r?:1L::ii;<i:S\:'t;:%:;:�} ' •Y y-� A'' e�erA/©Per K 1 Y 8 a tL hr's 1 I �. r"'+ .�,r' �J I. 29 Z i� _ Wit\+ ' . 3 M u 0 ;;4>,:l k :,{S."} : {;� .^. i �CaM D «SSO�a TI AC ; 46 A MAINriARC.-+-f----�kARAC i $11 AC J8S'.2y AC t ;a:• Oi �,�+�.�`♦ 1 VA A .>.;. ;:; , r t M `•a:••%ti'%.•:•::•;•. :•:::•: , 1 19ftf SOIL r , i ;;r.,r,.:::::: e � iii �� :•::.•:.':::. �'•/` 92 ,TO AC S : 20 A •. Genera in . •r .;{.;: ;;: .,I c ti • 201.30. »C "•1.� C�.+��•1.� •� A1060 r .• :•.•::•:r::: r •r . PCDYA Ile VVI x .LEAST DAT REO W : yFr,. ;:: w V1 s s +,;• + RK DISI ii:• ;;;�t%* \ Ar 1. , r ; ccs ; .;+;;. IIIo— t: :•:. In ... l C `" r 132 .6y X ' `` ''._I � �♦ %. COSTA . l 32 yiriii 165.16 AC -n 1 ♦ 7 +W O y:• 1 . �' 2zT.lY ;C � 292.06 Ac \\.. CIA r o.-A - PO14 �^ ..• is2w `15iy ' LED 2S 2W 12SIW QREAS� To ' " =b�( r45"S G3rR`t ICON MALE. r:x*� 235.96 AC (23. 64 AC 1 .120 Ds'`AC .w a, v 33K t I' �' AC r• FAC 46 3.4 ank !!�t•st�� y y � �y j J jrj 4 t7AC �• ' .....+r"s•'-h t' • � ...� O� � yf r}+s( '/ „q-V ', i r. '" r• ; .� ti r1' i�� rt�`Q/rrt.•�•!f:/j(•M...8•.-••�...i..^t a !x ,,,»..�1 t1( , .Ira.,n..�••r"1" • :S► SCULE Df 40 AC 46 /� pE =950q TAA �A Y7 a +• ... _^-- -� L?it+G4.. • tii '�T 7 »�- y '; / \g 173 62 AC .. •. •'•+I Ka / o A Y• v,,,y/ L'ti 'H er ,�,,�-'6 r ' <f�,1 + "'1 y� ,�� ' �. ; -�.."�3.._ � � � 1`' j�Y.�� jam•• p � „' v8' t � 7�f7i 1i�..�;:,�'t.rr fi:� •r�,•.y. 1 , La et t X� -Ar20. o ke .. N •Y ' ` •' •.4 Te .li'/_s'a-r . -• .,s•.... s •1 r''.�zs�.a , ,r • - • r :w�' J i !z 20 ACl �... `�•.••..•• :" f 1 3.� • 'i v� —'.k— » ---- 7^ •prlt� F-� F••;;� •Y ,•:•: ;:}':1,; ` `>,...7ZN Jia'J`,;''-y t /.zY, / rr y • •j• •'y ? V l ryugy I, iy t' ',aye_ :% r:Jr;s::;%':%•:%:.. :• o::%::;:;5; ;;:;':;?:{: •► \ '.i' / rF�f 41CK TAAt; 7�/�/y s. a ., / rr. \ :%r% rr :%1; :;?; ;:% }''.,.:;{: G� �' J .�r..i.',tie.•1 �'' Ch `0 !'�"+V t'� j :`t.�•, r Co221 } r,':% :':{:;•r:%4: {:•::::•: , - 'ems.. ��jj ':: `+..•S_. ...pp. '"""'tiG +i ".r""�-•+4.:.t . 44-S i S AC ��;�,r`•`/� n ��=ice- ; _ ,A.:7 AC oo/� I��AAS 'moi. � r�..��'_-•G� S' %c A'_._`_ •• 1 p �,,... ..+^.. 23 .' -i "�"�.ye•. �.•'..s;,,=•>.0 •S,e L•" '^' fY•M i. TS A•: Zi7{'�•'_ i/hJ:IT '•�' •a,,, ••`� •` r �,.'/ --'•...,, �� tom` z'_ 26 ;s. ri• """'� �..�� I3T.62 AC ' � •• `�•• � �/ 1 r j •,, 1 j O,a d �' ��,`4 f'�o ''- '!C� _ 26' A.. wl�.2f1 ;r ? ./`\ ~ !/ U •>16 \►r/�� wJt ��IdS '"t1." + OVE f ��ar'.r iry , .-a^•/• aLS a• AC u ! t '� t` :ct': {7:I;]}ti?;c %:i}(:}t:: 1 `•_ T J C �•cq,azsR . 1 f ��r v::.:,':'::''':J.•.'•.••.:•:::�:•ti•:: • . IW Aj 41 D u� /moi.;.:::{:;:.:. ••:: i:•.. 16 .L F 4 126 IE rum „t+ ti' .Z%ol Ac 7 • /M'YI► �•f 1 r- w t rsi n + %A�.. :Cd" arr --•,t s=l•' w �'=? w S "�Cn� j. AM: '4 S OM r r r1 (' 125-0, AC ""- � �.,-c.-1`t f -•'��''e' 10 76 ACv / s''�' � = a �'N \ •9 '+Q JJ '. a •�'` y'c�.s•-'ii�T•-..r,,, 'x'ztr" 't--... ..�.r�'n°'�o�+...,/ _ �`�� f N •'`. -•,� �9.111 .4C Its,`Z A C .L, •` V 2�N .to ACaft •] rt ^' y,ar�...r•'- .•uwe++�s�-•��.�nR:3l it hG x r'f,i r DL•A.+?I.J3. Ac 12 .r • •63.39 AC .i ` j- 40 L• It 77 � 13 . • a •. t �j•. t 1 r'aao { t 2 ..IfaY�`•J ., lN= f`•.• •;, i� t. t •- 1... .I ; ';; ♦ [t ,,,-•'•r •.. * �Cl � I z: M�� .v !♦ r•t '.' t: 1� •• r� :.� . E. » t.. w9• ; a 1 t tr ( , N ` .. ��••`,•; tJ as , , > •Y y aN, f tI�O, • ..•• ../ i, ` • 1 „. , J> i r. r •.. :, ��a� .; Jf' C }, ♦. •� Y nu a, Aa`.. f w • t, S) �Q *1 *S C 7r r. a •:tf_ • •it M^•> =, wt �_ >ti• f ti� 7'=i. .�. Ya.._a )Y`' • `'rt �.` • 'Iv). .N L .:UBr. � � + C .,, •• .,' , a a♦ • / /` t•: •�. ti ' • . is ' � "•t.. ♦.t•aSC•••'t M ' < �.�,6,.. Gt _ ..t•-.�• yr { �? � ., � • � �• .. .). .�C IQ Cat Z .t ••S'j� t rfy' =f �• - t/ It aI _ a; %M. t'C.7 'a1. ( t • n ` •O+t•C G 4 ra N3 N+J er~ i' /. , t 1 IS a0 � .II•a •• •-: ♦ r . •� •': :• {. N It ••• j 1� !y:� ' t o•_ f '" • '• . . •� ..: ', s7 'a as �,: 11 l • f Y J ; r NG c> i • i> '. . I• lJ • . �N 10 .'a/ to. ' i i11: � - S(�'i `t:• >j •e . '• w •Y:(/�,� •J - -t •'t+, vw) • � _ • ,i W N/N /8�•>a.r ♦; .�: P � Z.Y.T q. ?.. . r i to f,.{.• vE t•> •C it \Ir ` :t a• l: '�♦.'�- r'b jf N �. •o';•l` ,� .: 1Y `�' . •_ ✓jy to rtj+.i y:. ' • L_ . e:. ,. mow•.. ^5 7 yam . T ,. - w • a1♦ x• �� ..ra = / t .S t �7 j�/\ pt t� t :w �J,�a,}pp:� ` . • :j. , .7► �r a � s .,, w R 6� . •,, ` ,• . • .J. • .• a „at 21... jot • • ,7J�+ 2 �'`'( � _C: �" / �'" _ 1 - �'C S;C�' 'E'ia :. �.- 't• -0. !: �rV 4,i7.•.1�`7 i I'.•ia+ Ile. tJ t l :;ti: : ;ti:; to i:';1�;.r � a ,,, I •aas .� ,�.•, e- -t t• • { \ ,i •:::a j� cc •r•>r t ..tia t SC:Y' �i 'fin +�Rtr lei ft ' t { l l :1. '•'•'• ,•t�'•%JSJ '.�• . • • }'"1+••y . .•a ZI fit• >r rf•: • i it '�:• �:}'.1:•�:•:::�' HL'• �'.Y,�,� n � ;�..:. •'f itaR41•.-.. > _!. 1 � �" tit: ,Y[e ' i� 1{ •r••r••�-r:r�:•: ,:(�` �y.-y•tV t• ••M� tJ • YV41 t•w _t� I I� t't .. t. .,a . • •.r t • r z?� . It" t t i ij1 ♦`;.+`,. +FM_,423s*=..i�i•t ��= i 3'.4'z5` r '.. /w, a „}.h7 t •• • J ,�.., • t � 11 / t ..:'� ��,;:\:, Y �y.i 4`~w•.'i�,:,i �`'- �•. +' S ,.�0 . .. •Y. /7• � '.� �� f t>• i , it i ' ` ~ ♦ �� rf :Y�Kt v .0 tAN N Ilt i li � i •�:•. .•. �•. ]qt . �•tal.a`t'� J• ,. ,. ;/tip •} ; � tett .; •` + a �` . ♦, ^ ».. a s • inti � :� t if' t: ' 'r ; �.c .. =' t : y_ � t t t � 1 >•`1 a( � -- _ q`S, : r*�• UB ',1 s _ i t i e ,, ,:.,,♦ ^i. E ,•. \ .. ST •;1 .t; �_' t ,t.,///. . , i 1, S w • CII + _ •• �'. »i ar t , t i .�aY•� YIF.1. = Z..:' ,i 71 : •q 't1C `^ t <.. , ws a0 ty�8t:.+ +•t 4.. \ i V \ fit 1 ` hr , a �'► ! �t M.� tf i C t t t zt± • 1{.x �� 9t; .$moi i• t ; t t � 1Eyfy•` rkM, �� %�wi•/• .'•,S p` , l :`✓i �:Y YI•?•I> - '�� 1~ `•�' ;3 Ct Nt .•,>j G.. f 1 y i `• i.a•. !� +w. w✓'a i....•.y•i f,,w`,t} Mr's ` r 1-14 N ISt� } >., p .. .a 1 , / , - X, �+Y•f,7 J �T' - .' t•: j I •�' G ua. ;� •I' y�,RY y? i� {i 1 tet. i .,`♦'.:.t >ti� pvJM..,,,� ?: .�•� » act- jv ., it .;1` Io *: •.i- _•,,a Wi; -We aY +• t - .: • i T :) •• 11 7;' Z' r�, :•ft•YYt C y : • w s "s. , :., ,tf. . - " •^ .q al tQ r IJO r:afp•. :�`S {,,, `t � S ; 1't•• ice,.*y \ • N! 1� G. )Y .\. a ,3 R mat` _ 'i F/ 1( , i �,'Y. i '` �I r•.�at�@, t 7t �,,,. C•'. t .. .77 '.a rJ S � It. •• �. 1. L•. . • coy •J S� .:. �tj a` :j: GfstaN ! _.• •• U j ,TtnC� O ' i 1 .' ;�• J'+ . .•'.{a��7! .. >` -Jr.N >I VIj. YIt i'. • • ,i § F t ' •. ..i'' ,,,.�'.._ .+�.% �Y• 'tom�� •:1.! .✓" • .� .'' 'i _ ti:r+ fir,. �-" ,, ,� } a ., i----•1 � M V��per, vMITF--D 4141 QarCe�3 e) "' �-�- �h \ `r, N � �• �' ''��►::. �.--`A ri►� �• Loc �t�tJ eso i lip G�►<< '• iii � r '`r /,,, C li w4 awuFac.�turz y a CO IM jo • :� AG SEAt50 i r i =i•'a`, •�'• r,�Y•' ./ �-7 i?A+ AG �• :.•. . . .. , r E R" APit l 51 Ra+� ,;fir cc.�`'' ° ~� ,►N L+° , ' ` 166 1577 ' 1576 r L479 U17 .♦ .♦ .a f`�a♦.�, w •.f':i v —ate t•'•�• •S• .i• al 1 M� � ia• rT --ELO rirr.to an S•� a a, f .. 31 a T ♦rr+_._�8,s\aT a AZEVE00T CT G OLLIS '" P 'R lARrpGe OR .... ..._. r . r ♦ }n a �arh�lJslder,� ' j - ;; so ♦, medium DeA,-*;� o TEIGLANO 9 KINSETH AERO.IET ERAL PRO?F.RrY 9` ",rte Pa'•r..r:'••;;�''rr• .D •F•• �•r ::•�•r:tit:•~;'t^•:' 1,11 1] c� t i ti:•:i:•i•::,��:r:r��.•�errLr•�r SAN RAMON VILLAGE ':t: `r•:.: INC C. CIAI. C.()Nrt lira AIIIA 7, L*R DOUGIICR I Y HILLS PLAN • O / �•� , .jam.\.�.,.-..�. === _ X. ' Camp Parks rot 0 1000 1500 `..►�. ::;; �G `/ r•.. L . " `•'i::: :'•.L Prov oS eon De ve/aprrerf -=, ; jffx istin9 Rid ye Top L E GI:ND O Develop west facing slopes first =; Single Family Residential Low O Cluster development on lover slopes ORidgeline to remain open General Open Space (D Provide trail connections linking Camp J7'-�r Parks and San Ramon Valle �� Agricultural Preserve AW C;4A,4GE To 4E►1E12A.L OTEM-SlItCE. � T\ Public - 28 CKANCjE ')D 5.F. i2EstDE.Nrtac. , LOW map- I3 N " Al.le0' t raw" _ . NOy ,l y,nJl;. :' «•• •, ..t9f\,^;!!,.�.+..�"'. i''��;• a ..i'►irJir .. /iRj:iJ 4 ' rl..••�i �> G' ::1:: • ,♦ = t L• ..•r.�+. 1^+'.1'iwi,�i• :r• y J H F;If �,�„«, + b a' t ; .i •.. r {�� tr f♦ 'r: why•7• S 1 ! • 7•d J„J t 1r'f••' =,r.. ^;<"'(� ih: w . to .. J•ry [ /:S�S:L2:•:"..�:::::::2:3�: SJ : i'J� ♦ r; •, . .••` rp:..•! �a r„ qt ,� CPl �} «. . O s:'^:1::;:::x::7::7::: ,-� .. f r.. •• �` �e'r •''cf( .Jl�.. :, t, rr.r - ..:., !' � t ,� �: : � �• t • .r '• q p ':::7: it �. `lam• .i�,J r � �PA •rT.-(/Oy(}. •y1i•• Y tr.r j! .r ri + .p .♦ /, � al.� :ai2:S::L::Nlw.:f.'::::.. �.. ^.F«• �.Z`$�.. rr r. .w \Gy•« t. i, t•r 1 .:. � • .,Ay ��•'�.l, •} •• .0 , • . .1•:::i::::. t{ - r•� •. / ♦ . • `, i\, 1 'i' ria � ,� • IJO t •. 3. f•-� . ' . +• • •+ .:::1:9::::1:':::.:........•... `�+-•'•'�.. 1:�f. r .�..,� c ji �--� V Lr • .• 7 i t '•Jf •,,.4 �. t .• .t wr . . i:1;'1//:1..1'.:::::::::111: it ... .•, i', •` j / .�;e!r \ i• <NJJ.i--i-- . '..!•."�' -L�_� --'""c..-^'•'v .✓- �s •� r+ : .• j11.:.......... t" J f�JA f r..: a ' itt ? j',.. •'r_,31 • ' , ' h. .._,•"_ • „ .tea , �C •} tie ti At //.7 _J • i •••-•,.V",`�.. �j •.r r / •, f , I 1 r •rs O t a ty �• ` r • I J. IY\ • O% {�r 4'♦ rr.�J i:•.r .T to •,r P i�I r• •• . Y•It t fI Ji�. ` / ••.�N��1 t.:.::i • •^ ` r• :• •- ,� tlt/•. f ^i• • t�T I !'<f / i�'t r \ • :t' `rtl' ♦r 1 7�w/ •t P k •:y / •- s J -, t .�T.. ^ `.♦ _ ..i�+... �,f ar �[ ♦r1•a L �.• a� •.9 Jys.r �+,:r 7 Q !�� .D ,•.', •� ^ .t.�1•�• F _ i E p OY+: i•-•'1 r0 `, � Ir .w, , r. r' ;J. •• } r••1 St 4 CQ {3'7 it1L= ♦ 1.••J Ji•i. l a��:• '• • !t rY{ r• ,l' r• •.i• f..f • .; r 1 U;4 . 44, •• 1 ht��l� �•• •?7 •rJ .r�•. i({f�/,i�•'\/ �•1•►21\i a .•fV ,.i '•U: l• : i � .J S 0 C O• /'I''i C' - _% A4 •J/ 4/„�'%" �'j'• • r'T Jae r a J (; . F ff •- • ,. , 1 ��i.I • I . N i. T / �• I M .I'•.•�"NI .IJ /'•I• ,,,i I .J•' •.� aI � 1• ` t / , p•f• rr,r}... Y •J�./I• �Jtt•5t ti. !1 L(`•! : �1 !��•' ,,;tl '!, t . ,, t ,tr r • � : 4 �` �l i•..r � ,•r/ ,�� jjj..,,,.,". •,�: i•ry j� 111 T�•r+ ' a .•.t .` .�.•..'•i "��/r•, { + 1•t,! t•� 'rte •4!1 to to '/ • it+.I• <f "iIr• ^'e'Sf'• \•�i. J t `•tJ j , L•r !��=T1: f ••lfyir • , , •! O i',' sIf '. !.. . „O i •,J ''t• •'j�r f�" '••� 1�i1 •• p • t r•' • . i s• t . • .. •i •', , _ .... I J ' r9f♦it'�p�t ,t.�: waS •dr �S' r �` r� ?J ��.4 :r.}•::::I ::}}: ,:}}'.�.: O "•• � /1.Jl� :.•' •�',i/• •: < r' t r'•r i wwil 7 ',f. < �i t�pp �tjJ'Vir '�/•► r•.r r r4: '.• . , �. � 7!iY' . r 7 r ;•S. t O t, r' �•..•JL••' L i^:•', A+!�I,,//' .4 :l .J�.?wt..♦..., •/+w/•. •j•'•: '7/• •a w.f •..7,'"r i •:4 A. �...'•.'..•""'._ - `r, .,l!jj r! wa••,... _: 7. V _/• .. - wr :•Jt :;4v.:r ::}:'r:'r ::•}i:::{•:'" rr i .("r �..., i•/�Afrt: • 'J•. ' = y� rr. t�� r r;,,,,...1.-•:ate,>� X. :.�r �,,r, \. t �'l:� - t r ,'"r�. s :.�.• ,Y. too Ydit. _ f !V}r t �'•'�• !y `,« ' •• •f ' ` •a•. •µ'• i•••�1 1 t � - � � r ' 't i .. 7jr tY •""�•rl� .C4 � r' 1' .11 r••�I• ,� !I 4 i •• •wJ 1: .` ' • r t - v N r`,., r r' : ��I�/r��' w! J_w /' •!T"i f 1 Ar ' 1 1 ` . +,'' A t ' �, !►�(J�.1. �• r i,,?K�C '11 ''� i•1 �.:•Ji, <t.•,�1 •• � ;� •8 .f� / / ` ,... -a f Ja< 9 •` •1► J , "• ,t 1 p t 1... ^' -;•�..::.�fU :•' ': • , *f.� t• 1 t t ♦riw 1^ T.. r r .+4 t ,,4 J,T '�(�. a'l'•F. ♦ •:•1J'�. r "` 7^ ,�. J1: i pp. •', q{ . 2� . • t ' _ ? • /i,4''' T• t ' E� y� 'r '` ( r r �!,•,'i ! .'"J�"tryt tLfy i"'•s' _ E.� ' q•, r: ,. . r M t?,. 7yy'J a° -�, !N , ...•"" yt,. ' 774 �"'�,"'• r 11 ♦»: .. •f •• t •• /• 2'w. ?• ^ • `rr <: •� r .•••"'• E.• �}• ti •t"•i • ••'1' : , fi: •♦t :1 ,,•-a'�,'�•`••.•t'iT• �' �.y; 1. • t :r.•Jr r.r;•••i J.••n+ J .. '��' ` r(•:• • •1 •t ��r. 't f �j •� .f f'fJ^•'r'�r ° n r e y �' r " r r JJ �_t lF i�•"2 t.:\. \ r •�• �"�i 1�'�'� r *^.. ••yr:� i. • "F•+ M••• ♦:'` t .' "'^•/ �•• •' ' i:• q AVE ' . ur + •'i-t . t• 4 • ! w ( •. �•r'i•K.�,..'. .� i YA?,Vy`aa..r.•«•`'�1 . FI. i f•, W. .1a >{ rM'p A J .l. , Y d e. .'� 'JJ^t Pl. .. { v : • •J.. . a., ,.♦,r i•• i c ( '` t c � r 'a ,'r a •-^.•l�'?•• !' - [•��:A . .. . •f. ..•:• �4:�r..�.�Y1' 'i• ` r: �..7+•'•••�','i< r. tea r 1 '' '� r + e le • •�h 4, K •r'" ! .y. ' I ► Y.-'�:.,`.t.. C M ^ •'�'�G/O'�"wTt�. �^. .��r r� ,,.r .•1✓i. • . . � ' r!" Ca`• ' ,(�'$ i^j,f •.•JJ y� • •'.1. /_ 'J V J •~i�>'. 'J i�i•aJ: L,-11 I �i v 1'.�s 'a• , ..rw z*r 't i r•= ..if...atr �-.4 ' r f• ..�-^,Y'••+: ( .• �....' t .• l� moi' r'. • :• •• '�• r1 i3 rt •JI.JJ.• /�I.'�.«y) \ ,, f ~ •"".r�4i �1\�••'•� �' ,-. T�}•� '•�•• •• •�i�� ..w_,' •:i �•„• •a�r�..•�, r• ♦• Q.t. .• ”„• •• ♦ �,/ JI �J• N�.,S rr V ata !•_?• .I t:,..• •�Jl: ,`R., •.��•"�'1, w1 J .. ` /� j�www •�' t Q ?_- 1 '�{ /"`. _•j 1 �' '• +••.:�'• r• �� •• • •�r t• ..•r 'afry 4r• "'1 f1�� Pa `r r .Jr Qom• . t y..yJr••-`w••• r^�T �r .�D' ..�. t. '• (. tIr Y..i:y�� A, ''" •i, !' •r :i: •t i '< r.. r j-' � • ttl All ,•:,•• 1 , r iI•��,1((: • ..r ••Y �`^•..� ,e MM. .,}.'\..-..w�.: \�''� + t,..J..+••!�t w•.r..•: •. 1 i-s •.. . . hr' . . • • n. ' �i •'••,,...• .••i'" 4' idS 'iT : D4 �"«.,��^ , ,1..«h.� (��..• yam.. YSr j rl :• !.• r•• yrrJ• G (nt ter• r: R r� r" ,.. ` rw it.. { j {. 't J..^T:Y� •t,✓ .t, LL---• i • 1....� \.t ••r: •r�..J1:j4•".""L•�' '�r't, .'•♦,y ••• r Lil.i� .i'. 'J. �, f- r / Y f..t `t. t' 1 a t {�••, «, aa't•�'l��• •iJ_j..V•�.n••+++Y;F '• ••t a: ' .� .•.•7 �w q `l �. A, • , .. 0•�.�+••'.�T`t F'•e-ti.`. `� 1.• • `��•�, •�I • , r. '? • •v\ : 4.�.l.d•��•.ls...;�1;'::rjT. +� y �• ." ` `',. MPJ •'.\.y \ , �• '!• t?.� �, 1•,r� i • • •��.+�. ` .,. ��•.� V13E •' \•r J 1•, •1 ` < t^ ir_�• ,t i. ~ < �� r • I•Y � ( • - i fi .`1 , � ��,� �..'•• h, ^•''.,� p'e. �'I.. h Pr'H% � •....��•^f�!'('�/�".'•�r:.,y}.:Z�.rO ''J• ' 'r'��,' ... F•i:.f :4T • ��l/7". .. ..�.'•+-^ r.: . `s ' Vt, A'.. r ;'�, a ' : ' r•'' ii'�... • t f '.+•1^' ' . .r t ift ,ht .. C ., ..M ♦ • '.+=.•r.` �' 23- "'.'.... ...�7 .!``�' •` =t �P ffell ' •:. ;t,. 'r` ,r •: d%n•� r `t ��•,, {',,.`w..�..?._ , � i s;^ti� . ♦r'I�`s ':. a .A+t' � °Z•: N:t`a 0l`�:. � � \, .�.�{+�\ • V '.• .,� r r..•• •ter ( • -tet« •• 1• „§!• .? a . o Z:v f• iBUUi6 t.�(,,.jn '•: y'1 \J �'�'1:;•.'^•:•\� •ii1 .�, •A: '�,1 .�_•'},R` •'�/.V i H, '•"ra•'tI O r \'-',�• •'•'• !*'.t .` t t v J~mow_~ � f {r'� •..r 1y '.t+�i' .`: i _• ,�. V lot, lie .• •, •+ e. z J29n 9i! '++ ,�•„ CJSr r,2pii sn "zli tjS _ 12. 7 = -• ; � ` 70.o k m r •°' ?80'ar JU' ill a 2�;� xx �0\67 CO. A`2 9/' u �iq 5 Is'' ITS i2a ' \,•r74 6g 11 �A. 1111At nQ'i 7�0 �7 M• JB 1Z1 a. A1 {7�q t• ss tz2 2 w gt St !/ Z6a a N M}1 9y6• 46 ,{fi Sit! r;�� {2 o SP 24 ♦9 �.., 4 p /`�7 rY 2S Q 2•,,, ha 61 SV af. gl 7\ ryA 7• 4 of 4'.,T .+. 39gB S4 o 170 CL 6/ ?T 10 o, r• 1. r tA 2160 $ V spy U,y T w � 9j :; x�� 1 V' III41 1 ,•s _ r, 1 r:,;; :4 :::dirt ��'� �+�' J � v6 � 2at•I .a N(J, .a r+ ;,;f�•'f''7''i��''�'' •i1;Xir?4T'i''�' :�'rY'' :�• .J� `, i4 :�'.`. iQ�1 ` ,�: :•i'.t?.t�;}f`r•`"'fj:''�t,{;i;�,��{��. r:J:si:;.,t•�:r;' •'1 ,�1 /+ q �+' .yam �'•;•��f f• ME V• .r. \ , a� ! /Ah tt +1.+.•,i+7,•9,�`t•:f;.';:/.:.''�• :''' '•`Jr' irt,�:%r. ••• Le CA 9r� l ?:`N, ,��'• :Jj:'� t�: fir' a'� �}''6+' t .s Q g 'i r• .. fi''!. .,+.•'??w"rj9• ir: r.:;;••';i+L��r, as •.• i ,� r��y,�,r+�r:ii'�'!4 ''.:!r/;J'•' ''rrr?f;� .rr'::7t�;r•' '�• •::r: •*�, 0 ra'•"�1 .'�.irl, '�{,•:r, rf'7►Jr:;,;:;r,:;':•? . r � 1 I ?kl-. *J '48:! 94 -'� p.J� 'r:.' 4n,i},�:'p"` •?y;r•' yr;!;. .. ;tX: r�c�,r ! i�' r r �, Q. yj2J y •,;:f..''i ::j/. J:::�?'' ' ' :; ?t' ?K; �'. r'`' { Z �N c .0 36 BT C 1 \ r,'.•t~,5z ra �. ).• rr;it4'�'..'r i'1' t:r'••�:• �, �.r yb3 Cj �} ;et 13 � 9'' 'p fit 5 Mo\T,�O /} 1681 1 4 +lid p ��'•. V-31,`�� g 166 g F J9B n •::� 9ra9• 1 a�� '$• ci �� a ,, +• 1Y8 4 6 8'07 91r! 1 \ 5 IN lsp .VG .� t.c•, N' a2 9 ` , '• `5457 itp to El PA O- 4 `tJ5 = t26 �. d 3� d l 3,`-- 5•a t \ �,•• IZ`I OG itl ti th j. It _ u�l °�� (' ittl i'I'; •y+ 13° 9+ ..0 p31 !r8 -•Y !tr i «�It7 •�q '-�-- \ 9•-d r , w�7pr�' 4Z 66 Cn it9 SI12 3° 03- `Y% ` • G 70 71 ° .3 ° �tfi td it ° 1 .10 80 •, r, o (' I ti.t"ti,, ,` �, ` gym„ �R 13 X01 , 1 '� g0,f�� a"� a 61 `, ` , ` yl..' Ci ♦.� � 4 96`3Z� 61 37 .,. °' A6 989 ?83i N :\ ��• \ > > ppK ~ {j ';�° r` y¢ C) "� \�� \ 9� • �.R 9 `� 16 GS a 9S .5 fa ':3 ' }.':;: �� ♦ 43 i a�t59 .sg fi 6y •p $ 36r 3i ^''1 �►` `� Y ;S.:+i ;: .i `♦ ,f 9 y �W.A JAI 2 V' f .i ` 9963p C 30 2T ♦` 9bd { �C�► I o m C+� 4 n5 � g3 , 1 r Y 66 '�tf 0 1 hbhh' ; 5 g0 io ♦(� a" ch v r m :'? _ - "I'—•..— --%L7 16 .- � � � � �` � ts6 '' •tPREy- ��bll .oe� = a2 -.` '�� " a0 �� 56 P� o 011 G pN rs AO., .i ,• �J p� y•N Q V N y ••n • !. �t ` `a Si" ' `t.P 1 .. \oma �i`:r �t .-♦S 1� ,. ._ .... m er - • t to "'•. :�� )J t S••.• ,Y '•'•. •.'.•• ^ ` ��. {�.�. 1G.oor ,(•1 : •p"• of,, • .:,4I ' s,�'•tt to. or to "t•• "\ •rlr� 'wtt l r(It+l \\\\\ tai ;`1 i I' .,.!, •"`t •,,. a •,.. 111,1 �t{t �t :o .i i _, ILI It ♦•',. /, t _ � r. ..oto_ i is -41 It T fir° y w 1} �� {' .•��, • ' t, in .{ • .• 'y .t � • is \ • 4 ft%Y R5 .� •� .. ea .ff •ttoIt pi to t Its,w' i�(,11q M L l4 !1 tr Cr�{�� •- .- - !• r . • { �.e to t Y •j .t A'?{_ at r.� or T a-i ern •''•\ � .�.••, ,, \.0 t .}`•'•41 a! aryl 1 •'� a��^'�'�5�iiii 1 PJ " N ,J' aT f� •4. ` •: .•VI a1 T.�' Ja •'to ,.1♦ •.••'. w taw - .� VV-♦. , ° ' �' 'r a' t.' as •�1: - - , . 'r ..'�. 1 S • . 7 ` 1Y�ec1t v,4ri 1�eti5i .:} _ COUN;r 3 RRE 3024 i • !•' • / - 'u• . a.,• •�, \\`\!f • •I ±1' n � y� �• •,.J 7"y %."� •.► /•�� '• � •�P 1.i.`. '� a{ tl ••ui• � { if .T t♦♦1 " -1 t},7!a •a' No D10 { r Y .• �7r��./,.v Z'. �.• �`Y�s t R TJ• ¢• - •� �v.3f' la• !.` '1 \ 1. ••`.(7�i1 ''{{1a ISR( ••'!• t{/I�,4r Mo% to a •• , (( •�•J t • ••�• h •` �:.it' • <�a.• H Y •t glih vi,.�9,! 1. r . .a u ♦ 4 `.♦ v. Y'. •�. .�. :w. i a 'r . y4U YEA•` (}tt .,, r �. ..+ni/• •-• ft T . . i•', �.� �F1 ��. • ,{ �'1��` °a• •"'`• #S to * •! `• j `l ♦ + .s�� aS,y�J. a', Vii' + '1 �,t ,,i , ' � ♦ �� /„ rte, i let 00 t :1 10 �� •~`•�� . � �.�'�:��- S '' ul Pl. tie Map a 121 Cq 4424 ,,p a9 to quo i a s yrb got i 0%P5 tis i� 6 S$ K al „by ra Wit 1 p 3 2 2386 6 t 6 g t S �� %so •_� :::• �9 V4� to 4 fax T s9'� aI.IX 8t g8ip .;s by,,s .�► ''p i cotAlix g Q ti ` 9 j . ��- X11 - a-•� S �� r�= •�w' �: n 41er . . • J t J MAP 6 CIRCULATION PLAN r M t \ It LEGEND f Existing Major Roads --------- Proposed Roads »......_.....» Project Related Ma oads •rs ` _ ,t '\ �+-.mow• � � ~ ,.a1 V.••y'••• �.''"'"•-•„ .`-.,�4 3`=� �•`;/' � 1. /'�' i r,r.. W t `` °ONIN !4 L-1 9 �a 2 S -, -to „ B w^ 4 3'13 M. ., Is PR'tiCE TON 12 Iff to LV KETT IN . o 75 ADAIR 10 wAEP o in 1 2 ARRi5 � � 'J o sy 938 ' - _-•-- ._ .; j 3983 3S 336 7 1 .o DVA t RD , t y n. 36z-p 37 l .a-• 33 '°`3S34 % ORV1 le O� =�20 91 21 b 9 ` at '31 •`: air 22.. gor O 2 yt �. 11 , c ' 23 U a 0 3 ( i j•'. ••8•� ' 30 �4i MONrEGO 18 ad iii a' , • t 1; p . 24 yn ! . `# ;/ 11 ` ` r= ..'4,218 s° �O 2$ �S 4 1 u �•. 27 2 C 1 1 , nd$ 8105 p1. 6� � {��l1tii t.tJ•-�J =�.i T lOGN° w s 8 �` 9! o lot i ti I $ 3 o v 4 p v+h 2 fT 10 LN 8 7y6 e w Z� w 1 iil PARAISO 5 V 61 1 24 t4 !3 a1 9 g 5 tsro `; ,� 9 F ar 23 22 1 25 \J .17 99 i i i 1 29 � 26 16 ` t J � �i, i, . 28 27 15 30 'ter I `o 24 a 23 22 . aQ28 2 AN • p,N'O tQ16 , �r M101. 28 25 . p8+ Cn� , o m- .nl• ,ot! ... 3 �� 11 i� � t 110 for 1 r a ts or I��,,.�, / ! ayy � • ,sas• ,► • ♦ Marta � n'�' � /`•. . � Nl Ear 1 / �'.' •- ��. '•r1''7 i, � , � 4; 1 w s / 29 S2 . r y. ,. ! •\ i `tt / .st" .t♦ t-,Imptoo � 'P�r �« )r�wTl�•S r. R i �` a 1 ,1/ � s y � s �-� � � � , -„.r•�' +�A.., �r f'• ' �,` ` r i �� !•,F U' S gG•. • ' X>o! r�/ � „' / i• N V, a.•q:- yrs' in 40-0SOY` f' •� ul t I /w fes` ' o ti,a' \\ /" .Y ,r'{1 •+ .. ..r„r.•y"•./'� y'!¢0�~ }�*/I_. ' •. • .-SAES � •'•i ` {II• •.lT,+ QY "./, � �♦' � `,,,,,.. f� `Pt. ! -\ r� � � a }. I p '+ 11� �f• K�/��•• ••'t,.�' . t \� ;�� f.I• w. w i+i.�.i.tw 4••r.,ab•' '.,..'' '�. +e'-•ti d�T_•=.i/.Vt,i t.��-;r,•,..-,'�''�OI.AiF�.,,. �w�•✓'•�.Y''a♦1..1+•1'1+•• ♦'r.I.:.+,-F+...=•+•:�y.lr1•`.'f'�r:�S`f`,`A.�•�r(;�/�••/^•.'.�..,.,Y•At ♦.,,.,p"\o'`t•'I^I" }t~�.��{.'a�." �[ ♦ r,a.l�} J �I {l•✓• ;r�. �'aki••Y,�\ 'R�ri �~.r�. .�• • \��jJ,,i.u;�'�. ��MM _1a(C�.�V 00 C $COI• L 4 �'.'. - •�i .� ..fit ti•. �t+.�`r.�•� . I j �•� r„• ..•• , . . �f'+Y�a�-4/,ir�S3:• "./ ', g.,'✓• , " t! yL 'rs�a. '��' 14 i •.�. �' .'`+oma. ,j" � .' • � "`�,� _�,.a� C ;; �'. �' i - .. 'j' `•. ♦ Ap '• '6A.66 � __.. Y ' 2 { / + �'�l. ,� + '' + � �I�'�'•*rti.' �'`'`� f � �' "'a,s� 1 r �., •r' ,T �''��/ r ; ' ,,. ...•' �,. •• �' 't. ...�� , �f_ f�[[ 't>t � •r' �, /�tj�r i �d'Q. O�.Q/ ^� � ) y67.� � M � � r �'h y '. ., { J �I"' � r•••�-r,-,.�•• � a .r j w �, i � �. `. � '.`` ///^^�•��_� Jr ii t s y � i /,� t -"r ."' r _".'_"' 1 . ,+♦ \' •��W4 �' I,z.., 4♦♦a!•lY�, •' ,..II Jj�.� �l •' "•ti•.�,H' t+1♦ s- J i "'�'.�... }=•!r•i/+.H!t• _ '� �- J.-""•t f -.•'r . . iq 95 ?L .� �1 yj t�"3. "\\ al" } f♦ ^� T d� , i V t1saF'' • .v+ ::. .,-^"'. �,..--"''-"' ` a, }, \l'. p % {' T •\ ''R •\ , t'„�it/ Y!t �++ 'r'Zr kf `sem1 "•y..'` y .s •. ` •''•+ �.�•. • ' pr M!L 1,:�" \ ` L1` a�i y r ''A ''• �,' San . c00 ' f/ ,♦ s; 1' ' why:,• t \• .,nnU�� ` ti' ti "fF \ ♦ _ ' j:' ..•• '-, � f R2T d•r �'1'' �, \ ` �(.t yf e1 ./ a ~+.,,�a11{��J�a f �: .�,�.�,,,,,,, .•.�+... ,.. �� l,t•� �Ca 'Cow oort , �♦ •"••..•. /. ... •.I.�j ,•~' a .i V � �•. d= 1w�';`l* // i � •'" 2 .il� r' t'� ''.t' . w�'"aJ• r"••+..:. .�..�t.M.. / •♦..."sf. i 01NSM � . t� .+•� .iji.w t/n a� .r f~ l +y,(��y� :`/f.• \ t�,y.�`'_ ^• ♦ ' • s`,, t •i1.Y ��• •� ...,(�''\� � �1 fG � .. +� t .. /. p MILLS , �' ��'�•. •. l ,. .+••�1, ,,�,1L �� ' ! y�'A1'� , �:;- .,a; ' S .'f ' CpAptiR K `4S i! , �� , "... v-• a+ .s' �,e ypya+ `�."!j 1 f, `, d°` r .�, r- FRE /• • J„- / .� TS•32 AG -� a ../ '• ` \1r. .` —�.�+i •. . .� r 1 ��; � ) .�\ • 22.�i` .+.'1 . r ,i iw Ta '�' ♦ �� ••�Tt,r��+1 - 3 - i ! '~ ' ' %-` {�L,�'��,] AC 4 Y j • 1:�.,f \ fi '`� ,,..�y.�,.r+'L�:' � � /'+Cr S{• _ ;,.r• �� iEh• ��+� `�+� ••• � .d �'ti+'s•, � t• .-� / . ..+ �,� rte• ... •c r• ':J. E .S� A • , gpAG',:,, ,. rt1 -•T� � \♦ :•\ � � �� i .. .;' !a yr ,�, � t�.••� ,,, �-♦ { V. . �s 1Cr] ` ts'ass \ •M�.M� ,'Jt 1 .,' ..`' ♦♦,'at �• is 4 . t •. , ..,•\�I...r'„'. �,,. 0! AL a` ,' /� s\ 1:.59 �' • '+. !' ;+ / •.: a9/' - _,,. •-1 i t i� ..S} .. • .r' 119. '� - L { ,ir �♦ '• �.:" ' v = ai.' ..ti.tf3♦ ti ' \. '03� ,tai i•- ..,•. � T '� 135:' M� „ W "'�,.• t I L� t t '� • � 'ar" _ SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT on the SAN RAMON VALLEY AREA PLAN Prepared by the Contra Costa County Planning Department Including Comments on Suggestions to the Draft Plan - Raised at the Public Hearing on September 7, 1976 and on the Department's Staff report dated August 31,.. 1976. - (This document is to be used to supplement the August 31, 1976 staff report.) September 21, 1976 C f� � A. Regarding the Otto-Podva property areas addressed in the August 31, 1976 • staff report on page 3 (Danville area 1st request) . Eight individuals addressed the Planning Commission on this item at the September 7th hearing. They were, in order of presentation: - Wilbur Duberstein, representing G. L. Lewis (Podva property) . - Roy Bloss - General Plan citizen committee member. - Don Lawrie, representing Otto property. - Dr. Joe Hirsch - General Plan citizens committee member. - Bill Cardinale - General Plan citizens committee chairman. - Fred Schmidt - representing Morris Ranch Homeowners' Association. - Fred Salinger - representing Morris Ranch Homeowners' Association. - Jerry Loving - representing Podva property. Four pieces of correspondence have been received on this matter. A letter, #25, by Don Lawrie, read to the Planning Commission on September 7th; a letter from Jerry Loving, #26, a letter, #27, with attached petition, from Stanley A. Nielson of Town and Country Home- owners; and a petition from Montego on Ocho Rios Subdivision against commercial into the area, letter #28. All provided added testimony to the complex situation on the front of these two parcels. Staff has previously recommended that this area be placed in a Specific Plan Area and require that applications for development provide detailed traffic and noise studies that will be required for input into the EIR required on any developments to be allowed in the area. The testimony and letter received provide further substantiation of the problems in this area and tend to further support staff's contention that further study is required through a Specific Plan Area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Place in Specific Plan Area as suggested on page 5 of August 31, 1976 staff report. B. Dr. Olsen and Brad Hirst (site selection) reaffirm their requests to designate the SE corner, Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Ramon, for commercial usage. Previously discussed in the staff report on pages 5 and 6 (Danville 2). Both addressed the Commission on their property at the September 7, 1976 • hearing and Brad Hirst submitted an additional letter clarifying his previous request that the entire 7.7-acre parcel, including Navlet's Nursery, be included as commercial. Staff has discussed this issue in depth on pages 5 and 6 of the August 31, 1976 staff report. No new information was presented which would cause staff to change its recommendation to leave the area as recommended by the General Plan • Committee as Low Density Single Family Residential. Bill Cardinale, Chairman of the General Plan Committee, also spoke on the rationale of the Committee that this area stay designated residential. RECOMMENDATION: Make no change to the General Plan designation for this property. C. There were several additional comments on the area proposed for change from Low Density Single Family Residential to Country Estates in the Vernal Heights area. Mr. Foskett spoke in opposition to the change for 13 acres of the area. Mr. Morrison spoke for maintaining the inclusion of that 13 acres. A Mrs. Olsen submitted a letter, #29, in opposition to the change for her property. Bill Maddaus, representing Alamo Improvement Association, spoke in support of the Country Estates designation. This item is discussed on pages 2 and 3 on the draft staff report (Alamo request #4) . Mr. Foskett claimed to be speaking for himself and 2 adjacent property owners who control approximately 13 acres of land in the area proposed for change from Low Density Single Family Residential to Country Estates. Mr. Foskett did not oppose the change in the general area to Country Estates but was opposed to including that 13-acre portion along Livorna Road as shown on Map 22. He feels that area should remain in the Low Density designation. As a practical matter, under your Commission's rules on County-General Plan conformity, this land could be rezoned to • R-40 even if the property were to be shown as Low Density Single Family Residential. That is, you can underzone but not overzone. While staff feels that this whole area should be designated Country Estates, a compromise that could be considered by your Commission is to show the 17 acres as Low Density Single Family but to consider this acreage if you initiate rezoning actions on the adjacent land if that property is designated Country Estates. The request by Mrs. Olsen, letter #29, to be left designated as Low Density is for one parcel on Bunce Meadows Drive. Since it is tied by location to adjacent properties, it should be designated with those properties. Mrs. Olsen is in the process of trying to minor subdivide her land; that subdivision, #128-76, is on the Planning Commission agenda of September 28, 1976. RECOMMENDATION: Designate the area shown on Map 22 as Country Estates as recommended in the August 31, 1976 staff report. D. The Sunny Glen area discussed at the September 7, 1976 hearing by William Struthers, lawyer for the Sunny Glenn Homeowners; J. W. Steffen, represent- ing Boise Cascade, who read letter #30, and Norman Davies, a Sunny Glen resident. Letter #31 was submitted by William Struther and letter #32 was submitted by Rosemary Jones, representing Boise Cascade. This item is discussed on page 12 of the August 31st staff report (San Ramon request #5) . • 2 W0257 The September 7, 1976 public hearing rediscussed the differences between Boise Cascade and the Sunny Glen Homeowners over this 7.5-acre parcel. • A significant development has occurred by letter #32 where Boise Cascade modified its stance toward a compromise position. They are now requesting that the property be designated Very Low Density Multiple Family and suggesting rezoning to M-5. This change in position brings the two groups much closer in terms of number of units that could be developed on the property. Previously, 45 units have been approved on the site. Boise Cascade is now promising not to request more than 30 units; this is a definite effort on their part to seek a compromise. The letter suggests that single family might still be acceptable to them but that this final decision should be made when a development plan is submitted. Staff still feels that Single Family High Density Residential is the most appropriate designation. RECOMMENDATION: Designate this property as Single Family High Density Residential. E. Mr. Harper has submitted a new letter, 1#33, which was presented at the September 7, 1976 hearing requesting his property be shown as Controlled Manufacturing; this was previously discussed on pages 10-11 (Crow Canyon Area Request #5) . Mr. Harper wishes to have his property shown as Controlled Manufacturing as it is shown on the 1971 San Ramon Area Plan (see Map 12) . The reason the General Plan Committee changed the designation on his land is that your Commission • and the Board of Supervisors have approved both the Broadmoor Homes and Leadership Homes projects immediately to the north as residential develop- ments; by this action, your Commission has defined the boundary between Controlled Manufacturing and Medium Density Single Family Residential to be Alcosta Blvd. The General Plan Committee recommended this boundary continue southward. Mr. Harper says that the Assessment District 1973-3 restricts his choices and mandates a Controlled Manufacturing designation. Both the Broadmoor Homes and Leadership Homes projects are also within that Assessment District and feel that residential use is preferential. RECOMMENDATION: Make no changes to the draft plan. F. The Plummer property owner made a presentation at the September 7, 1976 hearing and by letter #34, previously discussed on pages 7 and 8 of the August 31, 1976 staff report (Danville request #6) . Mr. Plummer has changed his recommendation on his property from showing the portion of his land currently shown as General Open Space Country - Estates to showing only a portion of his land as Country Estates (see Map 23) . The problems of attempting to develop this interior pro- perty; i.e. lack of utility availability, poor road access, high slopes, and unstable soil still exist as previously discussed in August 31, 1976 staff report. RECOMMENDATION: Make no change to the draft plan. • 3 • • G. Request by Sycamore Farm Investment Company at September 7, 1976 hearing and • letters #35 and #36 and by Sycamore Tassajara Investment Company through letter #37. They make two requests: first, that a portion of their land adjacent to Mr. Plummer's be shown as Country Estates (see Map 23) . This land has the same developmental problems as does the Plummer property. Staff recommends no change. Their second request is a small valley south of Sycamore Valley and within Special Concern Area #1 be shown as Low Density Single Family Residential, and part of their land, which is shown as Low Density Single Family Residential, be shown as General Open Space. In short, they are pro- posing to trade the area shown for development. The small valley involved would access off Tunbridge Road through Sycamore-Tassajara Investment Com- pany property. By letter #37 the Sycamore-Tassajara Investment Company has requested that all of their property be shown as Low Density Single Family Residential. Development as suggested by the Sycamore Farm Investment Company of the property south of Camino Tassajara would continue to be within Special Concern Area #1; however, this small valley could develop outside of its guidelines. Staff feels that the tradeoff as suggested by Sycamore Farms Investment Company property is reasonable and should be carried over onto Sycamore-Tassajara Investment Company property as well. RECOMMENDATION: Modify the boundaries on the draft plan as shown on Map 24. H. Request by Jack Weightman at September 7, 1976 hearing on M-3 zoned lands. • There was previously a request to show this land as Medium Density Multiple Family and was discussed on Page 10 (Crow Canyon Area Request #3) . The land is designated on the draft plan as Limited Office. Mt. Weightman said that the request for Medium Density Multiple Family is withdrawn and they now request a Commercial designation. The Crow Canyon Road area has approximately 150 acres already designated as Commercial, only approximately 30 acres of that land is commercially developed. No additional commercially designated land is required. In addition, this parcel's location is such that it is a desirable location for a limited office usage while keeping new commercial uses on the major roads in the area. RECOMMENDATION: Make no change to the draft plan. I. Request by Valley Action Forum, letter #38.. The Valley Action Forum has made several requests which are listed below. Several of these requests are already discussed within the staff report and reference will be made back to those appropriate sections. 1. They comment that a projected maximum growth to 80,000 residents by 1990 will have a strong negative impact on the life style of the Valley. This appears to reference the sentence on page 17 of the draft report which states: "If built out at the mid-range of the densities specified for each residential use category, it would • result in more than doubling the 1975 population by 1990, for a total of over 80,000 persons." It should be pointed out that this figure of 80,000 persons is not a projection but a theoretical possibility. 4 CA �� 1. (Continued) (1) They suggest that the Dougherty Hill Valley in Special Concern • Area #2 should not develop before 1990. This is discussed on page 11 of the August 31, 1976 staff report. In fact, this land may not develop until after 1990. Staff feels this type of restriction should not be added to the plan but debated at the project stage as previously recommended. (2) They suggest that much of the land shown as Low Density Single Family Residential and not zoned residential be designated Country Estates. Special Concern Area #1 and lower hills and ridges should be included in this change. Staff feels that this may not result in an optimum land use arrangement though it would slow development. This is addressed on pages 16-17 of the August 31st staff report under rate of growth. Rather than a change in designation, restraints on the rate of growth may be a more desirable method of handling this concern. This is allowed for under this General Plan and can be handled independently of this plan. (3) Next, VAF referenced page 44 of the draft plan that designates significant ridges. They suggest that a map detailing minor ridges should be devised leading toward protection of those minor ridges. Staff feels that these types of decisions should not be made in the General Plan but handled at the development plan stage of projects. Being too specific in the General Plan might lead toward inverse condemnation types of situations at this time. (4) VAF states there is no section in the goals and objectives section dealing with air quality and of vital areas of public health. Page 13 has several objectives dealing with these issues, e.g. "Maintain the highest levels of air quality which can reasonably be obtained.", among others. Additionally, VAF comments that they "find it shocking that so much development has been permitted in the absence of an adequate study on air pollution. . ." This is not entirely true. On page 73 of the draft plan, in the Implementation Section, a statement of the need for further air quality studies are required. Only limited information is available to staff and to the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District Staff at this time. As more information becomes available, it may affect the County General Plan. That District's thoughts on this proposed plan (see letter #39) generally are supportive of the plan but call for more study. Lastly, VAF suggests that "a General Plan, no matter how good, cannot be satisfactorily implemented in the absence of strong ordinances." This is true. It appears that VAF is encouraging speed in fulfilling the Implementation Section of the draft plan. Staff definitely concurs in this. • 5 I • J. New park acquisitions are in process which should be recognized in the draft in addition to those listed in the August 31, 1976 staff report. The Annie Ford Ranch underwent mandatory referral action before your Commission this year. Since that time, its sale to the EBRPD has cleared the courts and is in escrow. Additionally, a 14-acre parcel containing the Eugene O'Neill home has had legislation passed by the State authorizing its acquisition. The Eugene O'Neill Foundation, the current owner, concurs in the sale. Staff recommends that these two areas be changed from General Open Space to Parks and Recreation desig- nation. RECOMMENDATION: Modify the draft plan as shown on Map 25. • 6 EGb�C�7 - J#CAVAj ASS G Ivy Y `• 13 ` life Lot rl ni•ti VERNAL AkEA REOu �" !•' ____.► t, 'STAFF RECoAjMENpAr x V, IN 4DDrnoAj To VE RMAI. .- A RUMUEST t �•, �_ `t, : , �..� ,i J 1 1 r i r t i 4 1i l• r 1 K � t .i N t ! r' 1 I 'niat ire —'%a ffr! rr .�— : .,,' •....''....•.•_,,t '. '.. aC�.' •,i (til ++• ':� IF a1,{./f MAP z•2 I• 'v', I20 or AC wAiNAI1t/Q �,/ RANCHING '.0 • ^ t :.. X0,4.qe.. 196.57 12 .T5 QAC ' *$ 10.43 AL ! f+i'. 34.73 Water 4 .rc_.R1 G`13 41AC Tank'• I 1.r1 - —�' _ LL Hente its -� + I, .� , l x PETERpON iRAC76R CO ULE FIiYk 'h /: j `> �+ !86.76/ F `� 57040 AC 1 +75.fi2 AG; g0, 17 .t `. afar T5n ( agrE a a7 :may` y- , ,,\ /�. ` �, .� j JAIi' >�tcs � A�� o 1119�°a1G.FI��RR•ywe�� .1 a ,�•''. / 1 W.t Tanks i i{ �;i s `p p Com Club OSBORN DIA SL ' ,IBI? v `� 4 '1 32.20 AC tO 2 e a reeri Vasey - y tt+ PETER RiZTOR CO m C� \' hool �....-._..I t �> Athonian X c i\7 �, < MAGEE60 AC p Seh 446.53 AC h.-, f ) .83 AC 23 1 _ RA3SIE COZ2i \ ` -34.5V Boo AS Hill RSi W My— R 46.27 AC V �•'+ 70.07 AC - S AC MA6£E BOASS4 AC .,2� 157.62 AC ! x^\20 66 AC S / 't•1I•. Via lir. ` ......-._S .- _ J % • Sch a h26 AC -�+QF 26 AC ` h•�, !t Lo f Q3;N\ W V i :::? •!��5 ti4"�- •\ >1f1�M' 1 Windrr• "r c� ►.a YCAMOR E WELLS ==�t t f K S EARA' N. •"'`::�� r• 4 a,,� 14.40 AC i' ! a + O INVEST GO uJV Tl 'A E 4 I �co ft,jA •' . ...N •••f + V/Nfi/iL�ir /�9 182. •C t '•;:w: 465 t.'I AG DINSMORE �� ,j_ 1 �• .1, 54 AG • 2$ Gq /N,�, 27 'i'. .. _..�� 2`i '\..,•� �EJuslTY o - r �} �, "/r✓� �-t' • �•• �� VAB : 2062 S 1�,FREITAS r•-.4 ��i„� 4 21.25 ACr'r " 0 .:t'd. . :�.•• .� S ` `1 SVcI'-i-a� i� 4r �` O ;• �•.t�.•.•.` S j. ERSON 4 01k, x s>�-t 1 tt� !� + 4 •r. .`f' 123.90 AC N clor Ac SPACrt`AArOA`f `'tib �►.i9 76 AC; ,Y.