HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08181977 - R 77I IN 5 ;GUST
AV
NURS� AY
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MET IN ALL ITS CAPACITIES
PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE CODE SECTION 24-2.402 IN
ADJOURNED REGULAR SESSION AT 9:00 A:M. , THURSDAY,
AUGUST 18, 1977 IN ROOM 107, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING, MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA.
PRESENT: Chairman K. N. Boggess, presiding
Supervisors J. P. Kenny, N. C. Fanden,
R. I. Schroder, F. H. Hasseltine.
CLERK: J. R. Olsson, represented by
Geraldine Russell, Deputy Clerk.
00001
In the Board of Supervisors
of
Contra Costa County, State of California
August 18 ,197Z
ln*ha Jlc-- of
Public Hearing on Proposed 1977-
1978 County Budgets and Use of
Revenue Sharing Entitlement
Funds.
The Board on August 16, 1977 having continued to this time
its hearing on the 1977-1978 proposed county budget, proposed budgets
for county special districts (exclusive of county fire protection
districts) and county service areas, and the hearing on the use of
Federal Revenue Sharing entitlement funds; and
The Board having noted that the Finance Committee
(Supervisors R. I. Schroder and J. P. fenny) had submitted its
response to the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association position paper of
July 12, 1977; and
All interested persons having been heard;
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the public hearings on the
aforesaid budgets and the use of Federal Revenue Sharing entitlement
funds are CLOSED and Tuesday, August 23, 1977 at 1:30 p.m. is fixed
as the fime for the Board to begin deliberation thereon.
PASSED by the Board on August 18, 1977.
1 hereby corWy *holt *ha In goino k a true and cornet a"of on order aalsro'on*ha
■inWn of sand hoard of Supervisors on do dde afanwid.
cc. County Administrator Wdom my bwW oad dra Seal of do mood of
Supervirors
affixed this l8thday of August 1977
J. R. OLSM. Chrk
Depu*y Clark
Patricia A. Bell
00002
H-24 Y7615-
,The Board of Supervisors Contra County C°"""
County CMrk and
Ex Officio Clerk of the Board
County Administration Building Costa tars.Gerawne fllt s"M
P.O.Bots 911 Chef Clark
Martinez.California 94553 Com (415)372-2371
IstJIMMING&P-90y-picnnwrw JJ R E C E I DIED_
,st District
frattey e.Fabdim-ugnmei
2nd District
Rdwd L Schroder-Lafayette r i j U l b i a 7
3rd Oistrict
Warm N.GOMIr-Concord J. P. L"-
4th District CUR OAF U: `UPE2y!SO,ii
EtkM.11aasaMitr-Pittsburg August 18 , 1977 ey.... cora P
Stn District
Response
to
Contra Costa Taxpayers Association
Position Paper
The suggestions made by the Taxpayers Association in their
paper of July 12, 1977 have been carefully reviewed. This Board
is very interested in hearing the suggestions and position of
organizations and residents, with respect to programs and services
and the costs and taxes necessary for their financing.
The proposals submitted are deserving of comment and explanation
of the County's position with respect to the impact of their imple-
mentation upon the County's plan for services. Comments are made in
the order of the proposals submitted by the Taxpayers Association.
1. Various Reserves
As discussed in the Finance Committee report, there are many
uncertainties which may arise during the fiscal year, some of which
may have significant fiscal implications. These are usually not
subject to any control by the Board - economic conditions, new
legislation, court decisions, weather conditions, etc. The amount
suggested of $1.750 million is not considered adequate as it is
less than one percent of the anticipated expenditure program. The
reserves approved for this County have been uncomfortably low and
will stand comparison with other public agencies. It is not
considered prudent to approve a budget with inadequate reserves to
cover contingencies. The County has followed the budget procedure
of deleting contingency items from departmental requests on the
basis that the reserve will be used should a particular event occur.
We believe this is sound budget practice.
The proposal that wage increases be financed by offsetting
reductions in operating budget cannot be achieved if the County is
to meet its responsibilities. Such action would require the County
to identify these areas for which there is no financial assistance
from the State and Federal governments and are not income producing -
such as the Building Inspector and Recorder. Fixed costs - including
welfare grants - and programs for which dedicated monies are received -
would have to be eliminated. The final result would be that
discretionary services would be virtually eliminated.
L
34 Erni-,.�L.t� 0("
Microfilmed with board order
-2-
Under the circumstances, it is not reasonable that the cost
of a wage increase be offset by the layoff of workers which is
the action which really would be required.
2. CETA Program
The proposal that the maximum salaries for CETA positions be
limited to $10,000 per year thereby eliminating the local contri-
bution cannot be accomplished as it would violate federal regulation
and law concerning equal pay.
3. Welfare Categorical Programs (AFDC)
The proposal to reduce budget appropriations by $1,946,395 -
a seven percent reduction - cannot be supported. This action would
be an arbitrary cut as the County must provide assistance to all
persons eligible in accordance with State standards and pay schedules.
Projections are carefully made by staff and indeed - using latest
information - has resulted in a suggested total program decrease of
$866,350 or $375,000 in County funds.
4. County Medical Services
It is proposed that County cost of medical care be reduced to
a seven percent increase or by $917,418. The gross County Medical
Services budget has increased by about 10 percent. This indicates
the failure of-the State and Federal governments to reimburse
counties for the actual cost of providing medical care. The cost
of medical care is a national problem. The Committee has suggested
that $200,000 in county funds be deleted.
S. Plant Acquisition
This item has been covered in the committee report with a
total reduction proposed of $2,685,000 as contrasted with the
Taxpayers proposal of $3,018,000.
6. Probation Department
We concur with elimination of certain new positions as indicated
in the Finance Committee report.
7. Sheriff's Communication
We do not concur that the additional dispatcher position can
be eliminated. This service is essential in providing effective
communications_ The radio traffic continues to increase making
this additional position of very high priority. Other personnel
reductions have been proposed by the Finance Committee where a
lower priority has been assigned to the position.
00004
-3-
8. Health Department
The gross budget requirements of the department have been
increased 4.5 percent. It is our opinion that this is a
conservative increase. The net costs vary considerably from
year to year depending upon the extent of special health projects
authorized by the State and Federal governments against which some
permanent personnel are charged.
9. Community Services Administration
The proposal to limit the budget increase to seven percent
cannot be accomplished in that this office had to be moved to
more expensive quarters to make room for construction of the
County Detention Facility and to appropriate as necessary to
utilize Federal funds for the Head Start and Home Weatherization
programs.
10. County Assessor
The proposal to restrict the budget increase to seven percent
and delete $45,726 from appropriations is not supported based
upon our review. The budget increase from last year's budget
is 5.6 percent and is in line when recognizing specified increases
in projected operating costs.
11. District Attorney
The proposed deletion of a position which is budgeted to
handle the workload imposed by the new juvenile law (AD 3121) was
rejected by the Committee. The new positions included in this
budget unit are financed by State revenues in accordance with the
Finance Committee's revenue estimates (Schedule V) .
12. Auditor-Controller
The proposal to reduce the budget for this department has
been reviewed. The budget requirements for the office were care-
fully reviewed. The change in budget from the previous fiscal year
was 7.5 percent and largely arises from increased data processing
costs. A proposed additional Account Clerk position was deleted
by our Committee and resulted in some savings.
The above discussion indicates that the Finance Committee did
concur with some proposals made by the Taxpayers Association,
partially with others and rejected some. In addition, the Committee
did suggest other substantial reductions.
00005
-4-
The Ccumittee again expressed its appreciation to the Tax-
payers Association and its staff for their efforts in this very
difficult ma 44
er.
/1. 4j;,pP*em
P-
Supervisor. District III rvisor, Distr I
00006
{
In the Board of Supervisors
of
Contra Costo County, State of California
August 18 ,19
In the Math►of
"Ridgelands, A Multi-
Jurisdictional Open
Space Study"
Supervisor J. P. Kenny having submitted a memorandum
with respect to the multi-Jurisdictional Ridgelands Study,
transmitting the final product of said study—a report entitled
"Ridgelands, A Multi-Jurisdictional Open Space Study"; and
Supervisor Kenny having recommended that said report
be forwarded to the County Planning Commission and the County
Recreation and Natural Resources Commission for their considera-
tion and recommendations and that copies also be sent to all
cities in the County and to the Local Agency Formation Commission
of Contra Costa County for their information;
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that receipt of the report
entitled "Ridgelands, A 1lulti-Jurisdictional Open Space Study"
is ACKhOIWLEDGED and that the recommendations of Supervisor Kenny
are APPROVED.