+ ` '' 13.10 AC isro"Aw cc 2 3 AC rs { -' , HOOK ET AL f ! •1iIIVRwi•r' ��Y 33.64 AG RVw Nf<WHALL LAND 8 F 33 .s s2 AC '�- i >� .,- ,-ti•�^ 465.99 C Jt 2 �Y;.f• ill � ••ti i1 e ( j x In 1 ` 12AC 2f •,/ ,x.. 1� ..p4 :� � /••'� .p �YiM��j '// Com•• + t /,. `' ems•' � o° -. r Owill. , v WILDj"' 'ti Gauss OWIN -C_t 36.06AG!`-. 72W 1 F 146 AC sa•• �\ 41 92 AC /ELWORTHY ET AL,\ z a 240 AC 1 o m Wc OD Irk I x o_ 211 95 AC J •.79 A lei . � XV. �+ NEWHALL aft WMer7ank �',1 .s•%" `': :�•'+-°�'�'�:. , 3�> / i( C 9/M A P O ._ t# •"+! 14.95 AC r !« fiA£RDJET GENERAL .PETERS ET.J C!" f ' 53 Ar. Water �A_�. ' 14 PARK f— 1 I' L .. 13.47AC Tank ` •T �_�. • Brat:k Ifillx r --� PETER;SbN TRAC76A CO 5lnnte eta :775 a Rix 18.76 SOULE ` Or mel Ii1RAeh�( • 40 AC .62 AC: RUY ge AlTankR _ fI •r u 1471 _ J�,,:' �. c .\` pry=, , / �• O'�i� alarTsn c�r4 �x, �,, •, Al TIO Dal o ao o r " 01 8L0 COUNeRY-66118 c o � 'en1 GOLF COURSE .r=ate_' y" n •'• A+ + I W±la•tanM9Cou-r •••1__ _.' �.s .aaa� ' �. _� '. r\ / .. /• �,. '�. ^ :.r• ''-\ Club ' Y xi . 0 ~� OSRORN ,� o / n i 72.20 AC teen Vaicy 0 PETER'jRACTOR CO X T eek/ = hoot �..��• __.d - _ us •Athenian, p > MAGEE 60 AC 1 4h 446.53 AC s s', o 1 % 22• . . ' t �-: 23 /. . fa u ! a r RA��i1E .� 00221 )4.50 �: 46.27 AC B00 ��RAS51 `= _ '•a_`�- �♦ B LCTI\ F 1 m _- -- - 70.07 AC 6 C _ MAGEE `�1e•��x L�' '• ra u 80A550 6 AL- - 1 197.62 AC I \'0 65 AC al a _ Q _ %. ►. �� • �. . L=.'�r_�–_. IG 26 AC PJ " �� R-' - -- — - .•\ � - 41 S / 1 ' .0 0. 1. C 7 Y AIIIER 1 f 'E;ERS;V 'PLC' .� �,.D:inBi ! WELLS j " y S G E AR1 /�•� �' I \Vn.l l `1�LlI 14•4 L III ` 'y u INrI�COMM ) p O ``�` IIr.J 1 •';fI - 0 C163 AGER fA / A EE eia �..•-� i- - I r��` )• I "a �� • ' rn^� 18 AC 48521 AC 3 � RE er1s� 28 Ir°1'.ti 27 �... .._ - - -- 126 1 ;;' �o ABM 1062 _ 7 \� FREI;:.S -- O "(�r: %1 \ �• p0 a a bC I �. ANDERSON MAGEE 1 4 123.90 AC W�00 ` 1 161.70 AC '1 Poo16 '92 AC JA I C 290 IZ r - .,i\4MONf VALEE 7 /7. "b `.. 81 i J �l O \ 18 16 AC N �.. 71.10 AC 7 • '� d -- l -- - \ •ANDER tON •1.,f•. 21 1 At, ' - NOCK ET AL - i � ( .• :,'� ,•• ' .f s9 J �/' � I�••;` 35.84 AC12.26 AC . - �.. �.i - r�P. -± rV U �: W V .+• 1JEWNAL _ 11 F OwAC 1 / 33 S :, �j �� '. 460.5• _w \r' - 'r - • r r t-j �7 12 21 r 34 e . ._ �,. �I. — ...�•'_ •-—rte � - oo-ft . . . , *., 6 ,N . r. % A. * .1,to IN .# I 7t PU To 4.&.4. 00 go. 0 Wall as _r A - tc to 0 ;ev to -to wrq,0"7r-OW^LOM -- ._. ;, s. ... *of to to, Row&G�w V, 0 01 0 0 ;wo *so Agor - 1,40- got .;.g *0 ti?v to, 4125.-14, I or 0 0 1 Wavo w eoss"oolo % t�f 1, % o,,, Vg�l 'go two cd. f......1 0 Ns. 4, A, to 0 0 ;A' .0 WALNUT Otfi,'� or f 11 0 'NA 0. ........ h 0 loot %%." ,At to losout At I'S 4 "to f Pow""', t\1 to A "I" ooAl, to 0 0 0. to ol� Post, 0 46 so. - I to IT to w ag f as 10, lagot, 4% to to goo to At Well to 1p Sion, J A. It 'A ""s."no to I.re,4� 'o Agat" of IA6 Ago, to 14 —owL. tell At to. oL — � I 15 Its 4*.ry Moat 4 61.0oss 600`4 'to, As r lot#. 60 .4060. 4.,�v go, to A "1.600 "sto.,c— #A& 14 so '11446" uno.v 66*14 as AwA,A` A 0#4 Ago 0\ to I" oft 1,#mm"s IS so to 64 a POO aggfo� wo A 4 of I's " Q.y 00060.1-1.44 L t 0 got&. Nos MW A..Most... "As *64 AraA, r "As 6. to I G�o to At olott A Maggot .044 At 0606" 0 st % ""s At* "V011. 17 00 Z As No— .1-1 1 -).,— .. . 10 t 110" , I lot# 'g,go, 0".p Po to .4401 At "to. *A "I "Ases,44 "As lots # Aw t At Awk, so, "I". to" wev . . I N A oft I- . � r oft.1.60 -10 go $:us to% I so.* too 41 lots cs %oo At As + r 04A. . _"." . I — .: I I 1 0 - 4 .*I vA4..46 I 1 164 1 , . —— At At 00 49 so.. Aspoollft 61 :-4— rjjk I x is 04 Act-'sovik I t Ago to %v—srsovo t 65 %,e "not. A I r amt..40 'r ftft 0, . 34 If LC got** 64 to 1.40 At of 0 1 i v two 060 so,"AA040 4r .00 At A* % 64 "V to oa to AA 0 _t. `` • 27 July 1976 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: SAN RAMON VALLEY GENERAL PLAN: This is a public hearing to consider an amendment to the County General Plan. The San Ramon Valley Area General Plan encompasses approximately 112 sq. miles, generally bounded on the west and south by the Alameda County line, on the north by the City of Walnut Creek and on the east by Morgan Territory Road. This is a comprehensive revision of the County General Plan including changes to all the State mandated general plan elements. • MR. DEHAESUS: Mr. Chairman, what is the subject of this hearing this evening is the plan that is the result of the work of a Citizens` Committee and this comes before you this evening for adoption purposes. Also before you is the environmental impact report for the plan. 854 0 0OW107 27 July 1976 What we suggest to you this evening is that you hold your hearing; if you find at the complet- ion of the hearing that the comments on the environmental impact report have been pretty much completed that the hearing on the environmental impact report be closed in order to allow staff time to respond to the comments made. We've already received a number of written comments on the EIR and those are part of the record and will be responded to. Secondly, that the hearing on the plan itself be continued to August 17th and at that time, we would expect that we will have the responses prepared to the environmental impact report, if you do close the hearing tonight; then at that time, the Commission may be in a position that evening to make a decision on the plan amendment itself; also, at that time, staff will have its comments and suggestions regarding the plan itself. COMM. JEHA: Are you implying that we not take any testimony from either the staff or the people regarding the plan but to just hear testimony on the EIR? MR. DEHAESUS: No. Both items are before you this evening. Those items that are pointed towards the environmental impact report or those comments, we will take those into account and respond to those in terms of the environmental impact report. Others may not choose to comment on the EIR but would comment on the plan amendment itself. With this, I will ask Mr. Cutler, Senior Planner who is the project planner on this amendment since he is the one who has worked with the Citizens' Committee, to give the staff explanation of the plan. MR. CUTLER: Thank you. This is a public hearing on the general plan revision to the greater San Ramon Valley Area. That's a 112 sq. mile area, about 1/6 of the County so the committee had a large hunk of real estate to deal with and they took that charge well. That, of course, leads to certain problems because of the geographic size and I think you will hear perhaps more comments than you might in a general plan as possible changes due to the size of the area in- volved. The General Plan Committee that staff worked with was a 23 member citizens' committee and we worked from May 1974 up through March 1976. The hearing tonight will be based on the work of the committee. As Mr. Dehaesus said, we haven't done a staff report and so every- body in the audience who may not know, we have this report (holding up copy of report) and more copies are available at our department; but, I assume everyone has seen it; but, this is the work of the General Plan Citizens' Committee and this is what we will be presenting here. The Plan is a comprehensive revision to the County General Plan. By that I mean it's more than just looking at the land use element. It looks at land use, housing, circulation, scenic routes, open space and conservation, recreation, safety and seismic safety, noise and community facilities elements; so, it's a comprehensive revision and we will probably hear testimony dealing with al I of those subjects or at least some of them. In addition, the target date that the General Plan Committee was looking towards, which is consistent with the work throughout the County, was 1990, so we're really talking about a 14 year plan, not that for into the future. The Committee did several things. One of the most interesting was that they discussed, as a group, their goals for the valley and they came up with four (4) basic goals which is the thrust of the general plan effort. I will read them for everybody: (1) To reinforce the rural view of life as perceived by area residents. (2) To couple continued growth in the planning area with the ability to provide and facilitate necessary facilities to maintain quality service. (3) To 855 i • 27 July 1976 protect the liveability and usefulness of existing development and, lastly (4) To achieve harmony between the area's development and its physical setting. LOFrom those four basic ideas grew the general plan effort. There are certain changes that this general plan revision causes to go into effect if the plan were adopted as written by the comm- ;' °] ittee. I'm going to approach the map and discuss some of them: The adopted land use portion of the general plan for the San Ramon Valley was done in two basic documents. The Alamo-Danville General Plan located here (indicating on map ), in 1968 and in 1971, the San Ramon Amendment to the General Plan. This is the basic document of the general plan and it was more limited. Now, we have all the other elements that I've referred to in our reference in the document. So, one major change is adding a great deal of scope and emphasis to the general plan for the valley and modifying those County-wide elements where that makes sense. In terms of changes that occurred to the land use map which is the basis of the general plan re- vision process, certain of them are apparent. When we talk about "preserving the rural view of life", one of the things that comes up is ridge-line preservation and in the way that we handled general plans back in 1968, we just smeared color over the hills and made very little difference in the shades; but, my 1971, the state of the art had improved for various reasons to try to pro- vide more definition. We continued that process throughout; so, what you have is a general plan revision with a great deal more detail throughout. One of the efforts, as I said, was ridge-line preservation. The high-sloped areas on that plan, Alamo-Danville, which were previously allowed for development by the plan even though there were restrictions in the text, are now shown as "open space" or other catagories on the plan you can reflect on what probably would happen in this very steep area. Another major effort of the committee was something that we must do by State law is Zoning- General Plan conformance. The Committee checked the zoning against existing land use plans to see that they were basically in conformance. They made two kinds of decisions in this regard: (1) The first decision was that where things existed in fact and was consistent with the zoning, in most cases, they modified the general plan to reflect the facts of the situation. There were other cases, however, where the land was zoned for a use that the committee though inapprop- riate or could be, and they reviewed each of these individually, they made a determination as to which general plan catagory was appropriate. One that would conform to the existing zon- ing or one that modified it. So, you will find a great deal of change in the plan in the sense of bring it into compliance with State law, something you're mandated to do. Where they made changes from the existing zoning, if you were to adopt the plan as recommended by the committee, then staff would be obligated to suggest rezoning in these areas to again bring conformity between the general plan and the zoning. (2) Another major policy decision of the committee was that lands that are in the Williamson Act, lands which are in agricultural preserves---where there is a contract between the Board of Supervisors and the property owner that they will not develop their land for 10 years, that land has been shown as open space, a type of open space on this plan and for convenience it was given its own general plan designation and that's this green color on the map. You can see that a great deal of the planning area has contracts between the property owners and the • Board of Supervisors to keep their land from developing for ui ieusi iv years. The 'mplication on the property owner was that if he was to cancel this contract or attempt to, a general plan revision from open space to another land use catagory would be required. (3) Another major effort of the committee was to try to get their general plan revision to con- 856 0o.ozo d • 27 July 1976 form to the facts that we knew to occur. Large acreages had been purchased and put into regional parks, such as Las Tramps and elsewhere. So, the committee recognized the fact of the situation and made suggested changes in the plan. (4) The also created a new general plan catagory, which really isn't new but was created :• to reinforce this "rural view of life" called Country Estates. These are shown in this buff i color (indicating on map). These are areas basical ly where the Commission has in times past suggested that zoning not go below one acre lots, R-40. So, the committee created a new catagory to reflect this so we don't have people trying to split off a second parcel of their land. These are supposed to be one acre and up with emphasis on the "up". Some of these areas it is anticipated to have even larger acreages in them. I think its worth going into a couple of the thoughts that the committee used when they reviewed projects in areas. Onewas that approved projects were treated as givens if they were proceed- ing in good faith and they tried to reflect them on the plan. Then, our process of trying to get an acceptable product, it became clear that there were cer- tain areas which were special to the committee; there were problems; there were concerns about how they might be handled. So, the committee created three (3) Special Concern Areas. There are three on the plan and all of them are areas where there has been a great deal of discussion about them. The first Special Concern Area is out in the Sycamore Valley. This is Dougherty Valley Rd; this is Sycamore Valley and Tassajara (indicating on map) and this black line shows an area of Special Concern. The committee suggested that there was certain criteria that should be con- sidered such as Planned Unit Development to be encouraged in the area to insure that this de- veloped as one logical unit. The second one in the Dougherty Hills area (indicating on map), they thought this area had some special problems that should be recognized in the general plan. The third being again in Sycamore Valley and the special concern area is the southern entry into Danville. They suggested that some types of commercial uses be allowed in that area. It had been previously shown for a residential use . In addition to what has occurred and approved projects being treated as "givens", the comm- ittee did a lot of research into what other agencies were doing or were intending to do in the valley and hopefully they've integrated the thoughts of most of those jurisdictions in the planning process to smooth the mandatory process and others such as the East Bay Regional Park District item next on the agenda. This was taken into account that it probably would occur by the committee and it is now going through to fruition. In addition to the basic concepts layed out here in the general plan is animplementation section in the document. I'm not too sure how much testimony you will be getting on that; but it's very important in carrying out the implications of the plan and just to mention a couple of the ideas that are of concern, one is that more site-plan flexibility is needed, especially in smaller parcels. If we assume that the valley is basically---has a future of in-filling, then we need some new kind of zoning district, possibly a PUD for smaller par- cels which would allow a great deal more flexibility in the design of those parcels. We need some kind of control on creek setbacks. The committee wanted to support the open space easement program which the County has now entered Int . T„..y wanted*surre addit- ional sign control; some design studies. They talked about governmental efficiency and even some ideas about governmental consolidation to better provide services to the residents of the valley. So, all of these different ideas are parts of the general plan and you will be hearing testimony on all parts of the tonight. Or, I guess I should say on sections of them. 857 dd0W7 T . • 27 July 1976 At this point, I think it best to turn it back to Mr. Dehaesus unless there are questions of staff. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Are there questions? Apparently not. Thank you. MR. DEHAESUS: I don't think we have any more, Mr. Chairman, except that I think this is a hearing where you ask for-comments, suggestions and recommendations rather than the for or against type of hearing. That's all we have at this time. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we welcome your comments on the proposed San Ramon Valley General Plan and the environmental impact report as drafted. We will start off with anyone who wants to speak regarding the plan, the environmental impact report of both. And, either in support or opposition or with suggestions. It's up to the speak- er. MR. J. W. STEFFEN, Post OfficeBox 10100, Palo Alto, Calif. 94303. 1 represent Boise Cascade Corporation. We're not here tonight either for or against but for a point of clarification. I have before me a letter which I would like to read into the record. Mr. Cutler is kind of familiar with this problem and he can kind of point this out as I read along. (Letter was then read to the Commiss- ion. It is dated July 27, 1976, signed by Mr. Steffen and is on file with the subject matter). (Clarification concerns Parcel X210-560-011-4, a 7.4 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Alcosta Blvd., and future Stagecoach Road. Parcel is now zoned M-2. They request clarification on the proposed zoning for this property). MR. CUTLER: Mr. Chairman, one of the problems is the scale of the map which you have seen. It is very hard to read and we've suggested that since there was some concern over the designa- tion, it was the intent of the committee that this parcel be shown as medium density. We just suggested that he prepare this letter so that everyone would understand. His request, in essence, is what the committee had in mind. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: I see. Thank you. We'll hear from the next speaker. MR. WM. O. MADDOWS, 9 Via Cerrada, Alamo, Calif. I'm here representing the Alamo Improvement Assn. First, I would like to commend the Planning Staff for what we feel is a job well done on this plan and we are generally supporting the plan. We have a couple of suggestions which we have made available to Mr. Cutler and we've also offered a letter which we feel with strengthen the plan and tonight I would like to expand on a couple of those points. The first one deals with the definition of low density residential areas, which on the map is the area colored a light yellow. Much of Alamo is in this designation and always has been and it traditionally has been zoned R-20. Now, the wording in the present text on Page 19, we feel applies to the situation you're going to find in Danville and San Ramon where you have large parcels of undeveloped property which you perhaps can do some innovative things like PUD's, clustering and attached units; but, in Alamo, we feel that the way this area is going to continue to grow is by the minor subdivision process; that there aren't too many large parcels remaining. We would like that this particular section at least be made somewhat more germane to Alamo in that it could have a sentence a�,41 1 +-_ +l,^ effect thc.t minor sub- . divisions or lot splits should not imply or lead to a higher density than the immediately surround- ing land uses. Also, we do not feel that for minor subdivisions that going with an attached or clustering unit is really going to be too appropriate in Alamo since there isn't really a precedent for that in Alamo right now and the area is pretty well built out. 858 00o;cp,7 `r i • 27 July 1976 The other point I'd like to make is the controversial extension of Miranda Avenue to connect with Castle Rock Road. We have had information of the possibility of putting a park in there. I don't know how this effects it. I wasn't terribly aware of that; however, we feel that Mir- a nda Avenue is definitely a substandard road to connect up to Castle Rock Road for the pur- poses of another outlet from the San Ramon Valley. Furthermore, we don't really see another need for another outlet from the San Ramon Valley and, therefore, we'd like to see at least the EIR address the issue of extending Miranda Avenue to connect with Castle Rock Road and hopefully you will end up deleting that proposed road from the General Plan. That's all of our major comments. Thank you. MR. GORDON C. GEORGE, 23 Mary Court, Danville, Calif. I represent the San Ramon Valley Community Planning Committee. The committee has had study sessions on the general plan itself and also public session one evening and a number of comments will be forthcoming on this matter. Perhaps of the greatest importance from our point of view are two of the Special Concern areas. First let's take Special Concern Area �2. If Mr. Cutler will kind of point things out, this is the Dougherty Hills Area and there are development plans under way at this time for that area=-- and the development plan extends considerably into Alameda County; but, approximately 1/3 of the development plan concept is embraced in our area. I think there are two concerns that came up in our discussions. First of all was that of overall density and most importantly preser- vation of the ridge line. The ridgeline preservation is probably one of the strongest emotional factors in all of our discussions, running throughout and in all areas of the County; so, I'm going to take that as a "given" that we don't build on the ridgelines tonight; that's the position here at the moment. The ridgeline as it is and is different in actuality from what it would appear to be on the basis of the green area in this special concern area. It actually lies appreciably farther to the west, nearer to Alcosta Boulevard. The ground rising up from Alcosta is fairly steep and at the base, currently under development are approved subdivisions. We would like to see the general plan reflect the actuality of what's taking place there which would probably then suggest more limit- ing of the development on the west of the ridge line. To the east of the ridgeline, there is con- siderable flat land along Dougherty Road which wi If be developed and the general term that is used in discussing the development in that area is that it would be low-density residential. I think, however, the plan is that it's really going to be a PUD type of development taking in- to consideration an average type of density utlizing or incorporating the total area included in the open space. So, the development along the flat land along Dougherty Road is likely to be more dense in terms of the close proximity of the homes or townhouse or cluster type of developments. Sometimes I suspect this may have been overlooked inour conversations. The second area of special concern is that Special Concern Area �3 which is the Sycamore Valley Road and Danville Boulevard intersection. We've had considerable heat and light on this subject and I'm sure there will be considerably more before the ultimate development of that intersection is resolved. I think, however, at this stage, it's a fair statement to say that the extension of Sycamore Valley Road to the west of the intersection, the concept that gains the most support would appear to be a curving road which extends directly across the intersection where the stop-light is now and leads into access of residential development on the Padva-Otto properties. Now, the point I wish to address tonight concerns development around the immediate vicinity of that intersection. The question concerns whether there should be commercial development or not and if there should be to what extent and what type and geographically, how far up and down the road? 859 G o pp,7 • 27 July 1976 Without considering all those questions, I think that we have taken a position to this extent on a portion of them: That the commercial development should be allowed to extend on Danville Blvd., south of the extension of Sycamore Valley Road as for as and only as far as the line opposite the southern boundary of a filling station directly on the---on the southeast corner. Really, what we're saying is that there is a filling station over here already, extend it across the road and then on up to the commercial property that is already established northerly. MR. CUTLER: I think this presentation would make more sense to the Commission if they would look at Page #31 of the draft text. Youwill find a map there and what Mr. George is talking about is extending the commercial area beyond the area currently shown and going about half .way down into the area that's shown as single family residential, low density. COMM. JEHA: Actually, this gas station is only about a couple hundred feetpast the inter- section---just that corner so that your request is practically the actual boundaries is what you're saying. MR. GEORGE: As shown here---no, this has been a point of controversy as to whether it should stop exactly at Sycamore Valley Road or I won't be very surprised if there are some people who will speak later tonight who want it not even that far. What we've concluded is that it's unlikely that if we have single family residences opposite the filling station that it will be a very attractive place for a home site and the conclusion is that it makes some logic to extend it that far south and we want to make a strong point that there is an existing development plan that's been presented for this area which embraces this concept of a commercial development there on the west side of the intersection and immediately abutting it on the southern boundary it calls for R-15 Single Family residences and this represents a buffer between the proposed commercial development and the Morris Ranch Properties, and I'm sure the Morris Ranch People will be here tonight to voice their view point since they've been very vocal in protesting the intrusion of commercial properties onto their residences; so, we feel strongly that by establishing a buffer, there are two lots under control and a third one that's not involved in the development which would provide a substantial residential buffer between the proposed commercial development and the existing Morris Ranch Properties. COMM. JEHA: Did the committee discuss for that general area a use other than commercial such as Limited Offices? MR. GEORGE: Perhaps I'm inaccurate in the use of my term "commercial". I was speaking in a rather broad sense. The exact nature of the use of that property in terms of business sense, is still an open question. I think the sentiment is to keep it low key. COMM. JEHA: When you use the word "commercial" most people think in terms of retail development; so, if you think it should be something like offices, I think it would be more understandable to me if you would state that. I think the term "commercial" indicates retail business. MR. GEORGE: All right. Let me back off and not use any term because I want to avoid putt- ing a label on it tonight. Let me say a "low-key business" situation. COMM. JEHA: Are you ircluding offices in "business"? MR. GEORGE: Yeah, I would consider that. F0 CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Mr. George is saying "non-residential use", is that right? MR. GEORGE: Yeah, all right, fine. Thank you for your help. I needed it at the moment. Non-residential. I think that's the best way of putting it. 860 �0 • • 27 July 1976 The,point that we're trying to make is that this non-residential use should be allowed to ex- tend as far as but no farther than the extension of the line across from the service station and that there be a single-family residence buffer continuing on south from there to fill in the gap from there to the existing residential property. =*' So, those I think are the principal points that I think we have to make vith Special Concern Area #3. Now, with respect to Page #19 in the plan, I'd like to read a couple of sentences here and this concerns Danville Boulevard and the preservation of the residential nature of the boule- bard. "The present land use concern is the encroachment of n.on-residential but permitted uses along San Ramon Valley Boulevard, Hartz Avenue and Danville Boulevard. This plan calls for resi- dential neighborhoods to be developed along these roads and discourages legally permissive non-residential uses. This is intended to protect the scenic quality of these roads and the de- sirability of residential use." I would like to go back and re-read a few words. We want to stress "to discourage legally permissive non-residential uses.. ." We want to re-emphasize, we want to say more than discourage. We REALLY don't want to have---I'm expressing the sentiment of our committee at the moment and I hope I'm reflecting the sentiment of the majority of people who have given us input. It's difficult to express it accuratelybut, we really want to see that pre- served as a residential flavor; we think of non-residential uses as somebody using a house with maybe a ceramic or art studio in the back or something I ike that; but, we're not look- ing to see business-type commercial, retail type establishments along there. We want to emphasize and underscore these words; that we recognize that there probably will be other uses made of the properties along the Boulevard; but, as much as we can, we want to keep it residential. COMM. COMPAGLIA: Recent additions, would they be objectionable, I ike that school the Creative Learning Center, that one? MR. GEORGE: I think I'll take the fifth on that. I think we've been through that one and 1 think anything you try to do there will be controversial to some degree. I'm here tonight expressing the sentiments of the committee and the questions they have covered. There are a few other points that we had with respect to our view of the plan which are per- haps of lessor importance overall than the points we've talked about so for. In Alamo, we ask that you clarify the commercial limits to include Jackson Way as the north- ern boundary on the north side of the Boulevard and Orchard Court on the east. It's not clear from the map and drawing in the plan as to what that is. On the map that we have shown with our plan in the back, it appears that we show low den- sity residential use just immediately to the west of San Ramon Valley Boulevard south of Sycamore and there actually is townhouse development there and think it should be corrected to reflect the "givens". But, I think that's a minor point but might be misleading to some- one who is looking at the map. We also question some of the open space demarcation in the area of Roundhill, where we show open space coming down immediately adjacent to the yuii= course area and ai -3as which we believe to be currently zoned for R-15 development. Lastly, we had an example of the problem that came up in our meeting this morning, relative 861 00(440 s r • • 27 July 1976 this last item I wish to---which is in the form of a recommendation that wherever possible, where we have a change of useage to residential to some sort of business or commercial use, that we try to provide o substantial landscape buffer between the changing types of useage. A good example came up this morning with the proposed development at the southern end of the 1%stern Electric property where Shapel l Industries proposes a large number of homes immed- iately adjacent to the Controlled Manufacturing area. Among other problems was: How do we provide a residential environment for the people who abut against the C-M property and with individual home plot going right up to the property I ine, what is it we do with the prop- erty within the subdivision; do we put trees and so forth? That's the kind of problem we're sort of throwing out. Thank you. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Thank you. We'll hear from the next speaker. MR. BRAD HIRST, 3014 Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland, Calif. 94610. I'm representing Bert Bertolero, the owner of Navlet's Nursery: He has a 3 acre parcel at the southeast corner of Sycamore Valley Boulevard and Camino Ramon, adjacent to his existing nursery. I'd like to complement your Citizens' Committee who worked very hard on this plan for a period of two years. I realize that we're talking about a total area of 112 square miles and I'm here talking about 3 acres which is a rather insignificant portion when related to 112 sq. miles; however, when you're dealing with a plan as large as this, from time to time, injustices can occur and we believe that there's a danger of that happening at this time. Mr. Bertolero owns a piece of property which is bounded by the railroad tracks, Sycamore Valley Boulevard, his own nursery and a veterinary office and 1-680 along with Camino Ramon. The recommended designation for this area is low-density residential. 1 sat in on the committee meeting when this was recommended and most of the members of the committee indicated that they did not believe that residential would logically develop on this island, which as I said has railroad tracks, two heavy traffic arteries and a commercial use; so, in in your deliberations, we would ask that this property be given a commercial designation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Thank you. Before the next speaker comes up, I'd like to say for the record that Mr. Daniel C. Helix has written regarding the property immediately across from Mr. Bertolero's property which was just described and asked for a continuance of the hearing to July 27th so that he could speak on a proposed change for that property. So, I will enter this letter as part of the record. (Letter is dated July 23, 1976, signed by Mr. Helix. It is on file with the subject matter). COMM. JEHA: A continuance to when? Today is July 27th? CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Oh, yes. He asked for a continuance of this scheduled hearing. We will now have the next speaker. MR. ROY S. GLOSS, 1490 Laurenita Way, Alamo, Calif. I'd like to wear two hats here in about two minutes: The first hat is that I was proposed to be a member of the committee that drafted this plan and 1 would like to say on behalf of the committee and certainly for myself that we all had a great deal of admiration for the way in which the committee was shepherded through its duties by a very talented young man by the name of jim Cuiier. All of the'del:berations of the committee were not entirely easy. It was made up of some very divergent individuals; so divergent that a number of us didn't think it was going to work at all. That it did I think is a matter of some wisdom by the man who appointed it, who is Mr. Dehaesus, with the concurrence of the Board Member from that area. 862 s 27 July 1976 The committee held together rather well. It started out with 23 members and most of us were still there at the end. All of us have a real deep seated interest in this plan and hope that your deliberations will be thorough and complete. I take that hat off now and I'd like to put the hat on as a resident of Alamo, with a very `t keen interest in Danville Boulevard north of Del Amigo. The speaker from the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee aluded to the interests of that committee in preserving the scenic beauty of Danville Boulevard and I would like to second that. I would also invite your attention to the rather grand opportunity that this Commission has to execute a philosphy that has largely been the philosphy of this Commission over the years in one-fell swoop and eliminate a lot of arguments in the future by accepting the committee's recommendations on Danville Blvd., north of Del Amigo. That subject is addressed in two different places in this report, about Page #32-#35, 1 think---at the top of Page #35. It begins on Page, the bottom of Page #34. It refers---the last sentence of that paragraph would restrict strip commercial and office uses under land use permits under this plan. Those of you who have been on this Commission for a number of years realize that this very question has come up over this very length of Danville Blvd., over a great number of years. It has never been quite spelled out so clearly as it is in this plan and I would hope that all of you could give some serious consideration to the adoption of this plan with respect to the protection of Dan- ville Blvd., which belongs to all of the County in such a very easy and I think very effective manner. Thank you, Mr.. Chairman. MR. JOHN WAR, Shapell Industries (No green card submitted for identification and correct spel I ing of name as well as address). I would like to start out by presenting a letter to the members of the Commission (copies of letter were distributed to Commissioners. Transcriber does not find a copy in the subject file). I will not be speaking to the plan and its overall context nor to the EIR but specifically to a piece of property in the Danville area. The property is approximately 10 acres in size and it's located at Greenbrook and Camino Ramon. The letter is short and to the point. I'm not going to read the letter to you; but, I wi II try to hit the high points of our concern. We're objecting to the proposed land use designation put forth by the plan on this property. Currently the property is governed by a land use permit that was approved several years ago in reference to a townhouse development on the property. The property at that time was put together by Laurence K. Development Co., and through some financial problems, it has become the burden of Shapell Industries. In our minds, we have completed the town- house development and now the remainder is a 10 acre piece. The land use permit that I speak to expires next month, August 21, 1976. At that time, it will revert back to its orig- inal land use designation of Commercial. The question had come up earlier in reference to what is the intention of that. When we speak to commercial here, we envision a neigh- borhood shopping center to serve the surrounding residents of the immediate area. Now, I think what happened here is that the Citizens' Committee has basically dropped the land use designation for commercial in this area and replaced it with a proposed neighborhood shopping center commercial area further north on Greenbrook at Sycamore and Greenbrook. I think it you take a moment and look at the overall impact of that on the residenis that Iive within that area and how a neighborhood shopping center serving those residents, I think you will see that a shopping center, at least at Greenbrook and Sycamore is somewhat dup- licating the efforts of the shopping centers just down Sycamore in the town of Danville it- 863 0Yk07 i • 27 July 1976 self and I think you can further be compounding some type of traffic problems along Green- brook Drive if you try to bring residents from the lower portion there up to that site and for that reason, we believe that the 10 acre site at the intersection of Greenbrook and Camino Ramon would be a more suitable site for this type of neighborhood shopping center to serve the residents. Again, due to its location and when you think of possible school district set- up where they want the optimum location for schools to serve the residents and the homeown- ers, I think when you look at how far down the closest other location of a neighborhood shop- ing center, this site has more merit. With that, I request that possibly staff take a harder look at this land use designation on that piece of property. Thank you. MR. JACK WEIGHTMAN, 196 East Linda Mesa, Danville, Calif. I'm here representing myself as a property owner in the San Ramon Area. I will address myself specifically to a type of zoning in the area called A-O, Office Admin- istration, down there. As you probably all know, there's very little property in the whole County that's zoned this way, two pieces in the San Ramon Area, the Shell Chemical prop- erty and the P.G.& E. property. The only other properties on this General Plan with that A-O designation are the properties that I own on the north side of Crow Canyon Road and the P.I.E., property just west of my property, some 48 acres that goes over to Bollinger Canyon Road. This is a very restrictive type zoning. You have to have 5 acres in a site to develop it; you can only cover 25% of the property itself with buildings and it's generally a very, very restricted type zoning. I don't think that for the next 30 years, we will be able to attract the type of tennonts or people who would want to buy this type property and develop it in the San Ramon Valley. I think we ought to change this to get more laniexyas for as the use is concerned. I would urge that you let us have Controlled Manufacturing (C-M) in there which would be an ex- tention of the C-M that comes down the Old Crow Canyon Road right now and we would probably be able to better develop this property and make use of it thanwe can at the pre- sent time. This would also allow the same uses as you get under A-O. If we get a large insurance company and they want to put a home office there, I'm sure that the County would let us do it under C-M Zoning as well as A-O. But, under the present zoning of A-O, we are so restricted as to what we can use the property for, I urge you and I've asked you since I think it would be in conformance with the general plan. Further, on the other side of the freeway, there's I- acres there that they've designated for A-O Zoning, too. I don't know what the thinking was on that since you have to have 5 acres to develop under A-0---that's the piece just to the north of Fostoria Way along the freeway, Jim. But, 1 would like to leave that open so I can discuss it further with the staff in the next week or so as to what we can do with that piece of land. Thank you. MR, PETE JENSEN, Box 553, Danville, Calif. I have a parcel of land Parcel #208-260-11- I'm not certain of the designation given to the property. It appears that it's Controlled Manufacturing for half of it and the other half open space. If this could be designated before final approval of the plan, I would appreciate i. :.,d 1 also would like. to thank the members of the committee who have given their time on this much needed project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Thank you. Does anybody else wish to speak on this tonight? 864 ow"?"1 e s 27 July 1976 I will point out that we probably will be continuing the hearing on the proposed General Plan and we probably will want to close the hearing on the environmental impact report; Leso, this will be the last chance, perhaps, to speak on the EIR. Before I ask for a motion on this, I will ask again if there is anyone else who wants to speak on these two matters? MR. WEIGHTMAN reappeared. I have a question: Can we bring things up at the next pub- lic hearing that we did not discuss this hearing? In other words, if there is another specific piece of property that should be taken into further consideration, can we bring it up at that time? CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Yes. There will be no limit as for as I know. Upon motion of Commissioner Compaglia, seconded by Commissioner Jeha, it was moved that the Planning Commission CLOSE the public hearing on the Environmental Impact Report but allow one (1) additional week to receive written comments on the EIR; that the public hear- ing on the San Ramon General Plan Amendment be continued to August 17, 1976. COMM. JEHA: Mr. Chairman, I will not be here on that date. I would like to know if any other Commissioners will be absent at that time, too? (All other Commissioners indicated that they would not be on vacation at that time). A roll-call vote was taken; following is the Commission's recorded vote: AYES: Commissioners - Compaglia, Jeha, Stoddard, Milano, Anderson, Walton, Young. NOES: Commissioners - None. 10 ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. COMM. JEHA: Mr. Chairman, while all the interested people are still here, I would ask the staff to prepare us a specific map so we can see the problems that those who spoke to- night on their properties since I can't see any of the properties on the maps that were here tonight. MR. DEHAESUS: What we intend to do, Mr. Jeho, is to further describe the properties of those who spoke here this evening as to how that property relates to the plan and then offer some comments. There was no further discussion on this item. ro Ocso2o-7 17 August 1976 - Tuesday Planning Commission Mtg. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT : CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: SAN RAMON VALLEY GENERAL PLAN : This is a public hearing to consider an amendment to the County General Plan. The San Ramon Valley Area General Plan encompasses approximately 112 square miles, generally bounded on the west and south by the Alameda County line, on the north by the City of Walnut Creek and on the east by Morgan Territory Road. This is a comprehensive revision of the County General Plan including changes to all the State mandated general plan elements. EIR Hearing was CLOSED on July 27, 1976. MR. DEHAESUS: Mr. Chairman, the is second hearing on this matter and it"would be our suggestion following this evening's hearing, that the Commission continue the hear- ing again to September 7th and in the meantime, at next week's Study Session Meeting, the staff will review the plan in detail with you and go through every point that's been presented to the Commission either in writing or orally, to review it thoroughly with the Commission.at that time hoping that on September 7th, you may then be in a position to make a decision on the plan amendment proposal. With this, Mr. Cutler will present some of the high-lights of the plan. MR. CUTLER: As Mr. Dehaesus said, this is a General Plan to consider the revision to the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan. The area comprises 112 sq. miles going from the southern boundary of Walnut Creek all the way to the Alameda County line and ex- tending easterly as for as Morgan Territory Road. The revision is a comprehensive revision which deals with all of the mandated elements; it supplements all the elements where fine tuning is needed and it does address all of 17 August 1976 the elements. The status in terms of where we are for the benefit of the audience • more than for the Commission, is that the hearing on the environmental impact has been closed and staff is preparing comments, many of which are in your binders. We anticipate that no action can be taken on that tonight but would be deferred until the 7th of September. In addition, members of the Commission have copies of most of the letters that have been received to date by staff; a lot of correspondence has come in in the past few days which has not yet been duplicated for forwarding to the Commissioners. That material will be sent to you as soon as possible. I point this out since we may have speakers referencing letters that may not be familiar to you. In terms of a presentation on the plan, we talked a b,it about that last time. Since that date, Staff has issued our Staff Report. We have a few extra copies which will be put on the railing for interested parties in the audience (copy of staff report is on file with the subject matter). Basically, the view of staff is that the General Plan Citizens' Committee that assisted staff did a very fine job and we accept the plan as recommended by the committee. We have only a few areas where we have suggested changes. I will go into the more important of those now. One is that since the time the committee did its work, the East Bay Regional Park District has acquired a fair number of acres within the planning area and we recommend • that these areas be shown as park and recreation on the pian map rather than General Open Space as now designated. For those interested, there are generalized maps of '-� some of these areas at the back of the staff report. There are a couple of other acres of land that have been acquired by the San Ramon Valley Unified School District and V.C.S.D., and we recommend that they be shown for their appropriate uses. Probably the most significant recommendation we have for change from what was done by the Citizens' Committee is called "Special Concern Area �Y. There's a section in the text that goes into that area in great detail . This area is located at the junct- ion of 1-680 and Sycamore Valley Road and the committee come up with some detailed criterion for the development of that land, which in essence split the property in that special concern area between single family residential and a limited type of commercial. Since then, there have been a number of letters and suggestions made at the first public hearing for modification of that special concern area. Staff, in reviewing the comments that have been received and the problems we're aware of in the area, have suggested that maybe a little more study needs to be done before an appropriate designation can be made and we've suggested that a Study Area be placed on the land while we're getting the necessary traffic reports, noisy studies don e, which would have to be done in any case where applications proceed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; so, we're suggesting that that land be placed in a Study Area Designation. In addition, there are two parcels of land in the San Ramon Area that for a long time have been zoned M-2 and in reviewing this, staff is recommending that the plan be changed to reflect a medium density multiple family designation on these parcels. The Board of Adjustment will be hearing an application proposal on one of those tomorrow : • • 17 August 1976 night. The two parcels are located along Alcosta Blvd., and Montevideo, one at the • corner just south of Montevideo and Alcosta and the other up next to the railroad tracks. The General Plan Committee had recommended those for single family uses and we're suggesting that due to the good faith of [lie people who have been proceeding with de- velopment applications and file need for a little diversity of housing in the area, that " that land be shown for medium density multiple family. In addition, there are a couple of areas that we've responded to based on the first public hearing and suggestions that have come in from various citizen's groups. One controversial area is the proposed extension of a road going from Miranda or Livorno comming off about here (indicating on map), going off towards Walnut Creek. The committee had suggested that a road be shown on the Circulation Element connecting to Castle Rock Road in the Walnut Creek Area. At last public hearing, after the Plan review, you heard under Mandatory Referral for file East Bay Regional Park District, an application to acquire that land in between for a regional park. Based on all the programs of the other public agencies in the area and the opposition of the City of Walnut Creek and the Alamo Improvement Association, staff is suggesting that that road be deleted from the Circulation Element. Another change which has been suggested to you by the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee is that special concern area �2, which is located in the San Ramon Area between Dougherty Road (indicating), next to Camp Parks and Alcosta Boulevard, have a slight change in the boundaries more to reflect topography. We had a very general- ized line and the Committee has suggested changes which tie in more towards the topo- graphy and we're recommending acceptance of that change. There were also some wording requests which were agreeable. An area which I think you will hear quite a bit tonight is a small parcel of land, once again in the San Ramon community; it's adjacent to Sunny Glen and it's located off Alcosta right after the turn (indicating on map), right by the railroad tracks and there's a long history to the development in that area and the zoning on the property is M-4; but, historically, that land was considered for a park and since that time, a couple development applications at multiple family density have come in and been appoved by your commission so what we have is a situation which is very complex and basically one of design. When we looked at the situation on this 6-acre. parcel which about half is in an easement and can't be built upon, it was staff's view that it would be better to build single-family residential homes in the area than multiple family and it should be integrated into the design of the existing community---keeping in mind that it's a 6-acre parcel with half of it being easement leaving about 3 acres. There are other suggestions about wording which I won't go into now. We've also pro- vided a couple of maps to add clarity and then given you a list of those requests for changes in file land use map and provided maps hopefully referencing where these are located. Unless there are questions, that concludes our staff report at this time. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Gentlemen, any questions? Apparently not. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now go ahead with our hearing. There are a lot of people here tonight and I don't expect that everyone will want to speak. If anybody G 0 0 2 0'7 916 • 17 August 1976 is representing a group and vrants to spc�l-I for that group, we're always happy to hear • what the group is and if the speaker wants the group to stand to show the interest in what he's saying, that's in order. We do want to avoid having different people get up saying the same thing over and over again. Some people who are here tonight I see were at our last hearing. We're always glad to hear from the again on something new; but, we would prefer not to have them go over the same area the second time. With that background, anyone who wishes may now get up and say what he wants to about the proposed San Ramon Valley General Plan. MR. ROY L. TOWERS, 600 San Ramon Valley Boulevard, Danville, Calif. I'm Vice Pres. of Geldermann Enterprises. I would like to have a map placed on the viewing board in order to point out some of the points that I have here. In addition, I have a prepared letter that I would like to hand out to the Commission and then I'll give a copy of this to the .Planning Director. (Copies of letter presented to each Commissioner. Copy of letter is on file with the subject matter). I would like to read into the record the letter that you now have before you and I can refer to the map that Mr. Geo. Allen has just posted on the wall. "Gentlemen: Our firm is the owner and developer of Roundhill Enterprises located in Alamo, Calif. We have carefully reviewed the draft proposal of the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan and fully appreciate the time and effort that has been spent • by the staff and Citizens' Committee in bringing the proposal to the point that it now exists. However, the present General Plan before you and understudy designates land owned by our firm as General Open Space and we find this inconsistent with the years of historical ownership and planning for this area. A brief explanation is as follows: "Roundhill has been in the process of development for the past 16 years. The present development either completed or under development consists of some 400 homes around the area of the Roundhill Country Club Golf and tennis facilities." Mr. Allen will point that out. What you see in green is the Roundhill Country Club consisting of 120 acres of open space golf course and tennis facilities. The white areas are lots that we have developed and homes have been constructed comprising approxim- ately 400 homes. "Immediately adjacent to the development above mentioned, we have remaining approx- imately 270 acres* of undeveloped land, which was a part of the original overall purchase some 16 years ago. This acreage has always been considered an integral part of the overall development of Round Hill and many meetings with the staff over the years will bear this out. "The present adopted General Plan for the 270 acres is designated low-density and is zoned R-15 and R-20." Now, the 270 acres is the yellow line and represents the area that is now presently ' • in your general plan adopted in 1967. A portion of it is zoned R-15 and a portion of it is R-20. "Utilities consisting of water, sewers, storm drainage and streets have been sized to 917 GOOZ07 • • 17 August 1976 to facilitate the necessities for developn._:nt in this area." • I'm speaking of the 270 acres that is within the yellow lines. "And, further, the water jurisdiction spheres and sewer jurisdiction spheres of influence y which were adopted by LAFCO on October 15, 1975, include this property. "The residents in Round Hill expect this area to be developed and it has been so stated on two occasions by the Pres. of the Round Hill Homeowners Association at tine recent LAFCO Hearings of the San Ramon Valley incorporation hearings; and prior to that, so stated by tine Pres. to the Board of Supervisors at the time of the special police district was formed. "The present use of the land is nonproductive insofar as agriculture is concerned; however, I'm sure that the Tax Assessors for many years have been influenced by the present zoning for R-15 and R-20 in determining the assessment for this area. "We have recently submitted to the staff a proposal: Tentative Map Tract 4915" which encompasses the area in the yellow line , "which proposes some 153 lots varying in size from 20,000 sq. ft. minimum to 3 acres with an overall average of development of one unit per 1.7 acres. "In conclusion, we respectfully request that the area designated as 'General Open Space' on the draft proposal be changed to low-density and remain as it now exists on the adopted general plan. "It is further respectfully requested that the designation 'scenicridge' be removed from • this property, which in our opinion by so doing will obviate complications in the future. "Your cooperation and consideration of this request will be most appreciated." CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Thank you. We'll hear from the next speaker. MADELINE HEWITSON, 31 Sara Lane, Walnut Creek, Calif. I'm representing the Assn., for the Preservation of Danville Boulevard. Our Board of Directors has reviewed the proposed general plan and we approve whole heartily the proposed general concepts for Danville Boulevard; however, we have a few changes that we would like to propose to clarify portions of that plan directly related to the Boulevard. First, because we wish to maintain Danville Blvd., north of Del Amigo as a two-lane road. We take exception with the sentence on Pages X34 and 435 which reads: "This plan supports tine concept of keeping the scenic aspects of the road but recognizes that conditions and needs change and that adequate setbacks should be required so if they are needed in the future, they will be available. As this sentence reads, we feel it would encourage the widening of the Boulevard rather than discourage it. Further more, the vagueness of the phrase "adequate set- back", we feel weakens the firm intent of this section stated a few sentences below "to maintain Danville Boulevard as a two-lane road." It is our wish the existing County setback requirements remain in force along Danville Boulevard rather than any more extensive setbacks being required. Therefore, we feel that part of the sentence quoted above, relating to unspecified "adequate setbacks" 0 • 17 August 1976 should be deleted. Secondly, the map accompanying [lie General Plan indicates that the area adjacent to Danville Blvd., is low-density residential. In keeping with this map designation, we ask that the phrase on Page L35 which reads: "The lands adjacent to these roads that are shown on the plan map should be restricted to residential uses." We propose that it be changed to be more specific that "the lands adjacent to these roads that are shown as residential on the plan map should be restricted to low-density single family uses', rather than just the general term "residential". Third, with respect to suggested speed limits for arterials, Page X35, we ask that the clause which states, "they are designed to operate at moderate speeds of 40-50 miles per hour", be changed to read: ,To operate at moderate speeds as consistent with the residential nature of the neighborhood." Because the intention of the statements relating to Danville Blvd., is to preserve and encourage residential developrrient, speed limits we feel should be consistent with that type of land use 40-50 mile an hour speed limit is not necessarily consistent with resi- dential neighborhoods. I have copies of our proposal which I will leave here (submitted and are on file). Thank you. MR. LOUIS F. PLUMMER, 161 Bolla Avenue, Alamo, Calif. 1'd like, if I may, have my wife hand out some exhibits that would support my talk. (Mrs. Plumber submitted • typed letter and map: Both are on file with subject matter). I'd also like to point out that any quotations that I make tonight will be taken from the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan draft proposal. I also have a letter which I will put into the box with the map. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Thank you. That will become part of the record. MR. PLUMMER: I am a resident, homeowner and taxpayer of Alamo since 1954. 1 am not appearing tonight to berate or condemn the conscientious work done by all with so much time and effort on this proposed general plan revision; however, as a property owner and taxpayer in Contra Costa Co., for 22 years, I must advise :you how this adversely effects us. Mrs. Plummer has given each Commissioner and the Staff an exhibit based on a U.S.G.S. map. This map will help you locate our property as well as partially outlining the boundaries of LAFCO and the proposed new city. It is not offered as an exact document; however, it was drawn by reference to several authorative reaps available to me. In 1960, my \vife and I along with Mr. & Mrs. Robert B. Read bought and still own a parcel of land located east of Danville. It lies just north and east of the intersection of Sycamore Valley Road and Tassajara Road. This 163 acres is listed on the County Assessor's roll as Map 202, Page 100, Parcel 005-Volume 63. It was purchased by us for an investment. Each month, we made payments to the previous owners in the same manner of other families planning for their future might put money in a savings and loan company or a bank. It has been our intent to sell this property for the development of home sites similar to those in Mountair above Danville. Our property under the current 1967 General Plan is zoned for single family residential low density. Obviously for planned home development under the watchful eye of the properly constituted County 919 00007 • • 10 August 1976 Commissions and department %lt'ads. Wit ; this and other investments for our future, it appeared to Mrs. Plummer and me that the time was right for my planned retirement. Accordingly, in November 1975, 1 took that step; retired and shortly set out to contact appropriate parties for the sole and development of this 163 acres. Imagine my surprise and consternation when I fourd out that possible purchasers or developers did not want - to consider this property at all because of the proposed revision of the current 1967 general plan and its possible effect on our land. In !March of this year, our respective fears were realized. The Son Ramon Valley Gen- eral Plan Citizens' Committee with the assistance of the Contra Costa Co., Planning Dept. had proposed that our property be re-planned from single family residential low density homes to General Open Space. Gentlemen, what provision for residential development is there in General Open Space? I think it is essential that this be clarified. Would you care to do so now? CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Mr. Plummer, it would be possible to have a house on every 5 acres, actually, under anA-2 designation. Do you care to comment on that, Mr. Dehaesus? MR. DEHAESUS: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. The density would be one house per 5 acres of land in the General Open Space catagory. MR. PLUMMER: Thank you. This open space catagory states on Page #421, "lands des- ignated in general open space are primarily in agriculture. Much of this land is expected to remain in agriculture for the effective period of the plan although open space areas associated with larger development projects will be recreational either as unirrigated natural areas, golf courses or recreational centers." Page �2 of the draft proposal states that the plan period extends until 1990. Would you care to comment on that sir? CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Sir, all we're doing is looking forward to the eventual develop- ment of the San Ramon Valley and just saying that this plan doesn't look beyond that year. MR. PLUMMER: Thank you, Sir. Our property has always been agricultural primarily used for cattle grazing and industry that is no longer economically viable on small parcels of land such ours. For years, our taxes have greatly exceeded the land grant that we have been able to secure from established ranchers. Our rancher-neighbor, Mr. Hap McGee advises us that he has consistently lost money on every animal that he has grazed and eventually brought to market from, our area. This year will be much worse with the drought conditions. What I want to do now is mention just a few of the things that must have been over- looked as it affects our particular 163 acres of land. This property is within the sphere of influence of LAFCO for sewers and water (repeated statement). Our north and east boundaries form the outer most boundaries of this sphere of influence. Obviously, qual- ified planners and study groups have felt that our property was within reasonable areas of responsible development and would compliment other orderly development in the valley. This property is within the boundaries of the proposed new city which comes before the voters in November. How are city boundaries defined? Well, in essence qualified per- sonnel determine that the land within the proposed city boundaries has been developed or is economically or logically developable. Our property meets that criteria. This property properly developed would contribute much needed tax dollars quite advantageous 920 C� �Ct '(;a7 0 17 August 1976 to the respective governments for in excess of taxes collected from the proposed general open space designation or under the Williamson Act. Only the south face and First ridge of this property is visible from Tassajara Road. A major portion of the land lies to the north of the first ridge including a large valley area which is completely hidden from view from any public roads. I bring this to your attention specifically as .it is in Special Concern Area #1 and is also located as a scenic ridge. Gentlemen, where does that leave us? Our property under the new proposal falls in the never-never land catagory. First, in a proven uneconomical agricultural use class- ification which is getting worse by the day and secondly in the general recreation cata- gory as stipulated in the proposed plan. This means public recreation I assume because suggested development is not logical within the finances of the individual property owner such as ourselves. We would like to propose an alternate solution for your consideration, Country Estates, covering all of our property except that small portion on the southslope facing Tassajara Road which the proposal already shows as being in low density. I .would now like to refer to the proposed general plan section dealing with land use elements as it relates to residential uses and areas, Pages 18 & 19., Within the single family residential catagory, the Planning Committee with the aid of the Planning Dept., has a calagary, Country Estates, minimum lot size of one (1) acre. Quoting exactly, it reads: "Country Estate areas are located in topographically difficult areas and in outlying areas where a large compact population is not appropriate. As the name and minimum lot size implies, the character of these areas is to be rural keeping live stock for pleasure is appropriate in these areas. Lots larger than one acre are desirable and may be required on slopes over 159'0 where hazardous conditions are found or for other �..� reasonable purposes." It also says that within each density catagory variations will occur which reflect topo- graphy, scenic preservation and other features. The Planning Department must have had our property in mind when they created the Country Estate catagory. It fits the descrip- tion and is exactly the development we had in mind when we purchased the property. The draft proposal, Pane 40 under Open Space Element states that this general plan includes three catacories of open space. They are: (1) Parks & Recreational, (2) Agri- cultural Preserve, (3) General Open Space. Quoting from Page 40, "together these open space areas include approximately 70% of the 112 square miles of the planning area." Gentlemen, with approximately 78 sq. miles of the 112 sq. miles of the planning area already in open space, it seems most unrealistic to include our parcel which is within the sphere of influence of L.AFCO. Again, I say our 163 acres most logically lends itself to the Country Estate designation. Based on the aforementioned facts, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission remove any and all of our property that is proposed General Open Space and place it in the Country Estate catagories. Thank you for your consideration of our problems this evening. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Thank you. We'll hear from the next speaker. MR, ROBERT READ: My wife and 1 are partners with Mr. & Mrs. Plummer on the pro- perty just reviewed by Mr. Plummer. Please be assured that I do not intend to flake 921 00OZ07 ' • 17 August 1976 your time by going over this matter ago; s. I do want to go on record that my wife • and I are in complete accord with all that Mr. Plummer has said. We first came to Alamo in 1950 and have been paying taxes in Contra Costa County since that time. It has been suggested by several people that we place our land in the Land Conservation Program, the Williamson Act. We don't feel that we can do this for the following reasons: We invested in this land so that we might sell at an appropriate time for our retirement years and that time is now for both families. All four of us are realists. Our average age is 63. The William- son Act covers a 10 year period, renewable annually and once signed to this contract, it is very difficult if not impossible to get out of it. We must believe that the present actuarial tables show that neither Mr. Plummer nor I will be around at the conclusion of the contract much ,less be able to do anything with the land during that time. We have been advised by qual.ified planners that at today's costs and restrictions, it is feasible for us to develop our property within the general description of Country Estate designation. While it is unlikely that it could be economic- ally developed in much larger lot sizes, the Williamson Act merely shifts the tax burden from the owners of farm lands to other taxpayers. This proposed re-planning hurts us financially more than you will ever know. We request your consideration of our ultimate solution to the published San Ramon Valley Area Gen- eral Plan of March 1976. Thank you. MR, DAN HELIX, 3430 El Monte Drive, Concord, Calif. I am interested in a 'mail parcel of land which I believe lair. Cutler was referring to in Special Concern Area �3. This is a small parcel---actually, it's two parcels of 2.81 acres and it is being suggested for single family residential use. For the past 6 or 7 years or so, it has been zoned Interchange Transitional and it's my request of this Commission that that particular zoning be retained. The reason is that this particular parcel is a triangular parcel which is bounded on .the north by the Sycamore Valley Road Overpass; on the east by Camino Ramon Road and across the street is a commercial enterprise; on the south by the apex of the triangle which is owned by Cal- Trans; on the west by 1-580. Gentlemen, I would submit that this property is certainly appropriate for anything but single family use and I would hope and request that as you review this and as the study takes place that the Commission arrive at the same conclusion. Thank you. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Mr. Cutler, in drawing the map, was it the intent to designate this for a different use from that for which is was zoned or was this just a rough design- ation for the entire area? MR. CUTLER: No. It was the intent of the Committee to show it for low-density single family residential use. One correction, it is not in the special concern area. That is across the freeway to the east and there are two parcels that have come to the attention of the Commission---the small piece that discussed as Interchange Transition .a.- and another piece across the road from that east of Camino Ramon which was brought up at the last public hearing, which was requested to be put in zoning of a commer- cial nature. That's right above the Navlet's property; but, it was the intent of the Citizens' Committee to show those as low-density single family with the zoning brought into conformance. 922 CW7P'7 • 17 August 1976 CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Thank you. We'I hear from the next speaker. • MR. JOHN LUCEY, 95 Stephanie Lane, Alamo, Calif. I represent the Vernal Road Association as well as file more than 90 people who have signed a petition that I'm going to present here (petition was presented and is on file with the subject matter). Mr. Chas. Suter is going to pass among you and give you copies of the map showing what I will be speaking to (maps presented to the Commissioners. They are on file with file subject matter). We are asking that the property mentioned on the map there be included on the General Plan as Country Horse Estates rather than its present designation of Low Density. Tile property at present is made up of almost---of a vast majority of horse set-ups. It is open area and most of the propertynow is presently made up of one acre or more and many in the 5 acre or more category. As you will note from the map, the County's proposed general plan has already included the area that is completely yellow at the bottom as Country Horse Estate. What we are asking is that this designation be extended on up into our area which would encompass the entire area that's bounded by the yellow line. As noted from our map referring to the map we've passed on to you, the area is approx- imately 195 acres. Of that, as you can see from our figures in the table in the upper right-hand-corner, we have over 609% in favor of this, roughly 35% unavailable at .pre- sent. We are attempting to contact these people and get their signatures and only so far 5% or less than 5% against this proposal . We feel that this the citizens speaking and we ask that you consider our request. We should also point out that there would be no hardships worked on anyone living in the area since the majority of file properties are over one acre and many in the 5-10 acre range. I'll leave these copies of the map with you. Thank you. MR. WM. STRUTHERS, 1789 Fourth Street, Livermore, Calif. 