PASSED by the Board on August 18, 1977.
I hereby esoify that the foregoing is o true and correct copy of an order esshsed on the
minutes of said hoard of Supervisors no the dare oforesoid,
cc: County Planning Commission Witness my hand and the Sed of the Board of
County Recreation c Naturlvpervisors
Resources Commission oRixed this l8thday of AuPust . 19 77
All Cities in County
Local Agency Formation
Commission J. R. OLSSON, Clerk
Public ';arks Director
Director of Planning By �'" (`'T''"' • Do"Clerk
Administrator Robbie Giltierre.��
l 00007
H-24417715m
The Board of Supervisors C ntra J"~R °'nn
County CIsr4 atq
Ex Officio Cork or go Boats
County Administration Building cosbAIM Gwaldiminu w
Box
Mar CO-"Y RECEIVED- ,
Martinez.California 91553
Lwss R KMwy-Richmond
1st District
Money C.fahUR-Maniner AUG AS 1977
2nd District
R~I.idwed r-Latayieft
!. R
art!District ClE9U ga OaP Snu"LVISon
Woma U.DoWn-Concord C iRA 1A Co-
sts District B -........LS_.`.. _
Ede K"ONS NM-Pittsburg
51h District
TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: August 17, 1977
FR(M: James P. Kenny SUBJECT: Multi-Jurisdictional
Supervisor, District 1 Ridgelands Study
In late 1974, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors requested Contra Costa County,
Santa Clara County and the East Bay Regional Park District to join together with
them in a multi-jurisdictional study of the Ridgelands area found within these three
counties. On February 24, 1976 the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors autho-
rized this County's participation in that study with an allocation of S1S,000.
In March of 1976, the Board of Supervisors appointed me as their designated member of
the administrative board to direct the study operations. Later in 1976, the Board
appointed a citizens advisory committee to participate in the effort.
The purpose of this study is to review the Ridgelands area of the three counties as a
single open space resource and to identify measures which would serve to protect the
natural values of the area. As a result, the measures identified in the study are
directed toward, among other things, the maintenance and enhancement of the area for
agricultural production, the preservation of natural habitats and scenic areas, and the
provision of increased recreational opportunities for residents of nearby urban areas.
The final product of this study is a report entitled "Ridgelands, A Multi-Jurisdictional
Open Space Study." It includes analyses and exhibits which we hope will lead to a com-
prehensive and coordinated implementation program by the participating agencies. The
study, copies of which I am giving to members of this Board includes recommendations
which should beieviewed for possible implementation.
Therefore, I recommend that the Board of Supervisors accept this report and forward it
to the County Planning Commission and the County Recreation and Natural Resources
Commission for their consideration and recommendations. I also recommend that copies
of this report be distributed to all cities in the County and to the Local Agency For-
mation Commission of Contra Costa County for their information.
JPK/ed
cc: County Administrator
Director of Planning
Public Works Director
Attachment
N1iCroliitl'wu _"i-)
;oard order. 910008
M'
\� •i
"..ww�,to,- 57
a t'.','.�y +5.. �,
Of
��- erY3��-„ 4t���-'.W`o" u vt+�a � �.� '.�,nL��' �1'�.� -^'t ���i' •' ” v" - 2::
P. � h�v� �'•v.^..�w�.gkr'+r y y ..�'ate�tA_,���.� � �:�+ �:d <:r. Y ry .:',5
i
PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS, RIDGELANDS STUDY:
On behalf of the Ridgelands Administrative Board,it is with great pleasure that
I hereby transmit to your jurisdiction the Ridgelands Study,adopted by the Board
on May 19, 1977. The report represents the synthesis of diverse viewpoints as
expressed by citizens and agencies with interest in the resources which the Ridgehmah
offer.
It is hoped that the information and conclusions contained in the Ridgelands
Study will be of use in the future planning and management of this area. Each
agency will want to ponder the report's recommendations and the most appropriate
methods to ensure their implementation.
Citizens of the East Bay can be grateful to all participants in the researching
and writing of the Study. Their efforts have demonstrated once again the ability
and willingness of the East Bay community to work together on issues which
transcend jurisdictional boundaries.