94550. I'm a lawyer who represents Sunny Glen Adult Community, Inc. A large number are here tonight and I might ask them to stand as was suggested. (Approximately 50-60 persons rose). That's really not the whole community. We are here tonight to say that we agree with the staff report concerning this special request area on the southern .county line._ The staff recommendation is that it be included in the Master Plan of high-density single family residential . The reasons for this are brought out by the staff but they used several words somewhat different than I do. It's little more than adjacent to this Lot 1'153 of this area that was subdivided by Volk- McLain. It's sort.of on integral part that surrounds four cul-de-sacs and this design I think would make it difficult for any multiple development of the area and put various strains on the community. The first of these would be thie traffic situation. There are presently 209 family units in the SunnyGlen community and this includes 340 people who have 255 autos. Tile one little road would certainly and was never meant to accommodate more traffic which .i certainly multiple zoning and development would tend to give it. The only ingress and egress in this area is that one street called Firecrest Lane. The--- think there's another thing. I think that with a tight little community like this and in a sense what used to be a park so it really never was designed to give it things like access and traffic and -things like that. You would really effect the quality of 23 000207 • 17 August 1976 life that these people have developed in their neighborhood and without outside help. • They have a Fine adult community where little inroads have been resisted and kept away so that it's a pleasant place for them to live. The Master Plan, if it shows high-density single family residential, would certainly be something that could be developed and certainly blend in with the community. Thank you. MR. DENNIS W. BALL, 400 Erselia Trail, Alamo, Calif. I would like to speak, really, right behind Mr. Lucey to put it in order. I would like to remind the Commission that I was here 3 years ago over a variance in the some area and at that time, my request was, gentlemen, please don't construct a thoroughfare through the area we live in and that it's not condusive to a ranch type set up that we are enjoying. There were four of us who spoke that night and the staff's request was to extend Erselia Trail to the proposed border of the property that was being developed so that one day it would connect with Livorno. Fortunately for the neighbor- hood, the Board of Adjustment that night agreed withour point view and was trying to go along with it to try to maintain the environment that we chose to live in. I'm here to tell you that we are still consistent in our desire and of the people that have signed here and the people that were requesting development that night, all four of those parties have signed this; so, you can see that there is a strong feeling within the neigh- borhood for the Country Home set up. Thank you. MR. LAWRENCE A. HARPER, 52 Oakwood Road, Orinda, Calif. As an investor, I own with my three children Parcel 16 as shown on the diagram that I presented to you before starting to speak (material is on file with subject matter). The first page, you see much better on the map. It didn't come out well with Xerox. The second concerns the assessment district within the San Ramon 1-680 and Alcosta Blvd., and the Crow Canyon extension. The problem that I am raising concerns the assessment district which I think from a financial point of view needs to be considered as a problem area and my interest is not only in part on our problem, our property, but on the whole attitude that is going to use the San Ramon 1-680, Bishop Ranch area for the tax base. After the assessment district and the details given, it doesn't seem to have worked out too well. The first objection or complaint that I would have is on the Master Plan. The Master Plan as originally in 1971, when the assessment district was established, is set forth in Appendix C, which shows that the C-M classification extends up above Alcosta. In the present plan, it has been changed and apporently to judge from one of the statements cited in the report, is because it `Hants to use the roods or marked boulevards as dividers. The difficulty there is that the assessment was placed on both sides of Alcosta. Money was taken from the people on the eastern side as shown on Plan B as well as on the western side and my point would be that the economics of such situations are as import- ant as the neatness of drafting lines on a plan. ( The second point would be [not somewhere we have to have homes for the elder citizen; a the younger people; we need offices to accompany the factories which are going to be--- already are existing between Norris Canyon and Crow Canyon on one end and between Alcosta Boulevard and the railroad tracks on the other side. 924 000207 17 August 1976 So, what I ask of you is that you have the staff reconsider the relative importance of • economics and the niceties of the plans. What happened, why I'm here, by almost accident, I learned that the plans which were drafted and the proposals made at the time of the Crow Canyon-Alcosta Blvd., Assessment District called for a 20 and 30 _ year projection. The assessments which are made are going to apply for 20 and 30 years. As you gentlemen know, the natter was of a great deal of discussion and dissention and was one of the reasons why so many people dropped out and the actual costs went up something like 239%. Now, in less than 2 years after the 20 to 30 year projection was one of the reasons why I personally acquiesed. There is a change and is there a sufficient material ad- vantage to file people of the County or to anyone to deprive individuals of what had been counted upon and which was proposed, more or less, as a bargin when the original arrangements were made? Now, the plea is not that we put in ticky-rack or a batch plant---which is on the other side of the road above, behind the Leadership Homes, if they go in. The plea is that efforts be made to set up classifications that will help provide a buffer between the highway, between the industry on the oilier side and the Leadership and the Broad- moor homes. In short, that the smaller people will have a chance; the elder citizen. The report suggests that there aren't funds for that. I think there might well be funds found if there is a positive attitude to help encourage such activities. There ore various religious groups which have funds and set up homes for their own • groups or others. Oakland has the great Merritt Towers of the Episcopalians. The Swedish Lutherans had homes for their members; so, that is the plea, that we do some- thing for the people who are recognized by the Commission as needing help but were more or less bypassed. The other maps of the contours is to suggest that the land could be developed in coop- eration and maintained rustic and values but with a different classification. Thank you. MR. LARRY A. DAVIDSON, 4787 Norris Canyon Road, San Ramon, Calif. I own 10 acres adjoining Prof. Harper's land. We have been there 25 years and our address for quite a few years has been Norris Canyon Road. Since Alcosta has beenput in, we still have file same address; but, now we're on the east side of Alcosta. Up until this time, a good portion of the area has been zoned for Controlled Manufacturing or Light Industry and I think that's influenced the Assessor because the rates certainly have gone up. I have my property for sale and I am more concerned now to know if this is a firm commitment to residential or if a purcha.ci conies in and wants it as C-M or L-I, if he wil I be able to get that or would he be held definitely to residential. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Sir, the plan right now is just a proposed plan and it could be changed. We could recommend changes to the Board of Supervisors which would then be the altered plan. Then, once it has been passed by the Board of Supervisors, it can again be changed. We do change general plans. We would not want to hold more hearings and make changes within a short length of time; but, it is recognized that per- iodically, you must amend general plans. This present proposal is one which follows earlier plans for the San Ramon Valley; but, we will be having future hearings on future plans; but, we don't expect to re-open this pian once it has been approved for '125 000207 • : • • 17 August 1976 perhaps a year or two. • MR. DAVIDSON: I'm not sure that I know what you mean. Does that mean that it would be definitely committed this way or not? CHAIRMAN YOUNG: I'm just saying that the General Plan can always be changed. MR. DAVIDSON: Okay. Thank you. MR. FRED SCHMID, 14 Adair Court, Danville, Calif. I'm Pres. of Morris Ranch Homeowners Association. I'm also speaking for residents from Ocho Rios, Montego and Town and Country and Morris Ranch. Would they stand up please? (Approxim- ately 20-30 persons rose). There will be other speakers from Town and Country tonight as well as Morris Ranch; but,. I think it important that we start off this way because I want you all to know that as for as homeowne associations are concerned, we are in total concert with what I am about to say. The Morris Ranch Homeowners Assn., appreciates the good work and efforts of the San Ramon Valley Citizens' Committee and the preparation of the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan. While we are in agreement with most parts of the plan, we do take exception to the Special Concern Area �3 which is the Sycamore-San Ramon Valley Boulevard area. This plan suggests that commercial development along Son Ramon Valley Blvd., spread south to Sycamore Valley Road and then up the new extension of Sycamore Valley Extension should in fact be done. • It is this concept that we oppose and for the following reasons: (1) Congestion. Dan- ville already has a problem with too much traffic. Unquestionably commercial develop- ment in SouthDanviile will add that much more. Have calculations in fact been develop- ed stating how much traffic will be created by this additional commercial development? We don't know. We haven't seen any. With more homes being built betweenDanville and San Ramon and Danville being the hub, commercial development should be spread out into these areas particularly in small centers such as the area zoned commercial at .the corner of Sycamore and Greenbrook Dr. (2) Noise: Noise pollution is bad now. Can anyone judge what it would be like if traffic multiplies 5 or 6 times and what evidence do you have that it wil I not? Supposedly the community noise level of 60 decibels is the maximum allowed around residential areas, and this I understand is either being met currently or exceeded. What will be the level with more traffic? Commercial development while being controlled ,without a doubt is spreading south in Danville. This additional emphasis along San Ramon Valley Boulevard with Lucky's and Long's Drug Stores; Town & Country Shopping Center and now its new addition of 65,000 sq. ft. puts great emphasis on business growth in the southern part of the city. In the new proposed general plan, it is the desire of the Committee that much work be done for the rejuvenation of down-town Danville. It would appear that the southerly commercial development is somewhat in conflict with the wishes of the Citizens' Committee since ^" presently and in the near future, it is the belief that both developments are not in fact needed. It is also the feeling that further development along San Ramon Valley Boule- vard suggests a strip development which again is in conflict with the Committee. Who in fact needs more co►nmercial development, the builders or thepeople of Danville? • • 17 August 1976 If it is needed, what kind of commercio! development should it be? When should it go up if in fact is is needed? Given a choice, is this .there one would chose to put another 50 or 75,000 sq. ft, of commercial development or are we being subjected to this because of the land price and the requirements for building profits? Morris Ranch is not opposed to the commercial development downtown. We are firmly opposed to any development south of Town & Country. We suggest that residential can be developed along Son Ramon Valley Boulevard particularly if there is an adequate set- back from the road coupled witls mounds, trees, walkways, possibly some sort of fence between the homes and the roadway. We also suggest the preservation of the Otto home in a coehesive park-like setting that would act as a blend from commercial to residential . One of the dissapointments, I guess, is that we at Morris Ranch have felt that during this entire developmental stage of this new plan is the complete lack of communication between the Citizens' Committee and the Morris Ranchers. It was our understanding that there was to be a series of public hearings to discuss the progress of the committee. Un- fortunately, we at Morris Ranch never heard of. these. Our strong position tonight relates to the fact that we, like anyone else for the first time having the opportunity to speak before you and/or for or against the whole or parts of this plan. Had we had the opportunity during the developmental stoages, believe me we would surely have made our position clear from the very outset. It is our hope that you will take some of these questions and statements into serious con- sideration before taking any further action with this plan on Special Concern Area t13. Thank you. MR. G. H. KISSIN, 215 Loch Lomond Way, Danville, Calif. I represent the Town & Country Danville Estates residential area with more than 100 homeowners and I'd like to support the remarks made by the previous speaker about Special Concern Area 113. 1 ask the question: Do we need more commercial zoning along San Ramon Valley Blvd., in South Danville? Before deciding, let's look at what is there now. In a one-half mile stretch between Hartz and Railroad Avenue and Sycamore Valley Road, there are now by my count, 76 commercial establishments or existing spaces for them and there will be more pointed out later. Amond the existing ones, there are 5 banks, 7 gas stations including one with a car wash, 3 sift-down restaurants, four purveyors of fast foods or deli-items, 7 realtors or title companies, 3 liquor stores plus liquor available in two super-markets, one super drug store, 7 concerns that deal in clothing, dry goods, wearing apparel including one mini-department store, 4 cleaners and one Laundromat, 6 establishments that deal in building supplies, hardware, paint and home repair and fix-up items for the home owner and there are three (3) vacant stores. I won't bore you with a complete list of the variety of establishments of one each all the way from an auto parts store, book shop, to tire store, barber and rental center; >`"• but, all together, there are 24 individual shops and professional offices. Last but not -- least, Crown Construction Company's 60% oversized headquarters. When the second phaseof the Town & Country Shopping Center is completed, you will 9?7 00020 • 17 August 1976 25, at leasl 25 perhaps 30 more spaces for retail sales or the like in what is already • a neighborhood blight. G;Ie feel that this is sufficient for South Danville. The Dan- ville business district has great potential but it is being allowed to deteriorate. Ile think new commercial facilities ought to go there and save the residential areas. To . �..r do otherwise is to make San Ramon Boulevard into something like Hesperian or North Main Street and we feel that we don't need it. I haven't written a formal letter; but, if it's proper I'll leave a copy of my notes. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Sir, if you would, that will go into the record. (Notes were presented and are on file with the subject matter). We will hear from the next speaker. MR. BILL MEDER, 3767 Via Granada, Moraga, Calif. 94556. I'm a private citizen. I have recently purchased a parcel of land in San Ramon, Parcel 0208-025-038. The zoning on that parcel is now M-3 and has been for approximately 10 years. I would like to request that that zoning be retained on that property and also mention that on the master plan, it was critical of the lack of sufficient M-3 Zoning. Thank you. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Thank you. Mr. Cutler, which parcel is that? MR. CUTLER: I'm not too sure which one--- MR. MEDER: It's north of Crow Canyon and the freeway next to the Golden State. It would be south of the Golden State property. • MR. CUTLER: The property he's talking about is located in the red color right here (indicating on map). There are two pieces of Multiple Family Residential properties that have been zoned that way for a long time; one down on Crow Canyon Road and the second one up here behind all file commercially designated lands, that's what he's referring to. COMM. COMPAGLIA: Doesn't the map recommend it stay that way? MR. CUTLER: No. It recommends that it go into an office use. MR. DONALD LAWRIE, P. O. Box 806, Danville, Calif. I am one of the property owners in a much discussed zone 3, that is the Special Study Area. I would like to go over a few of the items and bring up a few facts as they exist at this particular moment, and discuss a few items that the staff report has mentioned in regard to this special Study Zone Area 113. No. I: A short time ago, we purchased 229 acres in that area. Since then, we have given 186 acres to the Regional Parks Department leaving roughly 43-46 acres which is only 19% of the property involved in the 229 acres. In addition, l note by the recommendations of the staff that the R-7 Park Department is desirous of gaining a little more area than the 186 acres that we gave away, evidently that being in the 10 acres that we now have left in that roughly 36 acres that's being developed in the R-15 residential classification. We are here to support the new proposed General Plan as amended for this area showing �_• the increase of acreage and into commercial and to extend it beyond the or to Sycamore Road and slightly beyond. There are a few other points that have been made and that is that we now have filed 928 009207 17 August 1976 a map under Subdivision '4502, which includes a road from the 66 lots that we have • down to San Ramon Valley boulevard. The reason for filing this map at this particular moment was that the map was due to run out on August 61h; therefore, we had just run out of time. Tile reason I make this statement is that it is our proposal within a very short period of time to ask for an abandonment of the lower section of that road where it comes into San Ramon Valley Boulevard now. Perhaps to clarify a problem of con- gestion which if the road goes through there now, according to the map as we have filed it, you will see on the upper right nand side a dotted line, below it a line or an area with a curvilinear road that comes into the intersection of Sycamore Road. Now, if we go ahead and run the road as proposed in the map---and this was a map that was designed several years ago, then it would increase the traffic congestion con- siderably in that area. It is our proposal---and we're, in complete accord with the property owners next door, that we run a curvilinear' road to join Sycamore Valley Rd., and we have gone into this with Public Works Department and it is our understanding that they are in full accord with that kind of proposition. Therefore, with this in mind, we believe that the congestion of the traffic would be considerably less. It is our request that you still consider leaving the master plan as adopted so that this area shall remain as now proposed as commercial. Thank you. JERRY P. LOVING, Architect, 1200 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Walnut Creek, Calif. represent the G. L. Lewis Co., Developers of the Podva property, again concerning the Special Study Area #.3. • I'm here in support of the General Plan revision committee's findings with one except- ion which was outlined at the last public hearing here. Obviously, this general plan �. . does cover a large area, 112 acres offering a variety of life styles for people to partici- pate in, from living on a 5 acre ranch, to Morse set-ups all the way down to apartments; there's o broad range of life styles offered in this valley and rightfully so. In Special Concern Area #3, we have the hub of this valley. Danville is an established city and we're concerned about a piece of property at that off-ramp of 1-680. . We be- lieve that the use of this property was irrevocably stamped the day that exit was put in there and subsequently through the years as other commercial uses have surrounded the Podva property. Therefore, we would ask that you carefully consider the findings of this revision committee because we believe that they did find that a transition use was required there to buffer what is a fine single family R-15 home area from the heavy noise and commercial impact of that intersection. appeared before you almost two years ago now about this same property. We've studied it in great detail. We put in abeyance our work for that period of time while this plan revision committee did its job. I would like to comment sort of step-by-step through the staff findings in regard to this property and address some of the points that Ira ve been brought up here tonight. If you would look in the staff report, on Page f12, it's their recommendation '5, at no point '£e• in time from the very beginning have we seen this as being just quote/unquote another ^ _ development. Other commercial development exists in the area. We don't want to re- produce it. We're not suggesting another super market; another department store. We think it does deserve special treatment and the text as described by the revision committee 929 0��d�� 17 August 1976 has done a pretty good job at outlining .,,,hot uses ought to be Ihere and we think that • is appropriate. As we go through this staff, report, it was suggested that we wanted to increase the area some 5 acres in size over what the General Plan revision committee suggested. That's not so. The increase caused by adjusting the boundary to correspond with that service station was about 32 acres and acre of which is consumed by the right-of-way of the extension of Sycamore Valley Road into this property. Traffic congestion has been mentioned. At the request of local people, we have agreed to extend Sycamore Valley Road into that area to provide a stop light. San Ramon Valley Road has a 100-ft., right-of-way. The State exit there is only half developed. The other . half of it will be developed. There's no question that this is a traffic point and it has been provided for and that's in keeping with its location at this strategic point. So, we believe that the extension of that road will be a solution to a now confusing traffic situa- tion. Noise obviously is on impact there from the freeway. Anything we do will not alter that. The fact is, it makes it undesirable for residential living there. The present General Plan in existence calls for multiple family development there and because of the noise impact and the heavy commercial impact at that point, that makes that a vary undesirable use for that point and it just points up the noise and a need for a buffer kind of use and that's exactly what's being proposed. A buffer has to be placed between that impact intersection and the nearest single family home. My client that I represent still builds single family homes. They will not put homes at that intersection since that would • just compound the problems that exist for some of the homes there now and it would be a disaster to introduce that kind of use into the area. A commercial activity will not appreciably add to that kind of noise impact. The free- way by-and-large and the traffic along that road is the producer of the noise. During normal business hours the additional noise generation from a limited commercial activity would be very minimal. Now, the need for commercial activity. This is a General Plan hearing that projects itself for 15 years and doubles the population of that valley. I think the kinds of uses that we're proposing and the commercial activity is well within keeping for that kind of General Plan. It has been mentioned that the development of commercial here would jeopardize down- town Danville. Well, downtown Danville really is strip development; that is, it can't be nothing but that since historically it's been a main street of a small town and the only adequate planning can be done in the larger parcels that you have before you to- night in the Special Concern Area. We can do a good job there and at the appropriate time, a good job can be done downtown also. This property cannot bear the burden of correcting problems in the downtown area. Site problems are mentioned in the staff report, problems of the Otto property and the Alumbough development, etc. These are momentary problems that we feel will be allevi- ated when we implement the master plan we propose for this area. s'_'t• A park site was mentioned for this area. We believe that we should consult with the park people and we have from the very first moment consulted with the R-7 people; talked with Ron Crane and those people in regard to what their plan called for for this area. 930 00n;n,7 • • 17 August 1976 They were interested in the Otto hornesi ! and the bcuutiful trees that are there. We are too. We are also interesleu in the Iicus in and around the Podva property and • we think they're a real asset to that intersection; but, as to it being a homesite, think it was just mentioned ti-:at other provisions have been made for parks. So, the objectives of the park people can be met; therefore, the problems as outlined here, we've addressed in sone detail over this long period of time. This has been the special study area for us, believe me. Furthermore, all of.the issues raised here will be addressed as part of future processing. This General Plan as adopted will go through the development plan process, through environmental impact report; through rezoning pro- cess and these are normal processes of the County and some of these issues will be addressed in great detail at that particular time. We have presented our ideas to the San Ramon Valley:Planning Committee on many occas- ions and we recently have made application for developing theback portion of this property into our 15 homesites cnd that application is being processed by the County right now. At the some time, we have made public our intention and our planning that was done in concert with the findings of this general plan revision committee and those were put on file here at the County. In fact, an application was made but we withdrew that at the request of the County pending the outcome of these hearings. So, we're on record as to what we think would be the appropriate solution there and we're comfortable with the findings of the general plan revision committee. We think their objectives can be met. Their objectives, I think, are for this Special Concern Area as you'll find on Page 30 and 31 of their report to you---that a large buffer be provided between the Morris Ranch people and this commercial area; that only makes good sense; and if I could show you • our site plan, could I do that, Jim, on that eisel there, show you our specific plan? (Pian was mounted on the eisel for viewing by the Commission). This is the master plan that we've shover, for that particular area and we will interlocak with the Otto property to the north. You can see that we've provided an R-15 buffer between what Nye think should be the boundary of the commercial area and the Morris Ranch people. That boundary extends to San Ramon Valley Road and we've included two large oversized R-15 lots backed up against San Ramon Valley Road. Therefore, the General Plan, Revision Committee's objectives of providing that buffer of the R-15 use between Morris Ranch and this property has been provided and can be pro- vided as a reasonable solution there. We are proposing a limited commercial activity on this piece of property. That's the use that is appropriately given the commercial impact and the noise impact and the strategic circulation connection to the freeway and to this major street in Danville. An attractive entrance can be developed to this southern portal to Danville that is, architecturally sound. We don't have to have a walled-city look. We can incorporate it all in with the trees, well-designed building; in a well-landscaped setting. The General Plan Revision Committee said that they .would like buildings set in a park-like setting; that will be possible here. The documents that I gave to Mr. Young of the beginning of the meeting in their reduced •�•. version show character sketches of images of what might happen there. The Committees' objective of terminating at a logical point the commercial activity, we believe, should • occur at the service station there and that can be met with this plan. So, we are respectfully disagreeing with staff on this one point that this be put into a special study area. We believe that special study has been put forth not only by the 931 G 0[3Z0 7 • 17 August 1976 citizens but by ourselves, by previous applications, noise studies have been done. . There's a lot of work that }pus to be done still, of course; but, that will follow as a normal part of processing in the days and weeks ahead under the development plan process and so on as I've outlined. We are asking tonight that the General Plan revision committees' recommendations be accepted along with the unanimous support of the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee and we ask that the boundary of the commercial area be adjusted to correspond with the southerly boundary of the service station site as outlined in that map because we think that's the logical term at this point. We would not want to find homes across from that kind of intersection. In summary, there are a lot of different places we could live in this valley. I grew up in this area; I've walked across this property before anything was on it. The fact of the matter is, this is a close-in location and we must deal with it in a sensitive way. I believe this can be done. I haven't even gotten into the architectural solution and I can go on and on and on in terms of this kind of buffer and details and architectural character that will make this a pleasing solution and we have to finally get it down in those terms and that's why I'm presuming on your time tonight to go into this kind of detail . Thank you. MR. HARRY "HAP" MC GEE, 1025 La Gonda Way, Danville, Calif. I've been a cattle producer for 44 years in California and Nevada. I've lived and operated and paid .taxes in Contra Costa County since 1946. I've got two hats tonight. • My first hat is that I was a member of the Planning Committee we're talking about now and I'm very honored to have been on it and I want to thank Mr.Anthony Dehaesus, Jim Cutler and all the people we worked with and for the fine" cooperation we got. I only wished I had made a few more of the meetings: But, I do have properties away from this area and I'm gone a lot. The other hat that I have on tonight is my cowboy hat. It happens that I own a piece of land in this area (indicated on map by Mr. Cutler), about 975 acres from Danville back to Blackhawk Road and back around to Diablo Road that ends up at the fire house at Green Valley Road. About five years ago, when they opened up the Agricultural Preserves, we had to go into it. We do have to pay the taxes on our lands. At the some time, a little bit to your right and left on the map, there was about 180-190 acres that we decided was in the ball park for future development---I didn't make myself clear here. My brother and I, Jerome McGee own this property. So, my brother and I decided that we would leave that in the high-tax rate and it happens to be half acre lofts for half of it or a portion of it and what was in force at that time, a recreational force or something like that. Anyway, it's had a number of different zonings on the land that my brother has spoken of. While I was on this committee, we made a tour of this area with members of the Planning Staff and four or five members of the committee. I was of the opinion at that time---it was my belief and my recommendation at that time to put that into Country Estates be- cause it was very rough and didn't look like to me that it would be very good for half acre lots along Diablo Road. And, a member or two of the staff as I have talked to--- 932 000207 • • 17 August 1976 well, not staff but local merrrbers of tht. committee---sort of felt the some way and we were all of the opinion just about the only meeting I went to after that point. So, anyway, it came out as you can see there on the map, Greenbelt, which kind of leaves me and my brother kind of shot out of the saddle because we've been fight- ing this thing for all these years. It's a little bit like Mr. Plummer and his problem. We wanted to be able to have two pies and retire in dignity; but, now that we've had a bad cattle market---rain the wrong time of the year---everything seems to be against us including Contra Costa County! So, anyway, that's all I've got to say. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you want more details, a formidable letter, we could do that. We don't operate that way but I certainly could get something up! MR. FRED SELINGER, 21 Adair Court, Danville, Calif. I'm the Vice Pres. of the Morris Ranch Homeowners Association. I'd like to talk about Special Concern Area #3 and if you will refer to Page "31 where the map is, and if the Lewis (G. L. Lewis Co), people will permit me to use their own map, I would like to make a few comments on some of the points that have been made. First of all, on Page X31 you will notice little dots one of which is number 5 and that refers to the portion south of San Ramon Valley Blvd. They're talking about a buffer zone away from traffic freeway noise, that type of thing. Now, that intersection, Sycamore Valley Road and San Ramon Valley Blvd., is a T like this (demonstrating). What they're saying is that on this part of the T, they can very adequately take and • go along with your planning people on the fact that they can create without any comm- ercial development whatsoever, an adequate setback for residential and they've even planned a couple of homes clown on that southern part and You'll see on Page 1,131 that's where the #5 dot is. What they're saying is that on the other part, just above that road, the only possible way they can buffer the same traffic is with commercial development. Now, I've had an opportunity to talk with them a little bit and at greater lengths and seen their plans. Their commercial development that they're talking about as being a buffer is two story development, not single story development. This is what they have explained to us and told us. Now, 1 cannot understand the rationale of buffering from a street with two story commer- cial development. It doesn't seem logical. Now, whether we need commercial develop- ment---right across the street is Lucky's, Longs and a bunch of shops just north of where they're planning to put this is the Otto property, which really would serve, as a natural buffer between the existing Town and Country development. We've got another 65,000 ft. of Town & Country going in and if you just go there and stand and take a look and see what two story commercial development in that area does, it's an eyesore and it's going to be an eyesore for a long time. But the question is: We don't want any more eyesores out in that area. Now, they will stand Isere and tell you the population is growing at a fantastic rate and we need more commercial; but, the population where it's growing is not in this area; it's growing v- on the other side of the freeway and primarily south of that so that the commercial de- velopment is all along there and there's no need for any more and this is an area that is perfect for residential development. 933 X040;07 • • 17 August 1976 the spraying several years aro and they ':ad to stop spraying the orchard. It would get in the air and go over tliere. That took away any possibility of any crops being There were cattle in the area. The kids in the raised there in the pear orchard . area ran the cattle off and killed part of them---a constant problem. Now, we've got a lady who is only only 86 years old and has lived her entire lite in this area and -- has been trying to sell this property for the past 9 years, trying to cooperate and go along with the County and each time that it gets to a point of almost fruition where a sale will go through where she'll be able to get out from under this which is nothing more than a total burden right now---a terrible financial burden, I keep hearing, let's put this land under a special study group. Gentlemen, it's been under a special study group for the past three (3) years and I submit to you that the San Ramon Valley Planning Group which is right down there, and the Morris Ranch people knew where they were; the Country Club people know where they are---they're all part of it. They took part in these discussions. I think it's a facetious argument for somebody to stand up and say that they don't know what's going on in this area. It was almost laughable; but, it's a sad matter. The time now is to make a decision. It would support the plan. We support the plan. We've supported the planning that has gone into it. The time now is for you gentlemen to make a decis- ion. Do not take the cheap easy way out. Let's not continue this again in order to take another look at it. That's the easy way out of this matter. There's a tough decision to be made and I ask )ou on behalf of Ruby Podva to make that decision now. Thank you. MR. TIM LOKKESMOE, G. L. Lewis Co., 1200 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Walnut Creek, Calif. I'd like to address myself to several filings that were mentioned by theVice Pres. of the Morris Ranch Homeowners Assn., just to clarify a few things in your minds. It is false to say that we're planning to build two story strip commercial buildings there. That is not true. The question of the commercial, why we want to have commercial there is that we're primarily home builders and we do build homes in the price range of $100,000. These are the types of homes that we will be building on the back por- tion of the Podva property. We believe that it's the right use of that property because of file transition of the area and the heavy traffic and congestion there that's been men- tioned; and that we need this buffer area of special commercial development. The reason that was also mentioned is that there is a commercial area right down below it and there are single family lots there too. The reason those single family lots are there is because of the requirements of the General Plan Revision Committee. We have been on record for several years believing that there should not be any single family houses built along San Ramon Valley Blvd. and we are complying with the wishes of the committee. Those lots that are there are all oversized lots and they will create an adequate buffer. I just wanted to clarify those points. Thank you. MR. JACK WEIGHTMAN, 196 East Linda Mesa, Danville, Calif. I'll be very brief. I'm representing Mr. Gonsalves and a piece of property at the end of Fostoria Way where it backs up to 1-680. It is a 6 acre parcel of land and it's zoned for retail y ,!• business right now. We are in the process of coming to the Planning Staff with develop- ment plans for this property and we are working closely with staff. The draft General Plan shows that property as being reclassified to A-O Zoning and we 9215 00OP07 • 17 August 1976 the spraying several years cc;-,-) and they ' ad to stop spraying the orchard. It would gol in the air and go over tl-,ere. That took away any possibility of any crops being . There .ere cattle in the area. The kids in the raised there in the pear orcl;crd area ran the cattle off and killed part of them---a constant problem. Now, we've l got a lady who is only only 85 years old and has lived her entire life in this area and has been trying to sell this property for the past 9 ears trying to cooperate and o Y 9 P P Y P Y Y 9 P 9 along with the County and each time that it gets to a point of almost fruition where a sale will go through where she'll be able to get out from under this which is nothing more than a total burden right now---a terrible financial burden, I keep hearing, let's put this land under a special study group. Gentlemen, it's been under a special study group for the past three (3) years and submit to you that file San Ramon Valley Planning Group which is right down there, and the Morris Ranch people knew where they were; the Country Club people know where they are---they're all part of it. They took part in these discussions. I think it's a facetious argument for somebody to stand up and say that they don't know what's going on in this area. It vias almost laughable; but, it's a sad matter. The time now is to make a decision. It would support the plan. We support the plan. We've supported the planning that Inas gone into it. The time now is for you gentlemen to make a decis- ion. Do not take the cheap easy way out. Let's not continue this again in order to take another look at it. That's the easy way out of this matter. There's a tough decision to be made and I ask you on behalf of Ruby Podva to make that decision now. Thank you. MR. TIM LOKKESh1OE, G. L. Lewis Co., 1200 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Walnut Creek, Calif. I'd like to address myself to several things that were mentioned by theVice Pres. of the Morris Ranch Homeowners Assn., just to clarify a few things in your minds. It is false to say that we're planning to build two story strip commercial buildings there. That is not true. The question of the commercial, why we want to have commercial there is that we're primarily home builders and we do build homes in the price range of $1001000. These are the types of homes that we will be building on the back por- tion of the Podva property. %'Je believe that it's the right use of that property because of the transition of the area and the heavy traffic and congestion there that's been men- tioned; and that we need this buffer area of special commercial development. Tile reason that was also mentioned is that there is a commercial area right down below it and there are single family lots there too. Tile reason those single family lots are there is because of the requirements of the General Plan Revision Committee. We have been on record for several years believing that there should not be any single family houses built along San Ramon Valley Blvd. and we are complying with the wishes of the committee. Those lots that are there are all oversized lots and they will create an adequate buffer. I just wanted to clarify those points. Thank you. MR. JACK WEIGHTMAN, 196 East Linda Mesa, Danville, Calif. I'll be very brief. I'm representing Mr. Gonsalves and a piece of property at the end of Fostoria Way where it backs up to 1-680. It is a 6 acre parcel of land and it's zoned for retail business right now. We are in file process of coming to the Planning Staff with develop- ment plans for this property and we are working closely with staff. The draft General Plan shows that property as being reclassified to A-O Zoning and we 935 • • 17 August 1976 want to be on record as opposing that proposed A-O Zoning. We feel that this is inconsistent with the zoning requirements in that A-O Zoning requires a minimum of 5 acres and this parcel is only one-point-six acres of land. Thank you. 1..:� No one else appeared to speak on this subject pro or con. COMM. ANDERSON: Mr.Chairman, I believe the staff requested at the outset that this matter be continued to September 7th. Does that include the EIR? MR. DEHAESUS: The hearing on the EIR was closed .at the July 27th hearing. It is our intention to take this matter up with the Commission at the Study Session Meeting of August 24th and go over it in detail with you---all the comments that have been made at the two hearings; all of the written material submitted to date. We would .ex- pect that you would want to spend some time on this because of its importance. COMM. ANDERSON: Is there to be a field trip scheduled for some of these areas? MR. DEHAESUS: I suppose that would depend on the results of the study session dis- cussion. You may feel that the discussion will be sufficient. Upon motion of Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Stoddart), it was moved the public hearing on the San Ramon Valley General Plan Amendment be CONTINUED to the meeting of September 7, 1976; that [lie Commission discuss this matter at the August 24, 1976 Study Session Meeting. AYES: Commissioners - Anderson, Stoddard, Milano, Compaglia, Wal ton, Young. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - Richard J. Jeha. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. Motion carried. 000707 0 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING t CONTRA COSTA COUNTY , CALIFORNIA L ° 7 September 1976 - Tuesday Pursuant to notification, the Contra Costa County Planning Commission met at 7:30 P.M., Room f107, County Administration Building, Pine & Esobar Streets, Martinez, California. ROLL CALL / Present were Planning Commissioners: Wm. V. Walton, III, Albert R. Compaglia, William L. Milano, Jack Stoddard and Andrew H. Young. Absent were Planning Commissioners: Donald E. Anderson and Richard J. Jeha. ' Also present were Ex-Officio Planning Commissioners Victor J. Westman, Asst. County Counsel and Barnabas J. Kerekes, Deputy Public Works Director, Land Development Division. Also present from Public Works Department as an observer was Lawrence Reagan. Present from the Planning Department Staff were Messrs. Dehaesus, Bragdon, Fenichel, �• Cutler and the Recording Secretary. t 4 + + + + T + + Y T + " T T T T r + .f. . . . . . + + + . T GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: SAN RAMON VALLEY GENERAL PLAN: This is a continued public hearing to consider an amendment to the County General Plan. The San Ramon Valley Area General Plan encompasses approximately 112 sq. miles, generally bounded on the west and south by the Alameda County- line, on the north by the Cityof Walnut Creek and on the east by Moraga Territory Road. This is a comprehensive revision of the County General Plan including changes to all the State mandated general plan elements. EIR Hearing was CLOSED on July 27, 1976. MR. DEHAESUS: - This item was continued from two prior hearings to this evening's hearing date. You have a compilation of all the statements that have been made to you as well as written materials submitted and the recommendations concerning those. We are prepared to give you a brief presentation if you wish it; but, I thought primarily this evening you would hear more testimony. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Gentlemen, does anyone want to hear from the staff at this �. point? I don't believe so. iFor the record, we've had a great deal of written material submitted to us by the staff; we've had the benefit of a great many comments from interested people in the area. Tonight we received another-document from the staff whi 6 to a very 1017 • 7 September 1976 nice package, all of the material which previously had been submitted and brought right up to date; so, we have a wealth of material and many of us have spent quite a bit of time trying to digest it all. Whether or not we've been successful., I don't • know 1 So, we would like to hear now from anyone who wishes to speak on the proposed San r' Ramon Valley General Plan. MR. WILBUR DUBERSTEIN, 45 Quail Court, Walnut Creek, Calif. I'm an attorney in Walnut Creek and I represent the G. L. Lewis Co., who are interested in develop- ing the Podva property. It's my understanding that the staff is recommending that this particular special concern area 13 be excluded from a decision by the Commission and put into some sort of special study---in limbo, we think---so that the Planning Commission need not take a position on this property. Two weeks ago, Mr. Dehaesus held forth---and I appreciate his frustration and his problems on the history---I should say ancient history---on the attempts of the owner to get this property included in the general plan. I represent the developer who's only been involved for 2- years; but, we think that the time has come when we not be treated any differently than anybody else. We think that the decision by common sense is obvious. We think that to delay us at this stage is not fair to us. We don't want to be treated differently than anybody else. We do want a decision and we would like the Planning Commission to consider • its position and take a position, include us in the general plan in whatever your de- cision may be. We realize that we are saying not that we are going to be included although- we think common sense dictates that; but, we don't want to de delayed any longer because welre hurting and we are being hurt by. this continuous lack of decision by the Commission and we think it incumbent on the Commission to take a stand on this particular piece of property. As I said, my client has only been involved since April of 1974; but, during that 21 year period, our architect Jerry Loving who also does our planning and designing, has had 80 sep.erate meetings with interested parties including members of staff, local home- owner groups; local planning- committees; feasibility people;. 80 times Jerry Loving has met, listened to comments, listened to suggestions and recommendations, made changes when such recommendations made sense and for 23 years now, we've come prepared to do our job and now when the new general plan is to be adopted, that diligence on our part is rewarded by an attempt again to have us studied once again as if we were a guinea pig. For those of us in the valley, there's no question about what this land should be and what it must be and it will eventually will be; but, keeping us out of the general plan has an impact for beyond the fact even if there was no delay, we could not talk to the people who have been waiting patiently for a decsision as to whether or not there's going to be a commercial development here because they have been held up and we can't hold their commitments. We have two financial institutions • who are in temporary quarters waiting for a decision as to whether or not we can build a bank and a savings and loan on this property---I happen to be involved with one of them. 1018 • 7 September 1976 them. We think that there is nothing sacred about including us in the general plan. We still have to go through all of the steps. We still have to go through zoning. Vie still have to go through the environmental impact and the traffic studies and our design. We still have to qualify in many, many ways. All we're doing here tonight is asking for the right to go forward instead of being held apart from the rest of our community. Some time ago when the general plan was to be promulgated, it became the sense of this Commission that local people be brought in to give their input to what they wanted for the community. So, the San Ramon Valley Community Planning Committee was established. We appeared before them. We changed our design to meet with their recommendations. We accommodated to everybody who came forward with some sensible objection to what we were planning to do. We think that we've got an admirable de- sign which has already been submitted. The San Ramon Valley Community Planning Committee, our local committee, by unanimous vote recommended to the Planning Commission that this property be zoned commercial and they did not buy what we were selling at face value. The put conditions upon us and restrictions upon us. We can live with everything that the local.planning people told us to do. What we can't live with is uncertainty. If we're told what to do, we can go forward; but, to take us and set us aside again, perhaps there will be no delay; but, my experience has been that when you treat it specially we're going to have to come back perhaps and get an amendment to your general plan before we can even go to zon- ing. I don't think it's fair. �• We have been delayed in an unconscionable manner up to this point. We don't want to be treated specially. We think that any local person must see not only that this area is commercial but that the community needs dictates that this facility be available for the community at a time when it may be built and we're talking two (2) years down the road; but, feasibility studies have been made of this area. The first one that I had ordered involved the Diablo Valley Savings and Loan. That was 3- years ago as to the projections of growth of this area. Two years ago on behalf of the Diablo State Bank I ordered another feasibility study that not only proved the projections of the earlier study but found them to be conservative. We all know what's happening in our valley. The commercial facilities available to us are not adequate even_ though they look like they've exploded. They actually haven't been keeping---they were so far behind when the new development started that now they can build 40 offices and rent them all. We need this facility in Danville so that when the time comes when the banks are ready to move, when the savings and loan is ready to get out of its temporary space, we'll have the available facilities. Danville is becoming the hub as it has been pointing in that direction now for 10 years. It's the hub of the San Ramon Valley area. There's no question about it. There's no where else where people can shop and we not only ask that this Commission take this decision on behalf of the property owner who has been long suffering paying taxes for a long time with that land lying fallow or the developer who has expended monies in his planning and wants to be considered on the basis of what he's done; but, also on behalf of the community which we think is going to need this facility. Now, economic feasibility may be a guess; but, the developer is the one who puts his money behind his decision. If he's wrong and builds something that the community doesn't need, . he loses his shirt and my people are not that generous with their shirts! We know from our 1019 0 07 September 1976 studies the needs of the community. When we build what we intend to build, pnd it's a magnificent thing, I as a resident of the area want to see it because it's the first • thing with any kind of design and talent other than the strip centers that we've been used to seeing in that area and we think that there's no reason why we need special studies; no reason why we have to be delayed. We still have a long road ahead of us. We just want to get started on that road. Thank you. MR. ROY S. GLOSS, 1490 Laurenita Way, Alamo, California. I've been privileged to listen to appeals on this property over a number of years both as a member of the San Ramon Valley Community Planning Committee and as a member of the General Plan Re- view Committee. It's my understand that this subject was addressed at the study session meeting of this Commission and it seems to me that those of us who have been concerned with this property recognize it as one of the key planning areas of this whole general plan. Now, I would suggest as a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that we could depart from this and we could hear a great number of subjects today in any order that anybody came up and addressed you on; but, it seems to me that if this is truly as an important area as some of us think that it is, you might wish to invite the staff-to address the reasons for the recommendation that this man assigns to the staff for putting it into a study area so those of us who were not able to have attended your study session meeting would know what the reasoning is. He may be right and he may be wrong; but, I think we're entitled to hear, after so many years of hearing about this property, what the new view is of the staff in putting it not into an area of special concern but an area of special study. Thank you. -: CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Thank you. Gentlemen, we did hear from Mr. Dehaesus at our study session on this particular point. Would you care to have him share the information with the public? It seems to me that it is an important point (Other Commissioners indi- cate their approval). Mr. Dehaesus, would you go over this matter again, please? MR. DEHAESUS: Yes. The recommendation that we have suggested and given to the Commission is that this area be further looked at in terms of environmental impact report and traffic studies. We have considerable concern about the traffic situation in this part of Danville. We also have considerable concern about the impact of such. a commer- cial development on neighboring properties. I think I pointed. out at the study session meeting that the Town & Country Center was never designed to be extended further down the road and I think its evident when you take a look at it, that is was anticipated that the lands to the south of that would be residential of some kind. This has been the plan and still" is the plan today. Why some people insist that they've been delayed so many years I don't know how because they could not zone that land commercially if an application had been submittedtwo, three or fi ve years ago because the general plan does not permit it and as you know, you cannot establish zoning that conflicts with the general"plan. In viewing the citizen committee's report, we agree considerably with it but we'd like • to go a step further because of the many concerns you have to keep in mind that no traffic studies have been made for this portion "of the Danville area and no design have been made. Now, it was mentioned that considerable drawings had been submitted. 1020 0 7 September 1976 Mainly, these drawings are sort of conceptual to give some indication as to how this might look. My experience with many of mese drawings---without trying to put any- one down---is that sometimes they don't turn out the way indicated until you actually get down to an application and plan that has been approved with conditions written in- to that approval and then you may get something that looks like what has been proposed. �~ We're not talking about any delays. If that property were colored red now on the pro- posed general plan, you would still have to submit an environmental impact report and we would require traffic studies, studies regarding noise, etc., because as I said, the proximity of this property to adjoining residential areas. As 1 mentioned a few weeks ago, the applicant has not submitted any applications for changes in zoning and none are pending. If the applicant submits those applications as soon as he can, we can proceed with the environmental impact report review; with the traffic studies, etc., and that would take the same time, the same course as if the plan indicated this land for commercial purposes. One of the interesting things, and I will comment on it as much as the attorney for Lewis Co., did is on the savings and loan and banks. As I understand the Committee's Report, one of their concerns was the kinds of tendencies or people that would be allowed to go into the shopping center or this area. It was not intended that this be the usual shopping center; the usual run-of-the mill type services available. It concerns me just a little---a few years ago, it used to be gas stations that they talked about. Now, the first thing they talk about is a savings and loan and/or banks. So, you're going to have a bank and savings and loan building on every corner in town. I don't know that this is the proper use to be located in an area like this. I'm thinking more that if there is to be commercial there, the environmental impact report and the other procedures that have been established, the County has established, that the kinds of uses that would be appropriate for this site would also be indicated; uses that would service the community and would provide unique compatibility with the surrounding area. We think that through the environmental impact report process; through the traffic study process; through the noise study process that these things will become evident as to what would become compatible if a commercial center is to be so located. I supposed i shouldn't even suggest that perhaps through the environmental impact pro- cesses and traffic studies that maybe a commercial center is not appropriate for the site; but, nevertheless, I think those alternatives also should remain open and as has been previously pointed out as well as again this evening that out of the 21 years of study for this entire area, it came down to this one site---these two pieces of property as being the critical for consideration in the general plan. Most of the other consider- ations have resolved themselves themselves fairly reasonably, I think. But, this one still remains unresolved as indicated by the presentation you just heard and, therefore, we think a little more attention and study ought to be taken and given to these two sites.- I think it should be very easy for the two owners to get together. That was another key point that I made last time---that whatever studies that are undertaken for this area, it should be done as a single study for the two parcels and not two separate consideration. if we're going to have a commercial area there, it has to work; it has Fieto be compatible with the adjoining uses and this is our main reason, our only reason and a key reason as to why we make the recommendation that we do. I can speak more on this; but, I think that's enough. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Dehaesus on this point? If �;' 1021 7 September 1976 not, we'll go on to the next speaker: MR. DUBERSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard in response to what has just been • said? - - CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Sir, if you will be brief, yes. Please come up to the lecturn -�� microphone. MR. DUBERSTEIN: With regard to the savings and loan and the bank which I mentioned, they're already in town in temporary space. It's not adding a new facility. We recog- nize that we still have the environmental impact report and traffic studies ahead of us and we have to satisfy staff on that. The reason why these two parcels are left is that they're about the only two commercial parcels in town of any size and that's why we're here. With regard to being imposed upon by being forced to coordinate with the adjacent owner; we have always coordin- ated with the adjacent owner. There never was any consideration that they wouldn't be considered together. The whole area dictates that these two properties be coordin- ated and we're in constant communication with the adjacent owner and have done our planning in such consultations. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Thank you. Next speaker please. MR. DEHAESUS: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to carry on.a debate with anyone this evening. If I'm to be asked to respond to what someone has said and in his response to my response, there were some things said that are not quite true. I won't go into it, it but I do want to mention it only. . ! MR. DONALD LAWRIE, P. O. Box 806, Danville, Calif. I'm one of the owners of • the second piece of property in question regarding special study zone �3. 1 have several letters that 1 would like to distribute (material was distributed to each Commiss- ioner. It is on file with the subject matter). We have placed on your viewing board a couple of maps which I will refer to as I go through this letter addressed by us to the Planning Commission. I stated a moment ago that I am one of the owners of the Otto house and the surround- ing grounds which comprises approximately 10 acres---that is the spot shown in yellow at the bottom of my map I2. In addition, I've been a resident of Contra Costa County for over 30 years. Taxpayer and I premntly reside in Danville and this project is one of our retirement programs; however, we've been experiencing a number of hardships, economic hardships. 186 acres to the left, we were required to recently donate to the Regional Parks Department to be able to file our map on Sub. 04502. This was required because we ran out of time from one delay or another and we had been in the process of negotiations with the R-7 District to give them 60 acres. The Regional Parks to give them on the upper left hand side 20 acres which was the Las Trompas Ridge that they were after and to keep approximately 90 or 100 acres of our own. In fact, I was going to build my own residence on a 20 acre parcel which has a running spring, etc. But, we were not able to do that. We had to give away this 186 acres at an economic cost to us of- over $300,000. • F ( Now, on the proposed General Plan, this area has been given special consideration by that committee. There are two pages devoted to it---Page X30 and 431, which is attached to the letter I distributed to you- In fact, they did a number of different studies and 1022 • 7 September 1976 which staff was involved in. Their findd opinion was that it should be a special commercial area. We are willing to live with the commercial designation. I would also say that as property owners of this 10 acres, do not have any objection to moving LN that property line for commercial down to opposite the service station as recommended by the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission even though in one of our letters it was misconstrued that we were on record as not wanting it moved down there. That is not the case. Also involved as Mr. Duberstein said, we are in full communication with the Lewis Co. We have weekly communications---at least every week or two weeks we have meetings. on this property and we believe that our development will coincide with theirs and that between the two of us, we will certainly develop that property---a very, very import- ant entrance to Danville---as it should be developed. As for as the review process goes, we are not in favor of any further delay. We know that the general plan is supposed to be a long-ranged plan whereas zoning is for specific programs for specific uses, etc. According to the State Planning Act, Section 65860, it specifically states that the general plan is a body of long-range public policy on the other hand, the zoning ordinance is a set of specific legal regulations which proscribe the various uses allowed which within each zoning district---allowed within each zoning district. Sorry I blew that one but 1 think you understand what I mean. Now, to develop our program, we will have to submit an EIR which will take care of all the physical descriptions or' the property, geography, geology, hydrology, ecology, traffic circulation, congestion, air quality, noise levels, all of those items will be in- cluded in that EIR. Within the frame work of the normal review program of zoning, you will find that Mr. Fred Schmidt of the Morris Ranch Homeowners, Mr. Kissin.of the Town & Country Home- owners and the others who are objecting to the commercial zoning for this property, will be well heard and well satisfied in that particular process which has been developed by the State and County to promote such programs as this one. Traffic studies of this area have been made. We have been able from the Public Works Department. I'd like to read you this information. On August 7, 1973, the traffic count was taken showing that directly in front of our property, there was a total of 12,295 cars moving in both directions---I should say, north to south, there were 7,977 and to the north there was 4,318 cars. Two years later, on June 18, 1975, they made another traffic study finding out that the traffic had increased 2,226 cars in a 24 hour period to 14,421 cars, an annual increase of 9%. They also took a traffic county of Sycamore which certainly shows that there will be a traffic increase. As far as a commercial zone for this property, there will be a very significant impact. 1 am speaking only uponour 10 acres; but, if we develop it in a low-density profile.as suggested by the Committee, we will generate 100 to 110 new jobs, full time. We will generate from 60 to 70 part-time jobs; a payroll from 850,000 to 1,200,000 dollars, a very significant increase to the community. Increased spening power of that area will be around 55-57,000,000. Sales taxes gei erated, $300,000 to over $450,000 and we • know that by specific count of building permits and approvals of different projects, that will be coming directly into this area, there are some 2 or 3,000 houses scheduled for the next two or three years and they have to have a place to shop or to have offices or 1023 7 September 1976 have commercial enterprises. In addition to that, property taxes figure into this. It's now open space and the cost of that open space to us is 520,000 a year. If we put rtwenty (20) single family dwellings---and that's all you could get on this piece of pro- vi perty under the present zoning of 1/3 acres---it would generate a net result after taking out the costs of schools, etc., about $19,000. If we put 70 townhouses on there, we would get$45,000 to the County and if we put on 160 apartments roughly 16 to the acre which is supposedly the approximate zone, we would have $44,000 in taxes---I`m talk- ing-about property taxes only and with a new commercial set up, there would be $107, 000 of taxes generated. I understand that the EIR report says that there's going to be an extreme impact upon the community because of the increased tax rate. This certainly would help the in- crease tax rate if we have $107,000 vs., $20,000 if just single family residential. I think that I can't say much more. This project is a ways down the road in any event; but, the zoning processes will take care of all of the requirements that are---that they are trying to put in the general plan and the general plan by the State of California, is not meant to be that specific; so, I respectfully hope that you will see your way clear to leaving this in the general plan as proposed with the increase as asked by the local planning people so that we may continue on our way. Thank you. MR. WM. W. FOSKETT, 100 Vernal Drive, Alamo, Calif. I'm here to talk to you about the recommendation made by the Vernal Avenue Improvement Association relative to a 258 acre area between Livorno Road and Stone Valley Road—do we have a map of this area? (Map was posted). ""• What we have here is a color-coded map between---of the area between Livorno and Stone Valley and it appears to be the highway and Miranda, the Miranda Area. The area colored in blue are the people who are opposed to this plan; those in red color are for the plan and the others weren't contacted or haven't made up their minds yet. 1 represent that large blue color area which is six (6) acres. Also with me tonight is Mr. Anderson who has land above me and Mr. Geyser who has the piece right next to that. Not here tonight is Dr. Douglas who has the red colored parcel next to Mr. Anderson (indicated on map by Mr.Cutler). We represent about 13 or more acres in that area and we're here tonight to tell you that although the plan, the recommendation does have a lot of merit, we would rather you didn't act on it until it's been modified. Basically, the plan is changing from an R-20 to R-40 zoning. To the north of this area is Walnut Creek and they have either 1/3 acre or 1/4 acre lots there. The change from 1/4 acre lots to full acre lots in our area would be a little drastic and perhaps we should have some kind of buffer zone in there of R-20 and that's what we're asking for tonight. We'd like to leave everything between Livorno and Steffanie as R-20 and then down below that, it the people really want acre zoning, that's find with us; but, those of us in that comer, we're not for this plan and we'd like to stick withR-20. The staff is going to recommend that you accept the plan; but, we ask you to put off doing anything until the staff has had time to consider our recommendation. MR. CUTLER: For the benefit of the Commission and everyone, the area being talked • about, in this area of the genera plan, the Vernal Heights area, this map is submitted as evidence at the last public hearing and it shows by this dark line. In staff reviewing 1024 7 September 1976 this, we thought it was a reasonable future for the area if we're going to have horse -set ups that maybe that's what the area should be zoned; so, we made that recommen- dation---that this entire area down to Stone Valley Road beconsidered for Country Estates. j What this gentlemen has suggested, as a practical matter, this area basically a small area in the northerly portion of the Country Estates designation, be left as it was placed in the General Plan by the Citizens' Committee---he's requesting that it be left in low density-single family yellow color rather than putting it in Country Estates, buff color. MR. FOSKETT: That's all 1 have to say. When will you come to a decision on this? CHAIRMAN YOUNG: I'm not sure about that. That's something we will have to dis- cuss after 'this hearing is concluded. Mr. Cutler, is it possible to indicate on the general plan a rather indefinite designation which could be finalized at some time when we have .hearings on proposed rezonings? MR. CUTLER: Yes; but, you can accomplish the some thing the. way your Commission and the Board interprets general plan conformity. It's possible to under zone an area; it's possible to grant Mr. Foskett's request as low density single family and still when you look at the area in detail, puff it under R-40 Zoning. You could do it .that way. You can do it both ways. The best way to show it as "indefinite" would be to designate it as low density single family. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Sir, does that answer your question? MR. FOSKETT: Yes, I understand that. COMM. WALTON: Perhaps I missed it when you said it, if you said it; but, why do you want your I ittle area to remain R-20 rather than go into the R-40 Zoning? MR. FOSKETT: On the north part you have Livorna Estates, either 1/4 or 1/3 acre lots. I don't think it would look good going from that into single acre parcels. The group I represent doesn't want to limit their options -on this thing. This plan really doesn't do us that much good; it just limits us a little more. All our land is good developable land; fairly flat and some day it will be developed and we think we'd be better off with R-20 than R-40. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Thank you. We'll hear from the next speaker. MR. WM. W. MORISON, 40 Jennifer Lane, Alamo, Calif. I live in close proximity to the land discussed by Mr. Foskett and I would like to speak to that point. At the present time, the property just described is in uses of larger than 1/2 acre. We are proponents and do advocate the creation as the staff has recommended of R-40 Zon- ing for a substantial piece of property that runs from Livorna down to Stone Valley Road. =-� We see no normal use or need or justification for a buffer zone in that area. As many of you may know, Livorna Road is being improved. It provides an adequate demarcation between the land to the north and south of it; there's no commercial property along that area; there are no high-speed highways; there are none of the usual factors that would justify a buffer zone in there and we would. suggest that the plan as previously recommended going into R-40 Zoning be supported. Thank you. rte � �:�� 1025 7 September. 1976•' MR. J. W. STEFFEN, P. O. Box 1010L, Palo Alto, Calif. 94303. 1 represent the Boise-Cascade Corporation. • Before 1 start, I would like to post a map on your viewing board (map was presented, posted on the viewing board. It is on file with the subject matter). This is in relation to Item �5 on Page 412 of the Staff Report dated August 31st and is also on, Map #17. I would like to open my remarks by reading a letter into the record and I will close with a few remarks without the letter. (Letter is dated September7, 1976, Re: 7.49 acre parcel located on Fircrest Lane, South of the Valley Community Services District Fire Station 22, Assessors Parcel 4210-270-004-0. It is on file with the subject matter). (Letter requests retention of the multiple family residential, medium density zoning as proposed by the proposed San Ramon Valley General Plan Committee). In closing, I'd like to state that Boise-Cascade has entered into an option arrangement with a developer for the development of this site as of mid July and certainly in early August I had conversations with our people who are involved in these negoations and I did learn that the optionee had been meeting with members of the SunnyGlen Assn., that they were working together towards a resolution and that they had approved or were in the process of approving the developer's proposed plans. You might imagine my surprise at the August 17th meeting when 1 thought everything was settled in regard to this property when the---when Mr. Struthers got up and in- dicated that they wanted down zoning. The multiple residential zoning is not a radical departure from this area. There's an existing apartment _house just behind the fire house. In addition, Sunny Glen itself has a series of attached condominiums as part of their development. Thank you. MR. WM. STRUTHERS, 1789 Fourth Street, Livermore, Calif. 