Very truly yours,
sS•Pl't
Enclosure
_C�/EIVED
AUG J9 i97�7�
z. oaso;u�
aeax ECLI O..'sou
TRA COSTA CO.
Microfilmed with board order
00010
At
MAY 1977
Report Prepared by:
Alameda County
Contra Costa County
Santa Clara County
East Bay Regional Park District
Association of Bay Area Governments
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
Pacific Southwest Regional Office
00011
RIDGELANDS ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD
Joseph P. Bort, Alameda County Board of Supervisors (Chairman)
James P. Kenny, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Dan McCorquodale, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Howard L. Cogswell, Board of Directors, East Bay Regional Park District
RIDGELANDS CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Alameda County
John Cronin
Dagmar Fulton
Stanna Hearn
Margaret Tracy
Donald Vieux
Contra Costa County
Joyce Burr
Frank Pereira
Genevieve Sattler
Rudolph Ulrich
Jeffrey Weideman
Santa Clara County
Jose Martinez
Michael O'Connell
Marjorie Sutton
Cynthia Wordell
Joe A. Zanger
RIDGELANDS TECHNICAL WORK GROUP
Bruce Fry/Adolph Martinelli, Alameda County Planning Department
Dennis Mesick, Contra Costa County Planning Deparimnt
Don Weden, Santa Clara County Planning Department
Linda Bledsoe, Association of Bay Area GovernMnts
William Gries, East Bay Regional Park District
Gary Barbano, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Pacific Southwest Regional Office
Consultant Work on Chapter III: John Eells
Richard Mills
Lasta Tomasevich
Carol Freedman
Cartographics: Karen Graser, Association of Bey Area, Governments
Graphics and Layout: Margie Faulkner, Association of Bey Area Govermwts
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION I
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6
CHAPTER II EXISTING CONDITIONS 7
TOPOGRAPHY 9
VEGETATION 9
CLIMATE 10
WILDLIFE 10
HISTORICAL AND EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES 10
GEOLOGY AND SOILS II
WATER RESOURCES If
LAND USE 11
OWNERSHIP PATTERNS 14
ROAD ACCESS 14
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS 15
CHAPTER III ISSUES 17
INTRODUCTION 19
LAND USE ISSUES 19
TAXATION ISSUES 27
CHAPTER IV OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION EFFORTS 33
PLANNING AND SPECIAL STUDIES 35
RECOMMENDATIONS 40
URBAN DEVELOPMENT POLICY 41
RECOMMENDATIONS 45
REGULATION 46
RECOMMENDATIONS 54
PROPERTY TAX RELIEF 56
RECOMMENDATIONS 60
PUBLIC ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT 61
RECOMIIENDAT I ONS 64
OTHER REMMENDATIONS 65
APPENDIX 68
W W1
•
• \ ..�cffv
a RIDGELANDS
STUDY
AREA
lemma
t r
' 1\
_ x e
a r�
t
sac �. - -- ,`. -;:, _•
::.
1"TEO
a
" „r °''M., c 4• 'CLAM
,c._.=r�.�;;yam; ;#-�� ° � ���•'.
xi
It
k• C
3 c ter.c:'�*Y L t ”. s. �„ _ `i.-.-, a ,t w `` +� •
H Oil 13
�3���tea• � ;'yk ..;k ,-� :
KAM k,
PZAWIW AW APB=AnOW ArtOMMMfSIMS
Ala odq. Cowtm Carta ad Saafa Clava Lbowtiet, plw�'f�td aiwt:
J. 00etiew to ieiptft wai;rla&i aiut •apa mer 4m. /wwrt Plan.
I. M&W abow y and"do". A" (am, Mnr/mewl rtm otaemeb 7rldnd to oft:
idedilYeetfo�. P+rft"ime meipnee&ruK a of Ms & loll Io I K ftr 1etIdady
�Ai 11
A. aVAWt MftiKae d1d d&t Mihir+a4wAV OR f Wft of iw Ud dwd
dOMMMddXMM i"Wo tie OPAMM isMw."�Mwrl wt li+w doMt rwie
N�dmei&` lamdo�wwa awl a�fir fir Zoo}idti
time wee tr wiw�i mer�t w mer riirrr. .