94550. I'm lawyer for Sunny Glen Adult Community, Inc. In answer to the presentation of Boise Cascade, the owner of the property, first let me say that my client has been negotiating with the holder of the option that an agreement has been drafted based on a meeting a week ago yesterday and that perhaps they're not too far apart. My client is concerned with the protection that Contra Costa County can give them. After years of frustration and I think your Staff report well recognizes that this is a piece of land that wraps around one edge of the main thoroughfare; that it is not condusive to be brought in with mutt- iples with people who live differently from the people in the adult community. The basis for agreement where I think each party can serve the other is that Sunny Glen would open its community facilities if it was an adult community of a lower density that M-4provides and that the developer would then have that assurance and Sunny Glen would have the assurance that the whole community, all the land up and down that street is going to be compatible. Well, these are all precise zoning problems in general; but; my client is here to request the protection of a general plan where it's easier to grant permission later on to loosen it up rather than to continually come in saying there is too much multiple- provided for in your M-4 or under any other general plan. So, Sunny Glen agrees with the recommendations of your Staff, high -density single family residential. I say again that I am hopeful that agreement can be reached with 1026 • 7 September 1976 a• responsible developer so that it will ail blend into one community and get this little comer of Contra Costa County settled in a satisfactory manner. Thank you. MR. LOUIS F. PLUMMER, 161 Bolla Avenue, Alamo, Calif. My wife will handout :q the exhibits that I will talk about (exhibits were presented to each Commissioner. Copy is on file with the subject matter). I am a resident, home owner and taxpayer of. Contra Costa County since 1954. 1 appeared before you gentlemen at the previous public hearing on August 17, 1976, and I don't intend to repeat that plea. In the mail on September 4, 1976, 1 received a copy of the Planning Staff's report and recommendation to the Planning Commissioners as it refers to our property. 1 would like to quote that portion now: "Make no Change to the draft general plan. That is, leave the property split between low-density single family residential and general open space designation, see Map #9." For ready reference, I have furnished the Planning Commissioners and staff a copy of staff's Map 49 indicating a proposed adjustment of my original request. This suggested adjustment is cross-hatched light yellow for your convenience in identifying the area.. We agree with staff's recommendatirn for low-density single family residential designation on the southerly portion of our property and agree that it would be developed as pro- vided within special concern area -4l; however, it has been brought to my attention by the Public Works Department that the proposed Sycamore Valley Road extension across • Short Ridge to the present Diablo Road would intersect a portion of the southerly part of our property and follow the fence line almost to our eastern most boundary; thence cutting through out property and following the eastern fence line for quite a distance before cutting over through Mr. Hap McGee's property. The draft proposal with refer- ence to this road states that connections should not be allowed. We disagree and believe it should be a limited access road . We don't agree with staff's position on the Williamson Act as figures we have developed do not make this economically feasible since this is not viable agricultural land in any way . With further reference to staff's evaluation regarding access, 1 would like to point out that the inner most and northern most portions of our property are accessible to Tassa- jara Road; they arre accessible from Tassajara Road. Although it would undoubtedly be more convenient !o come in from the Green Valley Road area which lies to the west. We take exception to the staff's statement in their recommendation to you that the designation of Country Estates would not make this land more developable. We do not agree with this concept because our land consultant indicates that at least 50% of our property would lend itself to be developed in the Country Estate catagory. We do recognize the fact that some of the slopes would or could be developed in larger parcels to protect the environment. In this regard, for the remainder of our 163 acres, I call attention to Page 43, the last paragraph of my August 17th letter regard- ing this property which states: "Only the south face and first ridge of this property is visible from Tassajara Road. The major portion of this land lies to the north of the first ridge including a large valley area which is completely hidden from view from any public roads." This broad interior 1027 4- a 0 • 7 September 1976 valley runs east and west virtually bise-::ing our property. Its west end has an eleva- tion of 610-ft., rising to a higher elevation as it proceeds westerly. The valley con- tinues westerly down through the Sycamore Farms Property towards that portion of the • Rassier property which is currently proposed Country Estates. In keeping with the draft proposal as it refers to Special Concern Area fl of which we are a part, the second paragraph P9.629 states in part: "Owners should .be encouraged to develop their properties jointly in order to achieve the objectives of this Special Concern Area." The Planning Commission could encourage the attainment of this objective by designating the entire valley Country Estates. This complete valley is owned by Plummer-Read, Sycamore Farms and Rassier. We do feel very strongly that staff, in its evaluation of our request apparently failed to consider two of the most important points of my plea which I and many others includ- ing professional men in the planning field indicate to be of great significance. They are: (1) This property is in the sphere of influence of IAFCO for sewer and water. Our north and east boundaries form the outermost boundaries of this sphere of influence. (2) This property is within the boundaries of the proposed new City which will come before the voters in November. Obviously, qualified personnel somewhere along the line felt that our property was indeed logically within the urban growth area. I sincerely urge you to please consider these two points in further deliberations of our request for some Country Estate designation. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. EDMUND G. THIEDE, 138 Megan Court, Alamo, Calif. I'm an attorney represent- • ing Sycamore Farms Improvement Co. I have some maps and with your permission, I would like to distribute them. (Maps and outline of presentation presented to each Commissioner. Copy of material is on file with the subject matter). As previously indicated by Mr. Plummer, Sycamore Farms lies to the west of the Plummer Read property and south of the Rassier property. I, have prepared a written statement but I won't read it all since part of the factual presentation has been covered by Mr. Plummer. The property in its entirety is presently zoned R-15, low single family density. The property was purchased in 1964 for an investment and as you know lies within the proposed new city limits. We are in substantial agreement with the general plan and the low density zoning and portions of the open space designation for the property as shown on Map A3 of the special concern area #1, on Page X27 of the plan and also on your map 4 which l have re-colored---unfortunately I had only a red pencil and a blue pencil and the blue color is supposed to represent Open Space with the except- ions that we are proposing and the red area is the two areas of the property to which we take exception to the proposed open space designation. _ The first portion of the area which is of concern to us is the northern extreme of the property running east and west, west of the Plummer property and south of the Rassier property which consists of a valley which continues through the Rassier property. It is part of the some valley that is already designated as Country Estates and it runs up • through the north-west corner of Sycamore Forms and into the Plummer propertj. It is developable property and it is a logical extension of the existing Country Estates 1028 • 7 September 1976 designation to the west. It is our requ J that this north valley area also be considered for Country Estates designation as it is part of that same valley so designated. We are mindful of your concerns expressed in your response to the Plummer-Read request at the August 17th hearing over water supply and access. We understand that access from Green Valley Road was one of your concerns; but, it appears that access from Green Valley Rd., could come through the already existing Country Estate designation into that north valley of the property. There may also be alternatives in access say from the east---I may be confusing my directions---from the east through the Plummer property which borders Camino Tassajara or from the proposed extension of Sycamore Valley Road to Blackhawk Road. Water supply could be explored with East Bay Mud such as from existing water tank to the north or from the construction of new nearby water tank which I understand has been suggested to the public utility district as feasible and note that the second map which I gave you is a tentative map which is on file with the' property (copy is on file with the subject matter---Subdivision #4853). This northern valley is really the left side of that map and you will note that much of the area which we deem to be developable into Country Estates is below the 650-ft., elevation. Now, the questions of access and water supply are matters which are the proper subject of feasibility when the environmental impact studies .are made. The Plan should not rule out Country Estate Development of this northern valley area. It is the natural ex- tension of an existing Country Estates area. Presumably access and water supply questions exist for that area already designated which will or will not be resolved through such • studies. We therefore ask similar treatment for our property in that area and that the general plan either be changed to redesignate it---redesignate the northern valley area as country estates or in the alternative that the designation of general open space allow country estate development where this is minimal visual impact, preservation of ridge I ine and steep slopes for open space where that development would be a logical extension of an existing country estates designated area or otherwise an appropriate area for development in Country Estates. I should point out to you that this northern valley lies on the other sideof the ridge which is viewable from Camino Tassajara so it is completely out of the view range from Sycamore Valley or Camino Tassajara. It is my understanding that in some of the study sessions in this area, it was the general consensus or agreement that recognition of Country Estates development in this type of situation would be made either in the general plan or general open space description. The second exception is with that portion of the property which is south of the Camino Tassajara Road, Map #9, most of which is designated open space. There is a portion at the bottom of that piece which is a small valley and extends from a single family residential development along Tunbridge Road. The second map which is the tentative map shows the proposed development of that valley and as you can see, the ridge line has been reserved on that map for a scenic easement as well as all the other ridgel ines on this property. Of course, this map is not officially before this body but it doesshow the intent of the owner as for as development is concerned. We submit that there is no logical reason why development of this southern valley should • not be continued to its natural up-slope at its east end in low density family residential which it is presently zoned. There would be minimal visual impact. Again, it's on the south side of the ridge from Camino Tassajara and cannot at all be seen from Stone 1029 • • 7 September 1976 . Valley---Sycamore Valley Road and there should be no serious development problems and if there were, that should be the subject of a feasibility and impact study. . Again, we request that either the general plan be changed to designate this southern valley area to be low single family density or in the alternative that the general open space designation allow low density development where. there is minimal visual impact, preservation of ridge line and steep slopes as hown in the tentative map and where the development would be the natural extension of an existing residential development as exists and which would have access over existing County roads when developed. We understand that in the study sessions, this possibility was discussed but it apparently was too difficult to mark each valley or Swale on the map and that's why we suggest the alternative that the general open space designation allow for some exceptions where the circumstances present. In conclusion, we believe that our client's request to allow prescribed uses as to both portions of the property are reasonable under all of these circumstances. The changes proposed will not seriously effect the purpose of the general plan nor encroach on any significant degree on the vast acreage already designated open space. Allowing our client to develop the valley areas, the northern and southern valley, as requested where there is no visual impact would be a reasonable request and should be granted. Granting the request would allow my client to proceed with the development of the property economically which really means minimal return on his investment given the nature of the property and the increasing costs of development. This property was purchased over 12 years ago with R-15 Zoning upon which our client has paid signifi- cant property taxes. To deny the request which we believe to be most reasonable under the circumstances in effect would be an unnecessary uncompensated taking of those portions by the County. I would be happy to answer any questions you may. hake. Thank you. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Sir, you covered a good many points. I would like to answer a couple of them. I think you misunderstood some of the suggestions made at the study session meeting. One suggestion was that the property you were discussing have some developable areas and it might be possible to put all of the development in those areas rather than spread it over the entire properties. The second matter you brought up was whether you can consider Country Estates as open space. We would not. Country Estates would be a low-density residential designation where open space would have to have 5 acre minimum size parcels. MR. THIEDE: Yes, I understand that the Country Estates is acre parcels, 1 believe. What I meant by low density---of course, Country Estates was---I was talking about the northern section. Low density would be the R-15 in the southern portion. I may have misconstrued what went on the study sessions since I wasn't present. I got this second hand from my principals. Thank you. MR. NORMAN DAVIS (No address given; no green identification card submitted). I'm ---, trom Sunny Glen and I'm representing Bill Strother's . The Boise-Cascase report went by me pretty fast; but, I believe that to the best of my knowledge there were one or two errors in it. First, he charged Volk-McLain with the change to the M-4 Zoning. That • is not so because on June 25, 1967, a grant deed was granted by Volk-McLain for con- sideration to Qualified Investments , a Los Angeles firm and it is they who in turn started the transfer of ownership of the park. The park was designated by Volk-McLain as a 1030 • 7 September 1976 park and the CCR's so stated when the homes were built in 1963-64, all those facilities would be transferred to Sunny Glen. They transferred title to the community center; but, they withheld title to the park and that's when we got shot out of the saddle. We have not been able to get our fingers on this thing since then even though we've worked diligently with Planning Staff and we've traced the history of this Lot X153 which we want to submit as rebuttal; but, I did want to correct the statement that Boise-Cascade made. Thank you. Oh, one further thing. It is not true the people of Sunny Glen would not assume that lot because they didn't want the maintenance to it. That is not a true statement. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: I see. Thank you. We will hear from the next speaker. MR. WM. O. MADDAUS, 9 Via Cerrada, Alamo, Calif . I represent the Alamo Im- provement Association and I would like to comment on those three requests for changes in the plan map which came up at the August 17th public hearing and .which appear in your staff report. Request #2 on Page 42, deals with extending the Alamo commercial area from Danville Boulevard to Jackson Way. We are definitely against this proposal and concur with the staff recommendation. We feel that there is sufficient additional acreage within the commercial area that has not been developed and there also are a number of vacant stores in the area from time-to--time which indicate the area certainly is not saturated in terms of development and there is room for additional commercial useage within the pre- sent area without expanding it. The second request is that of the Vernal Avenue Improvement Assn., in which they de- sire to rezone a large parcel of land to Country Estates. We are in favor of that pro- posal and we are particularly concerned about the subdivision4879 and we don't be- lieve that one has fully played itself out yet; but, the tentative plans that have been presented before our group have been bitterly opposed by a unanimous number of the surrounding local residents of the area and in that particular subdivision they plan a development which is certainly not in the character of the Alamo area or the surround- ing area and it certainly would make a good buffer zone for Country Estates. We would recommend that you change the plan to include Country Estates for the entire area as recommended by the County Staff. The fifth request on Page �3 deals with extending the low-density single family resident- ial area behind the presently developed Round Hill Area. I have to admit to be a little confused by the reasoning here in that what is stated is that the General Plan Review Committee went through to establish this as a land suitable for open space designation but then the staff recommendation is for a low-density single family area for almost the entire requested area---I think I'm correct about that. The indicate that that's a slight increase in the boundaries of the present area; but, I think you love to look at "slight" in the context of the surrounding developed area. That slight increase, I think, has an acreage which is comparable with the present size of Round Hill; so, it's a major development for that area and I would think that some- thing in the order of country estates or open space is more appropriate to.a transition between a Round Hill Area and Mt. Diablo State Park. • We have no further comments. Thank you. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: I would like to know how many other speakers are left? I see we have quite a number. We will take a 10 minute break and resume shortly atter 1031 (� • • 7 September 1976, 9 PM . (Break was taken). CHAIRMAN YOUNG: The meeting will come to order. Ladies and gentlemen, in • the interests of making some progress on this item, I'd like to say what I didn't say at the very begining. =.} We are anxious to hear from people. We don't want to hear material which we've heard before; so, if you would when you come up, give us material which is new and different. If you want to make a special point of what you said before, we'd like you to make it brief since we have gone over your material. We've not only heard it but we've seen it again in written form given to us by the staff and we would not like to spend too much time on something we've had previously. Now, we'll hear from the next speaker. MR. LAWRENCE A. HARPER, 52 Oakwood Road, Orindo, Calif. I am investor in land San Ramon with my children. Professionally, I am a member of the State Bar. of Calif., and a Professor Emeritus at the University of California, in history. The first page I can leave with you. It summarizes with the second page where 1 come to the report of the staff. 1 might in summary of the first say apparently my professorial instincts interfered with my legal pride in pleading about the land . I was speaking in terms of how I as a citizen and friend of student and older folk thought that it might be developed. Apparently I did not get the message over quite clearly because the staff recommended that there be no change to the draft plan which designates the land as medium density single family residential and concedes that the Harpers and Davidsons who own abutting [ property have concerns since their land is currently zoned industrially. So, here I would like to make very specific that the Harpers propose that the change in the draft plan for the area be amended by deleting that portion which changes-the portion of Parcel 916 from Controlled Manufacturing to Single Residential Medium. In the maps which are attached to the paper; the one I think would be most significant and useful shows the assessment diagram of the Assessment District 1973. For some reason not really known to me, the Harper and Davidson properties 'over at the left in the circle, are most heavily assessed as you look across, you will see the eastern boundary along Alcosta Blvd. It is very narrow; but, on the Harper-Davidson area and over to what was the Leadership Homes, it is much deeper and that means that that land is burdened with assessments that run to $4,600 in our case for about 20 years and I think that Mr. Davidson's is somewhat the same. Now, it becomes particularly unusual in our case because we own, originally, if you turn to one of the maps, down to the Southern Pacific Railroad and I've been here a number of times in connection with that being subdivided and it's now subdivided and being used for service commercial on the other side of Alcosta. The assessments really single family residents to make a good commercial venture for the developer but some higher density of use and this land has on the eastern side been at various times and different portions controlled manufacturing and that has been changed as the developers bought up the land and build homes; or, are holding it hoping • industry can go in there. The Harpers are interested in the development of the land which is easily developable cnd would like to see something like the IBM development where their buildings are scattered out to the hillside areas. It could be for controlled 1032 • • 7 September 1976 mt3nufacturing, light industry so that one can walk out of one's home down to his office. We read much in the literature that we want to get the people walking where they can be with their homes; where they don't have to go long distances and this land is that type of land. The controlled manufacturing gives the staff and the Commission ample opportunity to see that no boiler factory or slaughter house is brought in and I don't think that would be our interests. But, it does require some building that can support itself with not only a high increase in tax rate money and assessment. I don't have all the figures because the letter came about the meeting and the time was too short for that; but, that basically is the fault. Then, the other point about it is why this discrimination about the two sides of the road. I found that the notice appeared just in the erasure in the map. There was no discussion in the text or in the report for Point P5. My lack of clarity didn't make it very clear; but, I cannot see how the County can be injured and how it won't be possible to develop more employment and to bring in the kind of people that are needed to help sustain a balanced community. This area around Crow Canyon Road seems to me to be projectable in this re-examination. If you look in the report, very little is . said about it but it is the area that is being counted on for a good deal of the money. Insofar as I could tell what seemed to be the thinking, a little bit in the pages that did concern us, talked about how they were going to develop down around 1-680 and around over towards Danville. In checking over and trying to work out from all materials available, it did seem that there was a consolidation there; but, up along Alcosto where there is excellent communication in all directions, I think there should be equal opportunity for profit making areas for those individuals and for the County. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Are there any questions? Apparently not. Thank you. Is there another speaker? MR. JACK WEIGHTMAN, 196 East Linda Mesa, Danville, Calif. I'm here this evening to talk about one of the requests that I made at the last public hearing. It had to do with Item #3 in the Crow Canyon Area (indicated on map by Mr. Cutler). This is one of the properties that I have worked with for the last 10 years or so and about last February, we filed a request for rezoning of this property to Retail Business (R-B) and in the meantime, this Mr. Medor came in bought the property and wanted to build apartments on it. And, since then, he has found out that he cannot get financing to build apartments in there because it's too commercial in the surrounding area. He's backed out of the situation entirely now and we want to go ahead and push our request for retail business zoning on this 6 acre parcel. The property to the north of us is zoned R-B and is where the Golden Skate is. The property immediately to the east of us is zoned R-B and they have it all developed. The property immediately to the south is a strip of land that belongs to Plummer-Read and just on the other side of that is some L-1 zoned property. The property immediately to the east is all open land. It is hilly and probably never will be developed feasibly for many years to come. I feel it would be a normal thing and feasible thing to rezone this property to commercial useage and right now, they call for it to be limited office (0-1); but it's 'sort of an 1033 7 September 1976 iso.lated target since you have R-B on t-.�o sides and C-M and L-I to the south which is supposed to have a commercial type building going in there. I request that this property be included in the commercial zoning. We have a letter from the owner on file requesting that the zoning be changed on this -fid property from or two commercial or retail business. There is to be a north-south road to run through this property---Old Crow Canyon Road will be extended up through this property up to Golden Skate and down to the highway again at that point. MR, CUTLER: One question for my clarification. Does this mean Mr. Mather's request is no longer active for multiple family? MR. WEIGHTMAN: That's right. He's out of it entirely now. He's pulled away from the purchase of it. He's actually out. There is one other thing which has to do with the request of Mr. Peter Jensen. I don't think he's here this evening. 1 guess he's not here because with our discussions with staff the other day, they moved the line be moved over to include more of his property into the C-M area. But, that doesn't do the whole job. It goes only half way into his property and I think that where he has equipment stored is further back in the draw and if you could just make that bulge a little bigger so that he could use the property for what he's using it for now, I would also ask that that be done. (Area was indicated on the maps by Mr. Cutler). The other request that I had staff has come up with those proposals and I would be in full accord with them. 1 had asked to have 17 acres on Crow Canyon Road to be desig- nated C-M and it would be normal to just move that line straight across to include Jensen's property and straight down to pick up my two properties and make a nice square corner out of it if you could see your way clear to do that. Thank you. DR. T. W. OHLSON, D.V.M., 812 Camino Ramon, Danville, Calif. You have asked for something new so I'm going to give you some pictures to brighten up your evening! (Pictures were presented. They are on file with the subject matter). MR. CUTLER: 1 would point out that this is discussed in the staff report. You had a letter from Dr. Ohlson previously. It concerns the area in Danville covered under2 in the Staff Report on Page iS and there's a blow-up map in your packet. (Parcel was also indicated on the viewing map). CHIRMAN YOUNG: Just south of Navlet's? MR, CUTLER: Yes. DR. OHLSON: Gentlemen, I've been a resident of Danville for 22 years this month and have been in business there for 22 years. I've been through the Chairs as Pres., of the Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, etc. I make that comment just to indicate to you that I'm interested in what goes on in the Danville Area, always have been and have always been in the community spirit of things. I was Pres. of the Chamber of Commerce during the planning phases of 1-680. At that time there were three (3) alternative routes and there was also discussion about not having commercial on the east side of the freeway; but, progress being what it is, we do have it now and you can see that red triangle on Diablo Road (indicated by Mr. • Cutler on the maps), that is east of the freeway;so, I would like to recd you the following letter: 1034 • i 7 September 1976 "Gentlemen: It is my understanding that additional hearings will be held this even- ing, September 7, 1976, with regard to Adopting a General Plan for the Danville Area. On several occasions, I have communicated with the Contra Costa County Planning Dept., regarding my property located on Camino Ramon Road. In addition, on August 16, 1976, 1 wrote a letter to the Commission objecting to the residential designation for my property. At the present time, this property is utilized as a veterinary hospital and the improvements were constructed exclusively for this use back in 1967. The thought that this property would be zoned as single family residential is totally not in keeping with the character of the existing land use or the land uses immediately surround- ing my property. I would like to call your attention to the fact that: (1) the property immediately south is presently in use as an extremely high-density multiple family use. The property west and across Camino Ramon contains the State of California maintenance yard which in turn backs up to Freeway 680. The property to the north is occupied and used by Navlet's Nursery. The land east is separated by railroad tracks from any ex- isting residential development. In consideration of the above, I sincerely request that my property be zoned for some time of commercial use." I will be glad to answer any questions. (No questions directed to Mr. Ohlson). MR. BRAD HIRST, 3014 Lakeshore, Oakland, Calif. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any exhibits, letters or long speeches. I will be very brief. I represent the owner of Navlet's Nursery immediately north of Dr. Ohlson's property. As Dr. Ohlson pointed out, the property is an island surrounded by railroad tracks, Camino Ramon, Sycamore Valley Road and a high-density residential project. • At your last Study Session Meeting, you heard your Planning Director indicate that the property in this area in all likelihood will not develop residentially but probably will develop commercially and as such he indicated that the commercial uses, the veterinary office and nursery which are there now should be recognized. He also indicated that he'd like to retain control of this area through the land use permit procedure. I would like to point out a couple of problems with that. That of course is No. 1, if the property is planned residentially and zoned agriculturally but developed commercially as it is today, you have a non-conforming use which creates all sorts of legal problems, possibly, down the road. The second problem that would be created with that method is that the owners of the property, Mr. Bertalero, could not even expand his own nursery business without coming back here to get a land use permit. He couldn't go to the bank and borrow the money. He couldn't build a new building to expand his nursery; he couldn't go into the outdoor furniture business or anything of that nature. We submit that you should be realistic and recognize as your Planning Director said, that in all likelihood the property is going to develop commercially under the General Plan,etc. Thank you. DR. J. L. HIRSCH, 300 Diablo Road, Danville, Calif. I'm a member of the notorius �..� Son Ramon Valley General Plan Review Committee. • I've heard a lot of comments here tonight. Most of them are extremely interesting and very useful to all of the people that live in the valley. I would just like to say that it seems very interesting to me that all of the discussions---the majority of the discuss- 1035 7 September 1976 ions centered on the areas we pointed out as Special Study Areas; the areas that we • knew would probably bring forth controversey and we sure did pin point them. We almost got them to a letter. We did a lot of work. We spent two (2) years studying everything to loads of traffic; what is available; what is inavailable; topography; geology; things that were really diverse from what a large percentage of those on the committee normally do and I would like to say, gentlemen, we did a good job; we did a thorough job. There was not always unanimity. There was dissention among the committee members; but we always came forth with compromise of some sort or the other that resolved a lot of the con- flict that was very apparent. I've heard comments about commercial . We attempted to deal with that. We attempted to look at the land that was there and the possibility`of what would happen if we let other lands develop as commercial and we were concerned. We designated new areas for potential commercial growth and we thought that this was an improvement. One area that strongly was controvercial for the past ten (10) years, which the Otto- Podva area. We dealt with that more than any other piece. I thought we had reso- lution of it. I'm concerned to see it come back and jump up here at these hearings ' again. I would strongly recommend that this Commission support what the General Plan Review . Committee came up on that. I think we did an excellent job on that. It was a compro- mise. No one was really happy; but, we thought we had the answer. :. Realtive to the Sycamore Valley Area, that was a very critical area. I hear a lot of concerns; a lot of people that maybe should have been present at some of our meetings weren't present---at least to observe and see what was happening. We looked of this area and we felt that we handled it in the best way possible. I still think we did. Relative to other lands in the southern area, these were all problem parcels since maybe they were zoned one way or in the old general plan there were look upon one way and the use at this time is no longer appropriate. I'm not going to sit up here and talk all night; but, I would want to say that I think we did a very good job and I certainly would like the support of this Planning Commission. I'll tell you this much: You won't find too many citizens that will come out and spend two years doing something like this plan study every Thursday night in order to come out with a good plan for the valley. I certainly would like your support. Thank you. MR. WM. V. CARDINALE, 9806 Davona Drive, San Ramon, Calif. I'm the former Chairman of the San Ramon Valley General Plan Review Committee. I was there with Dr. Hirsch as well as the other committee members and members of your Planning Staff for all of those two years. Our decision at the conclusion of our finalizing the pre- liminary draft was that our committee would dissolve and we would then have the public hearings conducted by the Planning Commission and our committee would not participate in the public hearings thereafter. Since that point, any number of members of the committee have requested that some ex- • planation should be offered to the community who 'nave expressed concern at points that have been brought out and have asked if I could come forth and speak to these questions of why specific designations were given to areas. I think the community deserves this 1036 • • • September 1976 . explanation as to what was behind our J--cision. Our meetings were held at the Education Center at the San Ramon School District. The community could have attended; they could have participated and viewed our activities and 1 think they would have then had the opportunity to see what was the motivating factors behind our decisions. For those who did not attend, which represents about 99.9% `-" of the community, I'd like to point out to them the thought and the reasoning that went behind the decisions which we_made. I'll use the staff report as my guide for this purpose, once again speaking to specific parcels or questions. Page 02, the first item I see that I have underlined as an item of discussion, is once again that Special Concern Area 03 commonly referred to as the Otto-Podva property which probably took up more of our time at our meetings than any other specific parcel within the entire general plan because we knew it was a very controversial area; we knew that the decision we made is going to be a Irng-term decision and we had to resolve it in some way in order to finalize this particular area which is the entrance to Danville and to do it in a manner that is good planning as well as something we felt the commun- ity would be something to accept. We took tremendous pains in 'our consideration of the Morris Ranch People with the effects of this decision upon them. The thinking behind designating this as a special concern area, at some point the commer- cial development on the Boulevard had to stop. We wanted it to be phased out to its final point which we felt would be ideal to do so at the intersection of Sycamore Valley Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard because that happens to be just about the busiest rift intersection in the Son Ramon Valley not only presently but in the future because of the development that could some day occur in the Sycamore Valley itself; plus the freeway • being a tremendous feeder into this intersection. We did not feel the best land use for it was residential. Obvious reasons: Safety; desirability; marketability; the factors that cause this decision i think would be obvious to all of you. The San Ramon Valley Planning Committee supports the general plan decision on this parcel in fact even adding an additional area to the