I. allaiMt Mriat to drrerta1es w aardrity d p&r�iaer MONd w 000 UPi�r&a�+.++rr
.3&p ee Of P aieier A(A Mill Pew lbws}tii...atawtefld ffl
Alorla Cftmq:
J. ArtMsMr w lbttadtw 1rts�ewd fir artr.iir Yllet te4l ar*WkwAPO
4r r&ee ar Pw of fbt tlw=it
L �� a� ir[be � w' idmN�i or+w mpw
� �
civ
Wwsrs GYWr Cwn�:
J. Maur 00 CYtMaWM S&MM*df fi MMV Ori lis.fr ptwii pZOMt 41 MWM
tt&w h At Di*rtadr.
SAKft Ciera Cora r:
1. IN NO CM" Ba&aut PIM. iMr fb fMa* I aid dpw dpen'. ADOWlid M Pri- -
aaaty o.wrd tad& in ow�yrtwill
i, is dw i. �wr
men atwbly deny *i�r twin iwd
3estiow of w R—tw prttrf AL
Lowy Al1'itw'!i) !PMxIR
Maui, a wm L"ft ad Mft Cum mw m PAW&A»end of oymew drill ad Meir
.posier diatriaN:
I. Copd%lwl�&e m drrrtarewt riMie ad d&4erwt f1 etiatdey W M&MOM O d orteii&of tW
2. �illY+dm eladd be ewrioa mlt, Moet MPUM*at of Clew Mlioia&i. ti lid
tali. irwiav% vmr" ar ad Mrtr MMWdddM aedi tall, r stAm"al rNe
or oebw iMMOrKtille artisitiM aYrW be Alaeuredit
J. X&A ee1Ry end ita eitiM Sb%M raft a rill fiMCL'1t ad 4800 Dietri/M M ar`w
tint epw sp� Zwd w lotteier for lair D4 laai am*Wgdmwwtd M&ifbiwlfr to as
ti~ robe by *wk.
�- SPIMn of iMflb@� or�e+6 rwior or&a bo&wdwdN. W ad*tad by BICC, Mond rot bo
siwdd f w iwta ter m6flwi&.
b. Avow orteii ipiwn of isv% w or ribm eenime our howadQier Aft"be dr
tarMd ffow eitia and dirtrieb pmr(&V No w#w awe", Pertiorta.iy aertr ad do-
.rrtie Maar.
C. civ�i~saw"era/n�pwd lir SAW of�M of ieflrwr w rri
� M&
`_ _. ON14
7. darisdicti mw`aiaeroWOZe?br pluuividfi .10611i eotift"Uttes should nee sphere of
inf?mnm or unberm samvice area bouwdaim as a basis for plowbw and aowetrtatinq there
arise fdoilitide.
A. Vti.litim. speeial districts and pubUc a garciw *408""raopeiis tie pratCA-{A s p fw-
pasta of their actions and aotiowe uahioh stinmladr w*=Froth iw the Ridpslandr Mond
be given Vareftel a 0neide atim
NOME mss
Tper�:
AIM&& Contra-COOft and Santa Claim Cbeera—. plat Off-ted dit(M:
T. &V wt pswdttwd seas ad dowitim within . - ores q � mating distrusts and delete
those whish ars not in aon�foewity wish the apse aware sennet of the fPkWWl ploy
annd with the openu SPOM Freese# Volare of the !li�slaodr.
2, s IMic winfa w los nim of 100 amwe Amid be amovideied in dedatnZtwal and grasip
areae in the Rideelaede.
3. AeDiw current seeing poZioim of all Zesds under ieillidmm Aet oontaoats and&%Wp
tAow whioh sane immmistent with the pr+esreation of pessuny in the M,*eZoede.
it. zoneing on-00 Pam(fowl of pubtds lw*tPmb f+.IW lit**tarsi should-be costa-
tent with the awwommant awsotivw of those pazie awe.
AZae.da Cowdy:
1. AZoneda Comedy ehaetd review definitions and intuperbatioR of NO"tdaor roOVIff dM Wit-
ity"in its A (Agrisnitaral) mming dietriot. dr3delisw shmld be dweloW for qp%*'
_priaM ptnseawet and regnitlet(ak of{Matsjw-Now# fw'Mr sdfgeq.
t. Cities shanZd apply ZMW lot awing reynntatiws to lona uoithin the Ridgelads. A basic
mrfogme lot sins of Zoo amus shauZd be employed by the griarltwaZ or open spans die-
trio.
Ceara coati Lbnueely:
i. iw open space aoneing astrict ar districts ahmM be doraoW WA yowl"apseifieatly
pertains to all open space nes (e.g.. arriatnUMM. Pw"We roarmatiom. ,
Watarehgd. end wildlife habutat). A baric winter Zot sin of. 100 eansee AMU be need_
for grimi tee and Paring. Smaller mdaimm lot dant at&Ise-awed for Other ores Arm
uses and to aeaowodats pswwet pmaeZ siar dUtadiatione. .
2; Ort of the si=t, OMeral Apmtarlt ire and l•R liwawtlow DtitrteE in the aAfa�A~
+haul"be resonnidwad old seines"or ez*m4matid after ter tib a3opti4n of the wen ape assn '
aonin�g distriet/el.
3. prapartim with aoninV not in conforo r m with t+he peswat pion should be rraonrul to a
district which o"formw to pZwvwd aper spare Zoned new.
4. Aawrittwd tees in the A-4 District shaeZd be TW.beyond aerINsnvtai agrtmtft+e to
include other open space usM.
Other Land Use Regulation:
AZapwda, contra costa and Santa clam County, plus affected cities:
1. Consideration should be ggivsn to restricting division of Zeds under WiUiarom Act sow•
tr as ts.
2 All eitier and counties Amid adopt or revise g>lading wdinases to proteat Iht*elW%b
open spas_ reeou m"-
i. A-M-d— dw4w Pe rim in the Ridgelode for all Peeper&MIOpaant within adopted nor.
ri&.- aO ent too *,4wt d sro.,io kiyiriw•
!. Aowsidseneetoa AhmW be riven to On MdRP" . of rapJAW" fr PFOtoet 8000e40 MAINO Of
l d AW11010 wi*eldpw minis ftsw rids GPM.
a. Adapt rep"O am to pseffit stromwids r"Mimoss.
6. Add(tiewsi renal residwetial dw oZopnwnt whiah is drpwrfint WOR well# and sdptie tack
systar shmad be .stied*rdpastAL
F. Adittfowd ow@& in No aC*staaii should be OW P'p.i. iri Agworsn.nte AMM ks#t
00 sannrt Zd"Z wsveee w r fdr aei twtw.. of pubtis utili"M air fir nlp +'x+11
www"au ar for PFS@iA&w river to radia Nie.
6. rw Elam Blair AViowal Pw* Vlstrtet, the Santa Clone auxft Awit And Agarwtiow Dnpsrtnwt
and other prbzio park gpwwise shmId bsawe wore actively moats d in svalwtisll dwistoF
wont eatisiv ad lend vee pna*ouaL wonrnd pwehdonde.
!. "W Elnst Eloy aViael An* I►iwWe. the Seats Cine aoIwft Ark and Mwwtios AWrllwW-
and other pblfe paart WWiw ahMU Ywfwn their — ids. IerelarWt and sraOwuss
prsprwe to OPWRiae Heir an 44$mewt.spfnwl Tdsi.
Pope" sr Awdy
Ataeio{n M-tre Costa awed awl# Clare aomtise, pZne the aYatd oitim-
1. !*e dow"me_shmsu#aai{aw.to OMMINOW On »ee of AtiMMM Amk aowtwcla in So
lkdprloadr to praise!peeing 1waLothts' t�w spw �won�ees.
E. IS* aa„nties and aitiae #belt nab wr of optw tie sdswentt aaatnsets fw appeaprivt#
loastfane fw the Ri4ou".
J , A.osawwa . an!VMROW lawdt ranee tKui waw A" aantweAt-.I%Wu
gave bwi# to owe hood an w sadabUsbed meiaaw Beier of AMW snit hbatiYe fA61q !bw
.mit parsrL.