south of the boulevard so that the commercial aligns itself with the Texaco commercial on the eastern side of the San Ramon Valley Boulevard. Once again, it was not decided upon lightly. There was a great deal of discussion that went in on that; in fact, to the point where we spoke to the type of commercial we're talk- ing about . We did not speak strictly to commercial. We were speaking to more of professional services commercial is what we are trying to achieve. We were not trying to stimulate more retail commercial in this complex but rather professional services comm- ercial. I don't think that we're going to create a bank and savings loan on every corner as Mr. Dehaesus seemed to be concerned about with this because what we were really trying to do was limit it to minimal traffic but into a form of commercial designation. Whether we're talking attornies, C.P.A's, banks, savings and loans, insurance, realtors, investment brokers, businesses of professional services for this area rather than the retail services commercial. That was our concept with minimal traffic but in a commercial vein. The next items is the Circulation Element, Page #5, Item fl of the draft plan, the pro- posal to extend Miranda northerly to Castle Rock Road in the Walnut Creek Area. What motivated this? I think once again .for the community's benefit, they should know what our concerns were. Just about at that time, 1 believe there was a very severe accident on the freeway which 1037 C. • September 1976 . caused that major artery to be closed town in the San Ramon Valley, putting traffic onto the Boulevard. We're at a disadvantage in this respect: The only outlet we have of any consequence to the north is either t1;e Boulevard or the freeway, which comes together just north of the Livorno area. We have an exit from the valley on Crow Canyon Road heading to the west and on the south we have the freeway once again. We're sort of boxed in. There was a very deep concern of an emergency means of getting out of the valley in case the need arose; but, at the some time, we did not want to build another road, super freeway or major arterial cutting through the area. We have a deep concern about the automobile traffic; therefore, our concept was to give us a way out of the northern part of the valley other than the freeway itself but in a- limited way with a meandering type of road. We want a slow traffic, slow travel road going out of that area so that it would not become a commute road; it would not become a speedway and designed in such a, way that it would be discouraged. Question was raised by the San Ramon Homeowners Association regarding the fact that since we did not give. consideration to a major shopping center in our plan and contrary to that statement, yes we did. We considered at length whether the San Ramon Valley should have a regional shopping center. Economically it could. be nice if we were a city; but, the question becomes one whether that area would be . (A) suitable for a shopping center and (B) whether the community would actually want to have one. The conclusion was that there is a regional shopping center planned right now on the Alameda County side of the valley in the proximityof 1-580 and 1-680 with some major retail contemplating moving into that area, which we feel would provide the regional shopping that we would not necessarily have in the San Ramon Valley. Obviously, to the north of us, Walnut Creek and Sun Valley have huge shopping com- plexes. Within the valley itself, we allotted additional lands for commercial but not in the regional concept since we felt it was certainly provided for and the need was there for it. The request to change the draft and existing plan at Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Road to commercial as the gentleman before spoke to the point for both east and western sides of this major intersection, we designated this for low-density residential. It really doesn't sound too smart to give that intersection that designation; but, as the some token, as a member of the Committee, I've seen the various proposals that have come forth on the western side of Sycamore Road and they're repetedly rejected since the problem is already existing at that intersection. It is a bad intersection; it is a difficult intersect- ion; it's a congested intersection not only from the commuters but from the freeway en- trances, exits, Sycamore Road, Camino Ramon. We felt this would give us the one thing that could offer control of what ultimately goes into that particular area is by designating it as low density residential in order to not violate someone's right to implement or de- \,elop whatever they may as long as the conform to the zoning restrictions that they be exposed to. We wanted to maintain that control. When I say 'We" I mean those who represent us at the County level to be able to say: Yes, that is acceptable. Yes, you can have a land use on that or no that is not acceptable. We wanted the professionals to be able to say what would be suitable from a commercial standpoint. We know what we think should be in that area; but, we wanted to maintain control so that it's done • right rather than contribute to the problem that already exists. That pretty much covers those points that were in the text. A point has been under discussion for quite some time; the Plummer-Read, Mcgee areas, which is the Open Space 1038 • 07 September 1976 Area vs., the Country Estates Area and 1 think you had the opportunity to hear from Mr. Mcgee appear before you telling you that he is a cowboy. . What he neglected to tell you is that he is a cowboy who doesn't ride horses up in those mountains. He rides Convertible Lincoln Continentals and I have had the pleasure to ride those hills _ with Mr. Mcgee and Mr. Cutler. Vie went by horse and auto. I've also been through those hills with other members of the committee and I don't know who was more frightened, Mr. Cutler or myself; but, we actually looked at these hills and the reasoning behind the committee consensus after having travelled those hills was a question of the grading that would take place. Yes, the land is secluded. You cannot see it from Tassajara Road It is not visible; but, the questions is: How do you get up there; how do you put home- sites up there without some very severe grading. It could be beautifully done in Country Estates; no question about that whatsoever; but, the question of how much of the land would have to be torn up to achieve this. We saw a way to control this with Country Estate otherwise, how do we prevent some indifferent `developer from coming in to develop and scaring that beautiful country with total indifference to beauty and nature. , Therefore,' and I stand to be corrected by anyone from the Planning Department on this point---our thoughts were that in an Open Space situation there are parcels that cannot be developed, you can't build on them. But, by the same token, by giving them Open Space designat- ion, there could be a• good deal of clustering within the developable area with a trans- fer of density so that they can do some good planning up there and they can in some respects give people country estates on one to 5 acre parcels but possibly leaving or taking 100 acres with units clustered on maybe 30 acres of it with the people owning the remainder of the total 100 acres. With good planning and good developing, this could be controlled. We tried this control but still allow them to develop but through the clustering concept. It can be applied. It can be utilized. I would be inclined to think that some of it or more of it should be in CountryEstates; but, we did a•general plan. We did not do specific planning. That has to be left up to the professionals and that's where that would come into play. Again, I will say that I agree with Dr. Hirsch. We feel we did a hell of a good job on this General Plan. We heard the criticisms and we've heard the compliments. We respect the opinions of others; but, our main function, our main purpose has been accom- plished. We would hope that this Planning Commission would accept this plan for the benefits that it will provide for the San Ramon Valley. If you don't have any questions, gentlemen, 1'd like to.excuse myself. Thank you. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Mr. Cardinale, thank you. Are there other speakers? MR. FRED SCHMID, 14 Adair Court, Danville, Calif. I'm the Pres. Of Morris Ranch Homeowner's Association. We spoke to you on August 17th primarily on Special Con- cern Area 13. I think it's very important to hear one thing that the Morris Ranch Homeowners Assn., along with the committee, we all feel they've done a fine job in developing a plan that generally covers the San Ramon Valley area. We think in context, generally, it's very good. However, as we have said in the past, we do have concern in one area, which I would say is probably very good considering how much work and how much land was actually covered in this whole plan. That is Special Concern Area �3. We have not deviated from the very first time and at many of the meetings where we saw Mr. Loving in attendance, we did get together and we agreed right from the outset once he changed his road structure in the back, that 1039 `s:�,�� . • 7 September, 1976. the back area was okay. We never once agreed, however, with the strip along San Ramon. So, it was mentioned earlier tonight why this is taking so long. It's taking so longbecause we can't get together. The people who live around there feel as if commercial development so close to their homes is in fact going to change the quality of life that we've become used to; the quality of life which has been consistent with Danville, Alamo and the general area. When we bought and moved into the area, we had a concern and the concern rests with Morris Ranch Estates that the total impact of these developments will not be felt for several years to come. At that time, it will be too late to make any changes. People have purchased homes for a style of life which is basically rural in nature and we feel this plan will dramatically.effect this earlier decision. While the best intented developers say that it's going to be a very low density useage; we have seen evidence to the contrary in other areas where once it's been zoned, it comes out entirely differ- ent from what you hoped it would be. In the half mile stretch from Hartz Ave., to Sycamore, today there are over 76 bus- inesses with 25 more being opened up when the new Alumbaugh development is completed which is adjacent to the new Town & Country Center. How much do we need when. people right now are having some vacancies. I'm not going to try to elaborate on how much. It was mentioned that traffic is only gone up 9% from 12,000 to 14,472 from 1973 to 1975. The very thing that concerns me---again as Pres. of the Homeowner's Associat- ion, is what happens when Blackhawk opens up? What happens when the rest of the • homes open up in and around the area? How can you factor a 9% growth at that point and in fact, what will it be? We don't know. I get a little concerned when all of a sudden we are intersted in taxes since that's what makes the world go around. But, how many times in the post years have we done something for commercial entities- and for commercial use by itself and later on have residential discontent and suffering? I ask my self and I ask the question: What price do we pay? And, . in fact, is it worth it? There is the other part that still concerns me but I won't dwell upon it and it is down- town rejuveration. We know that the Charlotte Wood Jr. Highschool is going to be phased out within a five year period. Well, it seems to me that there's an awful lot of acres there and if you have been on it you would recognize that; yet, the basic plan from the staff and for many years has been to rejuvenate downtown and, again, if development continues to flow south, what's going to happen to downtown and the original plans? While I can see the position that's been taken about the difficulty in homes along San Ramon Valley Boulevard. I am reminded of the fact that I have seen the beautiful homes that G. L. Lewis builds in southern California and all of the have high, brick fences, walls, around them. I've seen them. I've been in them and they are fine _—, homes and they are able to build beautiful sound walls. Morris Ranch against recommends and makes it loud and clear and I hope you understand our position. It is that we strongly recommend that along Son Ramon there be a develop- ment of rolling hills, sound fence, trees, a meandering kind of feeling. We want to spread commercial out and not have it skeweddown south and we very much encourage you to encourage developers to develop the downtown part of Danville which today is 1040 • 7 September 1976 sadly in need of further development. T'Aank you. MR. FRED SELINGER, 21 Adair Court, Danville, Calif. I'm Vice Pres. of the Morris Ranch Homeowners Assn. Just a couple of points. I guess I'm just very much concerned when the minute we start talking about any kind = of development along San Ramon Valley Boulevard, first one .guy stands up saying, bank, savings and loan, 40 offices to rent. Someone else stands up saying they want to put in X-number of commercial spots and if that doesn't work, use a shoehorn to see how many apartments we can get in. I just wonder where we're going. If we have a traffic count of 14,000 cars at that intersection today, once you open up Town & Country and put in 40 on his property and more on the other guy's property, what are we shooting for 16,000, 18,000, 20,000 cars? Do we just keep going this way? Someone mentioned that commercial development would bring safety to that intersection. I'd like to know safety for whom? I've got three children and I'm frightened to death of that intersection today and I'm going to be mar a frightened if you put another 5,000 to 6,000 cars in that intersection. 1 really think that the common sense of it does dictate homes can be built. We're not talking about not developing anything on that land. The people who own this property are going to come out all right. One-third (1/3) acre lots I'm certain you gentlemen are very aware are selling in the area of $30,000 to $35,000 per lot and those are facts and you can find that out for yourself by just taking a look. . We not talking about the owner taking a beating on the land; we're not talking about sound homes being built with the developer getting left hanging. They are going to do well if they put ona good project. They have already said that they can buffer on oversized lots down to the Boulevard itself, they can buffer invironmentally. I would point out that last week a corner house on Adair Court which is the exact some distance to that intersection as the homes they contemplate sold for $94,000 and my soulce is the is the man who just bought it. So, there's no great destruction of property values along that area. It's just a question that you have commercial encroachment into a residential area and I feel that common sense says keep it residential; keep it low density and put the commercial where it belongs which is in other areas. South Danville and that piece of property is not the commercial hub of anywhere and it won't be no matter who t you build there. What we need are the few services within the community that are needed on a day-to-day basis. We have them there now and we're going to get a lot more space with the new Town & Country Center opening up and it defies common sense to put commercial along there. Thank you. MR. ROY GLOSS re-appared to speak. -I'm going to hazard a little synthesis here of statements that have been made about this Special Concern Area #3. On the one hand, the attorney for G.L. Lewis tells us that indeed the area does re- quire an EIR; indeed it does require a traffic study. On the other hand, we have the staff telling us or making a suggestion that this special concern area should be postponed for further study and that further study is to provide in effect an EIR; it is to provide a traffic study. I think they're both saying the some thing and I suggest to you that the nitty-gritty of it is does the chicken come before the egg or the egg come before the chicken? If I heard the staff correctly this evening, they invited the applicant to come forward with a plan. If I heard the applicant correctly, i e invites the Commission to come forth with the zoning. I suggest to you that this property, indeed, is so sensitive as you have 1041 00;�T-;� 07 September ••197E heard conservatively 25% of the speakers address themselves to this subject, thai what. we ought to have on the property is the plan. Let us have the plan from the developer i and let us see what he has. Let that the be the vehicle to create the study. I think that would not be in conflict with what the staff is suggesting to you. In fact, as I said earlier, I believe that's the suggestion Mr. Dehaesus made. Let's have the plan. Thank you. JERRY P. LOVING, Architect, 1200 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Walnut Creek, California. I represent the G.L. Lewis people. On the basis of the previous testimony, I have this to say: I think it might be useful to review our history and involvement on this piece of prop- erty. Almost two years ago, I appeared before this some Commission as we assumed the application concerned with this property. We assumed that application and appeared before you having done a good deal of study. We showed some slides and even then it was clear to us the kinds of uses that ought to be put forth there. We spent a consider- able amount of your time that evening outlining what we thought to be the proper use. We asked for a continuance of that hearing so that we might be able to appear before the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee. The point I'm making is that long ago, we had specific plans prepared. We appeared before the local planning committee and at that time, we submitted to them specific plans. We heard their comments. We went back to the drawing board; revised our plans, appeared before them again. This is all documented evidence. So, the plans have been brought forth. In March 1975, we withdrew that plan since at that time, this Citizens' Committee was j tormed to study the valley general plan. We put our plans in abeyance. It was re- quested of us. It was the logical thing to do while this committee did its work; so, for two years, we did nothing. We maintained our position. We were patient. Then, this year, the early part of this year, the committee completed its work. They came forth with a draft of their recommendations for this property. They involved some com- promises to our initial position. We were willing to make those compromises. We came forth again with a specific plan and that was filed with the Planning Department of June 1976. ' They were conceptual plans, of course; but, they were commensurate with the level of development at that point in time. We have repeatedlycome forth with what we thought_ was the appropriate use for that property. We have never been hesitant in describing what we thought to be the appropriate uses. We are not asking that this property be painted red, commercial. The Committee is not asking for that; the San Ramon Volley Planning Committee is not asking for that. There is to be restrictions and there is going to have to be some discussion about those uses obviously; but, after this history, after waiting this period of time; after having prepared all these plans to come to this point and then to be excluded from this General Plan is not justice in our opinion. We feel like it is incumbent upon the Commission to declare a general land use for this property from which we can proceed to prepare the specific documents to do the work that is needed. But, to come this far, to have delayed our progress voluntarily only to get to this point to be delayed further is a real problem to us. We have come forth with a plan. We respectfully request that you not exclude us and that you declare a general land use for that area in keeping with the unanimous de- cision of the Committee and the Local Planning Committee. Thank you. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Thank you. 1 don't like to cut off the speakers tonight; but we 1042 • • 07 September 1976 have heard from 21 persons according to my count. Do we have anyone else who feels it necessary to add something to our knowledge? Apparently we do not. If we had finished a little bit earlier, I was going to give a long dissertation; but, I will confine myself to just a few remarks. For one thing, I want to thank the General Plan Study Committee on behalf of the Planning Commission. These fellows are right. It's a tremendous job to draft a gen- eral plan and we expect a lot of our staff to do a lot of work; but, the volunteers who spent week after week, month after month for two years and who got down to the nitty-gritty of studying the background material, I feel, deserves the thanks of the entire community. When they get through with a plan such as this, obviously there would be a certain amount of pride of authorship; but, I don't think that any of them would ex- pect that a plan such as this would go through the Planning Commission and ultimately the Board of Supervisors without any changes. After all, our procedure here is some- what different from that of the Study Committee. We do have public intake; we have heard from a great many persons who perhaps didn't even know there was a plan study in progress and perhaps wouldn't or couldn't have attended had they known about it. We've had the environmental impact report; we've had the benefit of a lot of additional staff experience which wouldn't necessarily take part in the initial study; so, I know that the members of the Study Committee would not mind if we do suggest some changes to the pian to the Board of Supervisors. I'm not going to go through all of the proposed changes because we have a number of items brought up tonight on which we had a number of items brought up tonight on which_. . we have not yet received staff comments or recommendations. I would like to caution the other members of the Commission about this document. Years ago a general plan study was rather brief and concise and frankly didn't count for very much because the law was not as specific as it is now. Now, our general plan has to cover a great many areas and a great deal of depth. This plan for example covers a lot of things which previously we have not seen in, general plans. A few of them are on Page 435 for example, why they mention uses on Danville Blvd., and say that the lands adjacent that are shown as residential should be restricted to residential uses. Strip commercial and office uses under land use permits are inconsistent with this pian. This is something we have debated up here previously and I just want to call attention to the fact that this plan as written includes this rather positive statement. On Page JJ53, they get into the matter of geologic safety and they speak of slopes of more than 15% as requiring a development in a lower range of densities. Here again, we've had a great deal of debate . We at one time had a proposed ordinance which would have limited development on steeper slopes but the ordinance was not passed. We did not progress for enough to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. We have restricted development over the years; but, here I want to show -that it is in the general plan draft. When it comes to flooding hazards, they point to the need to avoid off-site flooding. They talk about temporary impoundment basins. This is something we have prevously approved but on a rather minor basis and to me it's an important point and one which we should work into the larger developments in the future. 1043 �,.y 07 September '1976- When 1976When it comes to the school district, they point out again the problems of that dis- trict and on Page A63, they say this plan supports the general concepts of a special . fee or charge on new residential units. This Commission has supported the school dis- trict on a subdivision-by-subdivision basis. We have not done it in a formal way; but, we have done it on an individual basis and I think that's a sound practice; but, here again the general plan is making a positive statement. When it comes to community design, again, they turn to the customs and traditions of the area in talking about the scenic beauty of the bordering hills; the tree-lined rural roads; the homes set well back from the road and finally they get to 'the matter of the overwhelming preference for the single-family detached home as opposed to clustering. Here again we're getting into an area which is rather specific. When it comes to implementation, they again speak about increasing slopes and the need to have ordinances which will protect major ridge lines. They talk about P-1 Zoning now requiring 15 acre minimum. This plan suggests that we should have P-1 Zoning on less than 15 acres. This is something we have talked about and if we odopt.the general plan as written, I think it's incumbent upon us to go ahead and carryout this premise that a different or smaller number of acres would be appropriate. These are only 7 or 8 little items out of a very lengthy document which is quite precise and I think requires quite a bit of study by the individual commissioners because in the coming years, I'm sure that as additional applications come to us, assuming that we will still be acting as the planning body for this particular area, why we will have to face • the fact that the general pian is quite specific on many different points. Gentlemen, I don't know how to proceed now. It's my thought that we do have a few items of unfinished business with respect to the plan. We do have _a number of items brought up tonight although many of them were repeats, there were some comments which we new. I did get a request by telephone tonight by the reprsentative of a major developer ask- ing that we hold up on a decision until he has had a, chance to see our Director of Planning with respect to some of the wording in the Plan . I don't know how concerned he is with it but I said 1 would bring it up to the Commission. Mr. Anderson phoned me to say he was unable to be here tonight. He would like to be involved in the final decision on this Plan. Mr. Jeha is sick tonight and he is one who normally has quite a bit to say on matters of this kind and I would think would want to be involved in a decision. So, the matter is before us. It's my thought that we might have a period of time during which we would receive written comments assuming that the comments did not bring up new matters which required hearing at public that we might forego additional public hear- ings but we might consider it if the written comments were such that we might have to re- open the hearings to the general public; but, it is possible under this procedure that we can consider that this is the last general public hearing although we might defer our decision until a later time. Gentlemen. COMM. MILANO: Mr. Chairman, I believe that is a good suggestion. I think I -could like to have comments from the staff on some of the things that were brought up tonight. 1044 •7 September 1976 I .think we have it pretty well narrowed down at the present time unless there's some- thing else under written comments. Then, we can be in a position in making a decision after going through these items one at a time. COMM. COMPAGLIA: 1 have a question of staff. Any changes that were made sub- sequent to this lost hearing that might change the meaning in the previous testimony or change certain recommendations or certain wording within the plan itself, wouldn't that require further public hearings? MR. DEHAESUS: You've had three hearings on this and you've received considerable testimony . I think you're in a position now to close the hearing and make a decision at a later date. The answer to your question, I think would be no, there would not be any further hear- ings needed it you make some changes in the text of the draft. COMM. COMPAGLIA: In that event, I'm agreeable to closing the public hearing. COMM. STODDARD: I would agree with that. COMM. WALTON: I would also agree, Mr.Chairman. COMM.MILANO: When would there be an appropriate time or date for the staff to have answers to things brought up tonight? MR. DEHAESUS: I think if you would want to continue a decision on this to September 28th and discuss it at the September 21st study session, we can go through all of these items brought up at the study session then you would be well versed in order to make your decision. COMM. MILANO: Could we make it sometime after October 7th? I won't be here on the 28th of September. MR. DEHAESUS: I guess so. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: What would be the first date convenient to you? October 12th? COMM.MILANO: I'll be back by October 7th. Anytime after the 7th would be fine. MR. DEHAESUS: October 12th would be the next meeting. Upon motion of Commissioner Milano, seconded by Commissioner Stoddard, it was moved that the public hearings on the San Ramon General Plan be CLOSED; that written material may be accepted by the Planning Department until September 13th; that this matter be discussed at the September 21, 1976 Study Session Meeting; that a DECISION be rendered at the October 12, 1976 public hearing. AYES: Commissioners - Milano, Stoddard, Compaglia, Walton, Young. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - Anderson, Jeha. Fie ABSTAIN: Commissioners - I,bne. Motion carried. 1045 • 12 October 1976 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: CLOSED: FOR DECISION: SAN RAMON VALLEY GENERAL PLAN: This is a proposed amendment to the County General Plan. The San Ramon Valley Area General Plan encompasses approximately 112-sq. miles, generally bounded on the west and south by the Alameda County line, on the north by the City of Walnut Creek and on the east by Morgan Territory Road. This is a comprehensive revision of the County General Plan including changes to all the State mandated general plan elements. (9/07/76) MR. DEHAESUS: In this matter, the Commission has closed the public hearing on the plan; you have the plan to take action upon tonight; the environmental impact report and any further instructions the Commission feels necessary to give to the staff. Does the Commission desire any further briefing? CHRM. MILANO: Are there any questions for the staff? COMM. JEHA: I have a comment, or question, Mr. Chairman. This is in' regard to that property owned by Mr. Plummer, 160 or so acres shown on the plan as--- CHRM. MILANO: Mr. Jeha, in the interests of saving some small amount of time, I • know that Mr. Young has some comments and suggestions to make in relation to much of the plan that I think might some some time. COMM. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to call attention to the fact that this plan has had considerable time spent on it, two years plus by the study committee in the 1222 uf "'t�'' L ` . 12 October 1976 San Ramon Valley. There was a great deal of staff time devoted to it. We had a E":umber of public hearings plus study sessions and a field trip. In the process, there '^ were a number of things which were discussed. This is a very long and involved doc- ument and to me it was a very complete document and very acceptable; but, there were a few items which as time went on, it appears that there was a possiblity of some changes. We've been given a good deal of material by the staff and I would I ike to refer every- one to staff recommendations dated August 31, 1976, and the supplement of September 21, 1976. In these two documents, the staff has gone into all of tle various requests for changes in the proposed general plan. Of all of these proposed changes, I think that most are changes which we could accept or recommendations not to change, which we could accept from the staff with just a few exceptions and the exceptions, I think, are perhaps ironing out and it was my thought that if we went ahead and discussed these different special items which might be contro- versial, we could get them out of the way and we would then be able to go ahead with a motion which would then approve all of the other items on which there is no contro- versy and also sweep in these items on which there may be some differences of opinion. So, Mr. Chairman, if this meets with your approval, I would like to say that to me, the first thing that perhaps we ought to decide upon is in the staff recommendations dated August 31 on Page Q, Danville Area fl. This has to do with the frontage of the Otto-Podva properties on San Ramon Valley Boulevard and south of the Town & Country Shopping Center down to the Sycamore Valley Road intersection, and the question there was whether or not the general plan should show residential as requested by the Morris Ranch Homeowners or whether it should be commercial or whether it should be a special planning area as suggested by the staff. As far as I'm concerned, it something we could decide on tonight. On the otherhand, I'm fully aware of the fact that there are many pitfalls to a blanket endorsement of for example non-residential use or commercial use and it seems to me that the staff suggestion is a good one that there be studies with reipect to the developer's particular plan and a determination of the impact of a particular plan before we go ahead and make a final determination as to what the general plan should show. So, without going into it more, I'll suggest that that is the first area in which there might be some disagreement. The second matter had to do with a property which is on the opposite side of the free- way and is generally in the area of Navlets and this is the Staff recommendation #2 on Page #5. Here again, the question that was brought up was that this is property which is not being used for residential use nor will it be; yet, the proposed general plan would show it for residential use. • The next item I think we ought to consider if the request of Mr. McGee; the request of Mr Plummer and the Reids, on Page 117, Items #5 and �6. Mr. Jeha has already brought up the matter of the Plummer-Reid property. There is another property which is at the southerly extremity of the County, it's the 1223 • 12 October 1976 Sunny Glen area property just off Fircrest and their request was whether or not it should continue to be shown for multiple family residential or whether it should be considered for only high-density single family. =� Finally, there is a question with respect to property which is at the Camino Pablo- Greenbrook Drive intersection, this is on Page #12, Item "5, the question there being whether or not the general plan should show it for M-4 or whether this should be desig- nated for commercial use as it once was. So, Mr. Chairman, my thought was that if we could go down through those controver- sial items plus any anybody else wants to raise and come to conclusions on them, then we will be able to go ahead and make a blanket proposal for all of the changes in the proposed plan which are contemplated by the staff reports. CHAIRMAN MILANO: Is there any other Commissioner who might have another item that wasn't mentioned by Mr. Young that they believe should be discussed? COMM. ANDERSON: No. Those are the concerns and the concern areas. COMM. JEHA: Why don't we go over them item by item as mentioned by Mr. Young? CHAIRMAN MILANO: If that meets with Commission approval, we can do that. COMM. YOUNG: We can first take up that property which is roughly at the inter- section of Sycamore Valley Road at--- COMM. JEHA: That's the one staff recommends go into a special study area. COMM. ANDERSON: Right and the thing on that is we've talked about this and I'm just wondering, Mr. Dehoesus, how long again do we envision this study area or specific plan for that area to be forthcoming and studied before we can move ahead with this matter? MR. DEHAESUS: The study would start when we receive an application from the owners of the property and the developer and would be concluded when the environmental impact report and traffic reports, etc., are received, reviewed and certified as being adequate. As soon as they submit these items, the study will begin. COMM. ANDERSON: As you will recall, I have questioned you regularly and periodic- ally throughout these hearings about this specific area; but, after viewing it again on our last field trip, it seems to me that the staff recommendation in this instance is appropriate. I think after having seen it in the field and the traffic problems involved, I think it appropriate that this be put into a specific plan designated area. COMM. COMPAGLIA: The developer's representative indicated at the hearings that he anticipated more of a delay if it wasn't zoned in some particular manner because c it would cause a delay. • What is your feeling with the developer submitting a plan vs., us taking some action as to zoning, what the time factor in there? MR. DEHAESUS: There wouldn't be any difference, Mr. Compaglia, whether---in re- 1224 • • 12 October 1976 ga,rd to showing this as a further study area. Actually, I'd like to look at this more • as an optional area because there are certain alternatives that may be possible here and these are specific studies that would bring items out more definitely. On this question that this would cause more delays than anything else, I think it's really begging the question, really. I would rather the issues be spoken to rather than the time factors. These studies have to be done even if you at this time deter- mine that this land is to be commercial, they would still have to produce these studies and materials we've talked about. I would rather that these studies be in hand; that the alternatives also be considered rather than to have the area pin--pointed at this time when there are so many of these concerns yet to be clarified. I think its evident from past reviews and past considerations. The general plan is a general document; but, this area is of critical importance to the Danville Area and rather than just designate it commercial or residential or office or some such use, the studies that have to be made should be first done and submitted and then make your determination after these studies. As far as delays are concerned, as I said, this will start just as soon as they submit" application for this purpose. But, there is one key thing from our standpoint that has to be recognized by the develop- ers, we think that these two parcels should be reviewed jointly, simultaneously and not one without the other but both together since it's important that whatever development is approved as to use and design, layout, all this should be done as a single study for both parcels. This is an emphasis that we made previously and we hold to that. COMM. WALTON: Mr. Chairman, as staff points out in their recommendations, this is the southern entry into Danville and as such I feel is quite important. I think it is also obvious in viewing it, what we decide to do there can have an awful lot to do with the general area. We have been inundated with a lot of reading and study material and we have gone through it; however, I feel that rather than gloss over this particular area and just jam it into the package we're talking about, I would agree with staff that it would be wise to spend that extra time and take that special look at it with especially having in front of us the EIR as well as the taffic study and an idea of what might go in there. So, I'd rather do it separately and as one package as a side item; so, I go along with the staff also. COMM. JEHA: I have a question of the staff, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dehaesus, based on what you're saying, if the property owners in conjunction with a developer have a particular use for the property, they are to bring it in and then based on the type of use, I assume, a study would be made. Is that what you're saying; or, are you going to make the study based on a general mixed commercial use---in other words, is it going to be keyed on a particular use so that every time there's a potential use for the • property they have to come in with a new plan or will there be a plan that would more or less encompass all types of commercial uses? MR. DEHAESUS: The studies will be keyed or focused upon the application submitted and I would anticipate that the owners of both these properties would submit an applica- 12 2 5 Q f="CY7 • 12 October 1976 tions asking for some kind of commercial zoning and that being the case, the envir- onmental impact report, traffic studies, etc., will focus on that kind of application. COMM. JEHA: In other words, then, they're not really going to have a reason to come in and ask for the study unless they have a specific use to go on their property. MR. DEHAESUS: Specific use? COMM. JEHA: Well, if you're going to go to that kind of expense, you're usually going to have a use like a Lucky Store, Safeway Store, Long's Drug Store or some kind of use like that plus miscellaneous shops which you don't have to know specifically what they're going to be. MR. DEHAESUS: Well, I think I may just indicate there that in this case, we would want to know the specific uses. COMM. JEHA: If they want to build a 20,000 sq. ft. small shopping center connected a large store, would you want the specifics on all the shops? MR. DEHAESUS: 1 think we're going to need that because--- COMM. JEHA: Well, I would not vote for that, I'll tell you that right now. I think that would be idiotic because you just don't know who's going to come into those. MR, DEHAESUS: Let me explain that. This is something that the Citizens' Committee decided and that was why they called it an area of concern. They identified three different areas of the valley in that fashion and this is one of the areas. These are sensitive areas; they are crtical towards the further development of Danville. This is not something where we will say that a specific use; but, that it be compatible and so be designed. This should not be the usual run-of-themill commercial type of development. All the considerations reiterated time and time again during these hearings and study session discussions would be worked into this plan for the use of the property. COMM. JEHA: Mr. Dehaesus, I'm not talking about design. If a man wants to develop a shopping center, he doesn't know in advance at the planning stage what he is going to have in that development other than the one or two large stores which are necessary. He knows that he's going to build shops that will take care of a multi- tude of potential users. Let's say that he goes ahead and made this study and he comes in and tells you that he will have these users of his building; but, three years later, he wouldn't have them since they might not any longer fit in. MR. DEHAESUS: This is not a question of precluding them or whatever; it's a matter of obtaining first good design and then good tennants. COMM. JEHA: I would rather to see our study be more specific in a sense that I think if we want them to do this---and I don't take issue with what you're saying in regard to study in the area; but, I think we should lay them out some ground rules and it has to be something less vague than what you're describing to me. MR. DEHAESUS: At the time he submits his application, he will pretty much be indicat- 1226 Ct o V� • 12 October 1976 ing the type of development he wants to establish as well as the uses and this is some- thing that will be considered during the study process. COMM, COMPAGLIA: Mr. Chairman, my point is pretty much like Mr. Jeha's. That r; may be right; but, just to come in with the hope that what he proposes will be accepted, there must be some kind of guidance that we can give him so that he will conform with whatever the suggested uses might me. If it's going to be commercial, what kind of commercial. If it's going to be something else, multiple residential, that could be the consideration; but, give the person some guidance. Otherwise, he's going to come in with a shot gun type approach that might hit. He's going to have to spend a lot of money. MR. DEHAESUS: On Page Tr of the text of the general plan, the committee indicated . some of the things that might be considered. This is a general outline of what needs to be reviewed. COMM. JEHA: Under what catagory of this, H, I, or what? COMM. YOUNG: The material with the yellow cover, Under Section F. It's on Page #30. COMM. JEHA: Well, let me ask you something, Mr. Dehaesus. What kind of retail uses are there that do not attract a great deal of daily traffic. I'm not trying to pick on you. I feel that if we're going to do this---I feel this is an exercise in futility. If we don't feel it should be in commercial, we should soy it tonight. And, I have some questions whether it all ought to be commercial. But, if we do say that it should be commercial, then I think we ought to be specific. MR, DEHAESUS: Oh, I have such reservations also. In the first place, the general plan now identifies this area as residential, and single family and there's some question as to whether it should be residential . I can see the commercial in the area of the freeway off-ramps; but, beyond that point, commercial should be carefully considered and all the committee had in mind, I think, and all that we have in mind is that whatever is put in out there that it be done with considerable sensitivity as to its location, etc. COMM. JEHA: I like your words better than that of the text. If we want to say, look, we're not sure that this ought to be commercial so there should be no implication that it can be commercial and if you want to bring someting in to us for review, it should be something with sensitivity for the area. That isn't saying too much; but, the inference is that it's probably not going to be commercial. The way I read this thing and the way we're talking, it will be commercial but we're not telling anyone what kind of commercial they are going to have. I know from my own experience that with small tenants, you don't always know who's going to go in there since most of those buildings are not leased out prior to construction. Maybe the sensitivity is going to have to be in architecture, circulation and layout and not so much use that may be • applied; or if one shop goes from one ownership to another, you still have the same kind of business. COMM. JEHA: Okay, but let's say that it's a dry cleaning shop and he moves in and an ice cream store wants to move into that location--- 1227 . 12 October 1976 M R . D E HA E S U S : "ell, since you mentioned the dry clearning operation, one • that sends out to apply his services, there's a distinction there as to two different kinds of services and it then becomes a question of whether you want something like that kind of facility. Or, it may be one of the different kinds of veterinary offices, -night kind of these use catagories, there may say one that keeps animals ove be that kind of compatibility that comes into question. These are the kinds of things that have to be considered. COMM. JEHA: I think the inference or our action has to be weighted that it's probably not going to be commercial . The staff and the Commission is going to have to be very careful as to what kind of commercial would go into this. There's no im- plication on our part that as a result of this study or as a result of the two land owners going to an awful lot of expense to do this study, then they get turned down and they then blame the County for being small about the type of uses that will be allowed in there. That's all I'm trying to say. This is like the camel with his nose in the tent. I think we should be clear in saying that maybe this shouldn't be commercial; but, if you want to go to the expense, if you want to make this study and if you can show us that you can put in the kind of commercial that can go, then okay. But, I think it should sort of state that. MR. DEHAESUS: I think that's what we're talking about. CHAIRMAN MILANO: Let's see if any of the other commissioners have comment on this. Mr. Young, do you have any comments on this particular point? COMM. YOUNG: I think I've already indicated that I would support the staff recommen- dation. CHRM. MILANO: Any other comments? COMM. ANDERSON: I think Mr. Jeha's implication that we're not leaning towards commercial in this area is correct, at least in my mind's eye as to what has the best possibilities for this area; and in light of the traffic concerns and the Morris Ranch Homeowners who are adjacent to it. CHAIRMAN MILANO: Well, in any event, the Commission will have the say in any- thing that comes up. We will have the opportunity to review it and discuss it and then make our determination. I "feel that 1 would have to agree with Mr. Jeha to some extent that this is not pinned down to the extent that it would prohibit us from having that kind of review and dis- cussion. COMM. JEHA: I'm just trying to say this for the benefit of the owners of the property who are here this evening so that they will understand that this could go either way and if they have this -study---and they are expensive costing in the thousands of dollars--and if they get turned down at least its on record by some of the Commissioners that they would be going ahead with those studies more or less at their own risk and there's • nothing---at least, I want to impart to them that they aren't just going to be able to go through the routine of having a study it could be that they might not get it. I just want that to be clear. COMM. ANDERSON: I think that has been implicit throughout the whole hearing. 1228 ()Gr":)7 • 12 October 1976 COMM. COMPAGLIA: You define it but rather broadly that commercial development will be a low percentage of the land coverage overall. Could we just on this portic- ular piece of land define what is low percentage? MR. DEHAESUS: Well, here again I'm sure you're aware of the way I like to approach things. If I say 30% then everyone is going to hang on that 30% and we may have some layout or design that is not what we're looking for. If I say 40%, the some applies and so on. Whereas you may get some real good designs and layouts with the kinds that we're looking for with any of those coverage factors. I would rather keep in broad terms. I think this has been discussed officially at three public hearings and during the study sessions where those involved were present and heard our discussions. I think the define itions are sufficient to where those involved would be able to submit applications on those bases. I'm not all that keen about identifying at this point what "low coverage" means. I think if it has the spacial qualities that one looks for, then I would presume that the low coverage factor has been met. COMM. MILANO: What is the total amount of acreage we're talking about? MR. CUTLER: It's about 25 acres in total. MR. DEHAESUS: The shopping center just north of it is about 9 acres and this entire parcel would be about that, yeah---or, two parcels. COM. JEHA: And the first sentence stated: "Commercial buildings will be a low percent of land coverage. Business, professional and retail uses which do not attract a great deal of daily traffic or encourage---" Gee, if 1 were a merchant, I'm going in there and I don't get much daily traffic in there, I'm going to be a little disappointed. COMM. ANDERSON: Yes, but you also have the other side of the coin. If we leave it half-way flexible at this time, we're not stuck with the restraints like in the 0-1 Ordinance where you are limited to certain lot coverage, etc. So, I think if it's left flexible, it does have its advantages even though it's a little hard on the applicant; but, it can be just as hard on him if you stick him with certain restraints at this time. COMM. JEHA: 1 don't want to do that. I just want it to be in the record of this public hearing that this is really R-I land and we'll take a look at it and possibly some commer- cial can go in there and there's no implication that commercial will 'go in there. But, I feel that it should be told to the land owner in my simple form of English, at least, since there's a little bit of double speech in the report. A retail use that does not attract a lot of daily traffic is the point because retailers want traffic since they are trying to do business. That's all I want to get across. I don't want to belabor it. COMM. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, then with respect to this one recommendation, is it the view of the majority of the Commission that the staff recommendation should apply? CHAIRMAN M ILANO: I feel that it should apply. • COMM. ANDERSON: Yes, I do too. COMM. WALTON: I do also. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: How about you, Mr. Compaglia? ©00;)"i 1229 • • 12 October 1976 • C-OMM. COMPAGLIA: Yes, I think it's pretty broad. I would go along with it. CHAIRMAN MILANO: Mr. Stoddard? COMM. STODDARD I'll buy it. COMM. JEHA: I have nothing more to say. CHAIRMAN MILANO: The Chairman will then state that the majority of the Commiss- ioners feel that the staff recommendation should apply. Shall we go on to Item '2 on Page �5? Does any Commissioner want to talk on this? COMM. YOUNG: Well, I will say what I said before. I have a deep-seated object- ion to indicating that an area is going to be developed residentially if it is not going to be. I think I'm opposed to the broad businesses uses which we have sometimes allowed in areas which are zoned residentially. My preference would be that the general plan show that this area will be non-residential. Now, I am willing to go along with the majority if they wish to follow the staff recommendation that the inference is that there will be uses which are permitted in a single family district under the land use permit system. COMM. COMPAGLIA: Mr. Chairman, my feeling is that we've been out there. We've looked at the land. It's definitely not a residential area so why call it a residential area. I believe that we should call it what it is; but, it would be compatible with the uses in that particular area. MR. CUTLER: Mr. Chairman, at the suggestion of the commission to give another alternative to the commission to look at, you instructed us to insert some wording in the text which might clarify the conflict that we have between an area which probably won't develop in single family homes as opposed to a non-residential structure. If you look at Appendix B, the bottom of the first page, staff has complied with the request of the Commission to come up with some wordage which might resolve your problem. It's under Danville Area, Item #2 & B. If you would like, I'll read it. To be added as the last sentence on the first paragraph continued from Page #18, it would read: "One other area warrants special discussion. The southeast corner of Sycamore Valley Boulevard and Camino Ramon. The plan designates this area as low-density single family residential but recognizes that allowable uses through land use permit process will most probably be the future of this area rather than- single family residences." COMM. ANDERSON: I think that meets your concerns, Mr. Compaglia, as for as not misleading residents of the area that this is in fact going to be single family in • development and that the land use process would bring in something other than that. MR. CUTLER: Well, that's our inteni. COMM. ANDERSON: I think we're limited here to the type of description we can place on this property. It's not really commercial or shopping center; but, it is bus- 1230 001911__,:)7 • 12 October 1976 irless one way or the other. CHAIRMAN MILANO: Any further comments on this area? COMM. WALTON: Mr, Chairman, I would agree with staff. I think as Mr. Anderson said, this is not commercial land and we all know it; but, --- COMM. JEHA: You mean residential. COMM. WALTON: Right, residential and we all know it; but, in many ways, there are a lot of commercial enterprises that we woul d not like to see in there and this is a little strange for us to designate it as being residential; but, it will allow us through the land use permit process to have a little firmer control over the area and I think there's nothing wrong with that and I will go.along with staff and keep it designated residential since I feel it's quite clear in this wording that that's.not what we're going to put in there. We're going to control it very highly and put in a special type use. COMM. JEHA: What can go in a residentially zoned area under a land use permit? MR. DEHAESUS: Nurseries and veterinary offices. I say that with a smile, I suppose; but, there's been a lot of discussion over this land and this area saying that it is resi- dential when it actually will not be so developed by saying that land use permits can be approved recognizing it's non-residential quality of the area. I think the two examples there now are good examples of how this process works and how it can be done. There are other uses that can go in there. But, to simply classify this commercially is outlandish because any kind of commercial could then be established which would then be detrimental to the area and, again, this is a very sensitive area as to the kinds of uses that could go in there. Through the land use process, you could control the kinds of uses so that they would be in compatibility with the neighborhood. I think Navlet's has worked out real well and so has Dr. Olsen's Office. Both have been fine. COMM. JEHA: There are some uses besides professional offices that can go in under land use permit on residentially zoned lands? MR. DEHAESUS: Yes. COMM. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, do we have a consensus on this point, that the majority will accept the staff's recommendation? COMM. ANDERSON: I agree. COMM. COMPAGLIA: I don't like it; but, I guess I'm in the minority, I suppose! COMM. STODDARD: I'll go along with the staff. COMM. JEHA: I'll go along. CHAIRMAN MILANO: Then, the Chairman will rule that a majority of the Commission is in favor of the staff's recommendation. Flo Let's get on to the next item, Page �7, Item �5. Does any commissioner want to--- COMM. JEHA: I will agree with the staff on this one. 0OOZ0 1231 t 12 October 1976 (All other Commissioners were in agreement). ® CHAIRMAN MILANO: The Chair will say that the majority of the Commissioners agree with the staff on this recommendation. This is the request of Mr. Hap MacGee and } the staff recommendation is to continue to show most of the property as general open space but to designate the developable low as low-density single family residential as shown on Map #9. MR. CUTLER: It might interest the Commission to know that since we made our recommen- dation, Mr. MacGee has applied for Agricultural Preserve status on the back part of that, property, indicating a certain amount of approval of the staff recommendation. CHAIRMAN MILANO: So, we will now go to Item '#6. This is the one Mr. Jeha brought up. COMM. JEHA: What I'm saying is that the staff shows the total acreage of 163 acres in open space which is A-2. Mr. Plummer requested that a portion of his property which I guess would be contiguous to the Country Estates designation and I guess is near the MacGee property---northwest or north east of it---he is requesting that a portion of it is quite developable which would be a continuation of the estates as of this plan and that it be continued under that designation. I thinkhis request has merit. The man has 167 acres reasonably close in and he gets the whole thing put in A-2 which means 5 acre lots. You can't afford to bring sewer and water there under that zoning. According to LAFCO and his letter it means that he can't get water and sewers and that means for him to ever get water and sewers, lie has to have more density than one house per 5 acres. According to the geologists report, there's not enough water for one house on 5 acres so lie's going to have to bring water in. I think his request for Country Estates. In all respect to the staff members who worked very hard on this and Mr. Bragdon who wrote a letter upholding the staff report and due respect to the Committee, sometimes when you do these things, you have a broad-brush approach and you then have to go back and go over it on a piece-by-piece basis to correct any hardship created. I feel that if all this land goes under A-2 Zoning, we will be creating an undue hardship. I think Mr. Plummer should be able to develop a portion of his property in acre zoning or estates and if he can't then that's it and nothing is really hurt. If he can, on the other hand, then he has that opportunity under the plan. I don't know how many acres I'm talking about but it looks as though it would be about 1/3 of his acreage---I'm just guessing at that. MR. CUTLER: On his revised request, that's right; but, keep in mind that part of his land is shown for low-density single family in Special Concern Area #I. COMM. JEHA: -According to his letter, his property is 163 acres and all of it is being designated as open space A-2 and he wants a part of it to be in Country Estates, one acre lots. The exhibit shows that maybe it's about less than 1/2 of his property. I think ~, that's a reasonable request and I would like to see the Commission go along with that. COMM. ANDERSON: I will agree with Mr. Jeha and still go back to that initial hearing and to have him go into agricultural preserve would be a hardship and this territorial constraint of being hard to develop is something that he has taken into 1232 3 2 0000 ( • ' • 12 October 1976 sideration in having someone already working on his problem. He's going to have to try to market it and 1 feel it would be appropriate to go along with Mr. Jeho. I don't see any object in making him come back later on asking for a general plan amend- ment. He's going to have enough problems as it is without forcing that upon him. MR. CUTLER: I believe that is addressed as a question; so, if I might respond for the benefit of the other members of the Commission, in the stack of papers in front of you Mr. Dehaesus had sent a letter to the previous Chairman, Mr. Young, detailing in more depth our concerns on the Plummer property at his request. One of the items that your Commission is going to have to come to grips with is if he does have all these problems, are you in fact solving his problems by designating his land Country Estates? As we addressed in the previous study session, one of the suggest- ions we had was that on the back part of his property, it might come in as a planned unit development with clustering of the units which might allow him a reasonable use of the land. It's quite steep as you will recall. He does have other possibilities; but, that's one of the questions you will have to address: How are you doing him the biggest favor. You may in fact not be doing him a favor by suggesting that he has development potential if he doesn't. COMM. COMPAGLIA: I brought this up before; but, I think it worthy of consideration again. If it stayed in A-2, you could reduce it to 5 acre lots. Everything that you have in your letter to Mr. Young, dated October 15th, indicates that this property doesn't water and there's a lot of hardships that anyone wanting to develop this land would run into. It appears to me that if it stays A-2 and they want to come in for 5 acre lots, 10 acre lots, or 20 acre lots, that particular piece of land might be developed. It would allow him to subdivide it in to 40 pieces; so, I think it would probably be worthy of con- sideration to look at it from an A-2 standpoint rather than go into this Country Estates thing. COMM, JEHA: The whole thing is shown as being A-2. What he's complaining about is that A-2 allows him only one house per 5 acres of land. He can't afford to bring in water and sewers with that kind of density whereas if he had country estates, he then might be able to bring sewer and water in. There's not enough water on the prop- erty through wells to even take care of A-2 Zoning and development and the property is not that for from the existing development and contiguous to it is some country estate property and according to Mr. Plummer, the road is going to go through his property. The general plan calls for a proposed extension of Sycamore Valley Road and Public Works has designated a re-olignment. MR. DEHAESUS: Mr. Chairman, before we get too far down this road, I would be the first one to say so if I thought there was any potential development of this property. We've looked at this property and we've studied it probably more hours with the people involved and the Commission---even if they had water and sewers, the topography of this property is such that it precludes a number of things. What you just mentioned about the road, that is a condition of the Blackhawk development and does not say that a road shall be built. A road like that or some other alternative is to be built provided certain Flo things happen on the Blackhawk property. This is not necessarily what's going to happen. think you're grasping at straws if you say there is going to be a road built through this land and thereby the property will be serviced. I doubt very much if that road will ever be built because of a number of factors, including topography and some others 1233 00 0:X0 q • • 12 October 1976 that may come up at that time. That was put in there as something to make the Blackhawk development look more probable in that respect. We have great reservat- ions about where that road goes in; so, I think that citation is wrong to begin with. It should state the entire situation as to that road and its probability and whether or not it will be built. Again, if I thought there was any potential for development with all the factors con- sidered, I would be amona the first to say so. If you do show this as Country Estate type development in the plan, 1 think in many respects it would be a futile gesture since I don't see that this will ever be done by 1990, the term date for this plan; but, rather than continue with this kind of discuss- ion---I think the real probabilities here are negative regardless of Mr. Plummer's de- sires. We have had some very pleasant discussions and I would like to go along with his desires; but, I don't think the cards are there. COMM. JEHA: I don't argue that. I just think that the man feels that he has a certain potential with that property and A-2 means to him that he has lost that probability. - What you say is probably right; but, I don't think that single one acre lots would rape the area in terms of density. I think it would give him a little comfort and with Country Estates contiguous to it, it could go that way as well as A-2 on the difficult portion of it. COMM. WALTON: Just to get on the record, I'm very sensitive to Mr. Plummer's re- quest. I understand what he wants to do; but, l think in light of what I know and in looking at his letter and the October 15th letter of our staff, I would have to go along with staff saying that I just don't think this land is developable and I honestly think that when we talk about the topography, water supply, sanitation, and the access, I just can't see that it's ever going to be Country Estates. I can't imagine how. But, do agree with Mr. Compaglia that it would be developable under 5 acre lots, A-2. COMM, ANDERSON: I have nothing new to add at this time. COMM. JEHA: Since there has been a difference of opinions, perhaps the Chairman should poll the Commission for consensus of feelings. COMM. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of sympathy for the Plummers and the Reids and I've come to the regretful conclusion that I too have to support the staff in this matter. I don't see any possibility in the near future of developing the property. I think that if conditions change, I would be among the first to change the General Plan to make it possible under the ordinance; but, I don't really think that's going to happen. There are too many properties intervening between that and Green Valley Road which would- have to be developed first. COMM. ANDERSON: I feel this is the applicant's responsibility and if it's not econ- • omical for him to not do it, then he won't do it. In light of his situation, it becomes subjective and that it would be appropriate to have it designated Country Estates for the portion indicated. COMM. COMPAGLIA: I have to think that A-2 would be appropriate. It would not bar complete development and it would allow him to develop those portions that are 1234 ems"?07 • • 12 October 1976 • developable; so, I would have to go along with staff. COMM. STODDARD: 1 go along with staff. CHAIRMAN MILANO: Mr. Young earlier stated he goes along with staff and I do also. The Chair would rule that a majority of the Commissioners present are in favor of the Staff's recommendation on this. We can now turn to Item �5 on Page "12. (All Commissioners agreed with this staff recommendation). There were no further comments forthcoming from any commissioner on the plan. Upon motion of Commissioner Jeha, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, it was moved that the Planning Commission APPROVE the environmental impact report as being adequate. A roll-call vote was taken; following is the Commission's recorded vote: AYES: Commissioners - Jeha, Anderson, Walton, Compaglia, Young, Stoddard, Milano. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners None. Motion carried. Upon motion of Commissioner Jeha, seconded by Commissioner Compaglia, it was moved that the Commission adopt the following maps which were utilized to interpret this plan: Map A, the San Ramon Plan, including staff recommended changes; Map B, the blow up map of Alamo; Map C, the blow up map of Danville, Map D, the blow up map of the Crow Canyon Road area and Map E, the blow up map of San Ramon. A roll-call vote was taken; following is the Commission's recorded vote: . AYES: Commissioners -Jeha, Compaglia, Anderson, Walton, Stoddard, Young, Milano. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAI N: Commissioners - None. Motion carried. Upon motion of Commissioner Young, seconded by Commissioner Walton, it was moved that the Commission recommend approval of the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan as an amendment to the County General Plan subject to the changes recommended in the August 31 and September 31, 1976, supplemental Staff Reports and on Maps A through E. Flo A roll-call vote was taken; following is the Commission's recorded vote: AYES: Commissioners - Young, Walton, Anderson, Compaglia, Jeha, Stoddard, Milano. 1235 o o f?ec,"0 7 • 12 October 1976 • NOES: Commissioners - None. �^ ABSENT: Commissioners - None. e t ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. Motion carried. Upon motion of Commissioner Jeha, seconded by Commissioner Young, it was moved that the Planning Commission instruct staff to prepare findings and corrected map for submission to the Board of Supervisors including editorial changes in the text as needed. A roll-call vote was taken; following is the Commission's recorded vote: AYES: Commissioners - Jeha, Young, Stoddard, Compagl ia, Anderson, Walton, Milano. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAI N: Commissioners - None. Motion carried. There was no further discussion on this item. San Ramon Valley Area General Plan :•:•:'• �., ., ¢ 4 4,4 ,t' @ Q • .. w 4 -040 0—00.4 MAPE Enlarged San Ramon Area j , cam, .• /....... CV 5 so 0 •�.•�-�sii�•••• ••l• � �:S•j Vii' 11 /� •:.i•:::::::• CZ � :.fid •'. •;�.;�.j:S••� �- •qr•{•• j j t � ••1 1•.1 ••• '.. — fir. ,•f�fin;�� .. ..... .. y ?•:J•1 • •............• • l r)L)f� ir:'L. c>_ •:. r • • � •• • ..1 •..•.1.1..•• oo •��' jjrt•It•••` �` ` :::::::::::::::• • �.► g•.•••. J ••••.•1 1 1 • 1 1.• ��';r�•;l�S'• w •:::::%::• f . 1•• `StA;d�CA NORTH ALAMrDA aaw 0 600 1200 Scale in Feet .� /11cos to Adopted by the Planning Commission 10-12-76. LEGEND ••• Single Family Residential-Low ) i Controlled Manufacturing Single Family Residential-Medium - Public&Semi-Public Single Family Residential-High General Open Space Multiple Family Residential-Medium fir`,,;fit: Parks& Recreation ®Commercial Q Agricultural Preserve • , • — Special*rn Area Boundary Nil �`: �^�} • ,.;,;�r{,�'a r t, ' '';_,; ;,; ��. ^` MAP D :,.ti;>.;.}ti;'i•,'`r44, •;;r•'•�:. �)''r• :stiff'• .. _. '�'• San Ramon Valley Area General Plan Enlarged San Ramon Township Area , +.''�.:''• ;'; ' :• ...y ' • Q �, �" �� tom{/ jNt • � �, �, I .\ltw NORTH �'� '•:: 0 600 . 1200 ■ Scale in Feet J M7 �„ �, I I� 1Y1 ....h•II ° J r a ry r II I •••frf'•. Z ''Ili II! u�IjIII11F1 i� I �•,. :',;;:.::�:'.�:}+�{?tri}, �I'��I I I� Ip I��I:'I!• M ::;:.r.ti,•}f.., III I I'I N I '� I;,:;III I ,• rti} `:;:}•:�:•::•:: , II li' ;Ili 1 II II ti ;:::�;��i:1:� '{• ;}•}fdj, ��iil! 'I'I j III:III I�I.1 I I I;•�I I I � I I 1 I i'I it. ;►:{'}••::;�:•J•:<' :}:�:• :.tiv: .I I� :III., � Ir I i,, : :�:::::• :::•: :::} :}' :%'••:: ';ti}d�'rf':'•�{:�};,rti:;:}�;{'rVrrf�;;•• y I' j 1 .•.Y.v � I I� I � . .v.. :•:y:� `� x• I. I i 1 I y.. :'f• I I 1 I • I' I I !1 I :tiff•. •! • I i i I i I r. •1 I I I /%wV}• / :: •r �} •t 'II I r• :r:' ♦ I I. i 4•• r. •� I I .I II. rte: I r� .s 1 I .}• f: I.' :rI f. .1 r% Ir I I :•f I I i•.:•• % •r•}• I I I :•. ••t• I I I I I�I •r:r I I•• I' 1 :;1:;• •�• r •Y. rr'�;r,••Y.;. .�VT;.;.;j A•} r I I .1 11 I I I 1 :rv. .•:•: \• y. ..v�.• r. .fr.. .. I ,:I I i ''II , I I w• :r:•. I. I•I I.. I I I I I ! r.. •�;•,•::•}. ter:.•.. ..C�r �X III � ' I I I � 'I I ..,:v.:v{.::}'r'tip' :rr .::�:�. .tirr�•:}r.•?.•;C•;},:. .s•�.;r I ••�r'{:�:;i•�ff�.:•:i•}r�f:��'��4"�•Y:•:;�Gi�;:fd,::,v,�,•'F:f:��•+, : 1 :�,.. ori•. , • —•• •�y'•'� .��':: � ^ \,,'. ,I is LEGEND Adopted by the Planning Commission 10-12-76, Single Family Residential-Medium ® Commercial I I I' Controlled Manufacturing ®Multiple Family Residential-Very Low ®Administrative Office Public&Semi-Public Multiple Family Residential-Medium Limited Office General Open Space t" •. �.? •li...:r'..'..1.'1�'•�'�S'l.. .. alleV :a::.:-.....cam::='�::'r`:.: At ` ' .................y,«:::':: ..:::::•. '� 5a� ,fid pan r.:r.`:'.:.: �`� -' i� '=:::?�::�•ir i�•; :;.z.«:S.:r;:: J: ptaY ..,; • J:rr. ::fir' -•r (` - :::..+:r.;r` ::;::. ;..:, ;.,..r, rtt.�:r•'.:al:;:.•Ji.L":t 'a. ':::;:5."l.•.'+l�.r a: a tC .a�1:t«AJ7:'::.- l:rt "f j: C•:a� :;:i: '::"r..` c.r................ .�.s..`t. �.;`• '�:1....�P' 's•:` .X11`. ....... J:':t... •l::`:1'. X75/ :Iti.rw:, ♦a.rs Y.. �'. 1'�:;.:..r'r=::•r ':titi;;:.:•,�=v� : 1. •1,N. �� ''�'��1:+i t!J +.`.`J ter.. �+• .......?.:..:r..... fill r� Z" R ,'* 1•'moi: :; •'s.::''.'• .. •.....�..j.�... . i1•T1•:::::1:iL .« ' }:::;r.' .. . . 't i ::�r;'x r � � :F�� :,.:..: � „rrc'i: scale in `'• ; ::::,,..;...,:, ,..; • 'ONO ':..;a «...d. .yr.. LeGENp ity Res�dent�at c::: r�:��` 5� t-Medi”`�` •"r'r'r::�:.3��c�i;;:r.�l tial.M� te ............. siders ;r t .......... 1e Fanny f , •• �, � .......... Gon' tted ojf%ce mission 14 12=J6' t„itn &$emt Public oPtQd by tttie Pianntn9 Ca • Pub1,c Ad opeASPare pcea Spec'4ic Plan t f A .. • •. . • •Z . • •.• :• I'1 1n• MAP B **San Ramon Valley Area General Plan •; •.; • •,M,• w � •••. ;• •. •. . • ;•• Ij Il .�♦ i �•+ ,& .- •• •• • • ••'•• • • •• • • •• •• III \ Enlarged Alamo Area ;•:• ; • •• ;j ;• •• • • •;•• ••• 'I'1 •. : _ • • • • �•, • •• • • • •• •• • •••• 111 11 �� • • •: :: ' • • :' :• • :• • •i i '• • •• ' :• 11111 \` •� • •• • ts ��• � • ••�•• • • f• Ill 11 • •• •• • - • •• •;• •�• : • • •• • �• •�• 111111 i"'�\\ • :� •:� ♦:;i; •• ' 'S• •+i •:�i •• • :;• Ill� llj/ `�1�\I t. •• •• • 1•, • ,�• .� III I11 111 • ••• • •• • • •. • •,• ••. 11111JI 111 •:• ''•'•' ' :i ''•� 'i' �:' II II lfl X111 ca as LEGEND • •. : .:G-J•� _ SIOWE +»• ,• 'k . .. .. i 00-00--. ; • �J- Single Family Residential-Low ; •�;;• , is •�� ' HH I SII :••:• �'•�' • • • ''�� It/ iSl jll� Multiple Family Residential-Low :•• • •; •.r: :;• a�\ �i 1 I I .r • • .r . •• a. . 1111 •L:; •:• • ,•. ; \� 11 1111 NORTH • Z:. •. ..';:• f ��♦ I 1�1p 0 300 600 •: • ' •: •• •�' •• \; X1111 Multiple Family Residential-Medium •�••.;s. • '; •• ••'• �►LI . •••;•. •�•��+' • , . • . �, �� l Scale in Feet • • s • •• ••'® -.0 •• \\ 1 1 A Commercial ' �: •: ,:; •. • ��:.,\1 ON 1W Limited Office '\ � "l ' �:;:f •: ;:.:; ��` be Public&Semi-Public 1 y •.r ' .� • o -:T I7 \ �• i;• '�•� • ••,••• '••I •;• of i:•ii�:•i' • iii�i•• \\�� \`�'� S� s Jam. i • • •• • • • • • • • • • • •• •• •• • \ - +' a .. I7 S fw •• ''��'' • •;''� ' •ti:;�'• i;••: � i •;�: :14, •70-0:8-6 i,•', •;• • p J • • '� •:• :'• ' :S • :• �• ••: •'• : �:•:•• 0•' •i :' �, f/, • 0, •• • • • • • • •• •• • • •� •• • •• • • ' o • • ••�•• •; • • • • •• '•• • • •�• •: :•: : '• G • •:•: •3 :• • •• h. : ••'• ' • •: .� •� •�• • •� G • •• •� • • •• • • ••• • •• •:• : •:•: :•:• �i :•• • • vp. : '•�:• /// :•• • ••� •�•f• • • •• •• • • • • • . • y Planning omm • • • • • w • Adopted b the Plin Commission 10.12-76. +, : •��; .; Tr. '.• •' ''�•• 11 •• • : • • • //////// :� • ;••�• •i• •