AMUC 4OWSII'M AM ltlit4909W
art fto,�,t ftr* Neftive, MXft now Cmety and oder dow"M roommate for aww+iq PI&
t;e sod apwn qnse :
1. no Eiet Eetr Aalpiand Pw* Diafriet and Soda Mare QUIV AMU Wftimw to wp dM
pvrktwia in tie *"* ares fa a#yy...ae.nnith thotr opted ptwe.
i. Nigh prkrihr is pw*Get-i ;"M in the N*"M&Amu as O to tipee Zwi ritk
r#aaratiow pteasiat wewwt to the MAM fldnre. v shmm also be sum
to the aa�iaitione of horn# A4*ri1L piodeat tare asci n+sMnhade of 016"64
publfe prRlani.
d. Aiblfe aewas to lawde aaguirmd for public park paposee shauU take pian+vithnin a eve
sowable period of tfws folZminp aagw1vition.
t. The wwgQwwt and devetopreht plans for public parklands in the Rideelands ahOUM be
mitigated to reflect the piweenee of adfaownt privately'awed perasiOW lands.
b. tiniwtain or ia.e.s - asistimp ffwdvV ZewZs of the regional and local park apaneise in
the Ridgal-de fa'anKisition. desslop nett and maiatwmwae.
6. Public park apwwim ids the Ri4wZande dnouZd Zink of OeistiM park waits by sstnbliahfng
trail aamid-w for hiking and ridinr ues. ?hese trail awridcrs ahorZd be planed and
designed so as to ntininfae the odvsrss f+Poeat ow adjesent priseteZy-owned Zards.
7. Park and rsarsetion and other public lad wwrrfq VOWIM 0906 wu4mrav
Zands should aoordiwats their pZa iV and asquisitfon proper with
M" effeetivmty saw pgak, recreation.d apo-spam. Male.
d. Park and rsareatim Vowias - the M491aei. int ermuZeat I wish tae rOWN of Aaiear
ftawtio% sbmu edos awtiLble {M}bwstiow dssewiit v tis potwldal tow isndsto asait-
able to lauiaoao tanouyk a gifti or este at Use *An fit:wrist wdw to a pest*park
aped rroreatic n are-
a. A!k and rearsation od other public teed e-Meg is apwedae in tits Rt4stwia &surd i—
oppose their public iwforimstio% e&awtio% mrd t programs ss r to renes
tawpws and awidim paoiblw OR Museset tai.
I0. Public mere for aertdwr reervation on prblieatly-abed Pew-pwk open spew Iasi aOMs11
be allawsd. provided aneh sue ss wt iwerepatible Wth tis primmary purpose for whish these
Iwdr are reaped.
11. Lan* is public oebeaakip in the M*sZwi wird JO p.VIM d by Ow petilie dome MW
i"g tba rather than by iM—iV ep—Z r—tri-lions an cwt pe•iaately held Zwde.
a�APMVERDLMMS
1. Ace Adviaaro, Aprio"tanal Gbmiwiowt and OW U.S. DWOVIE rt of AfFiftilear'a Ahit Qn*
Ow"atim Sa wise AMU work with rwwbrs and public lad Mangrove to help aoaev tent
wwrgaawct ooweiaf+wut with goad wowersation pwetiewe.
t. MiParel eefanetio% if it is to tote place in tie Ri4be7wi. ahold odour int a enemies,
Vhtsi Vitt Pot impwt anl~etall ye" roww"oad sot yAsnlitaeel paw. Heave aueh
wtivibtae mn slZMA14 reclamation should case prrpraesiteaty with wteetm sat b son*"-
, P
on*a-
tt with tie Stage aw-few Minimy amd Awlaurttow Act bed marl poliaiar fbr the Moo-
-j.
d. Local plow and programme Www7 be oowsistent with verional moeww concerns as amprwsad
ins His Assoeietion of Den Area Qararremwets (AYQ) wt drtailsd in its 9tww
�
of Critical M rirtaI Comosm'report.
♦. AMG shoald delineate regionaZZy aiprtf'iaRt eras of adeiaal wtrwsuntst Mawr" in
the Ri*Vzaeds.
6. Low and reyiaual agwuaiea should dMttaar to au*asia is ACMMatow of iaaaw of weal
oo"oer n gf f em t the Rid#* win
a. (bn.tdnvattaw should be given by legal gsaensnnis to provide rwueh and}loves tens ywrtre-
tion f%w ssuistiew and trse*ses. in as WMA as abeaV of rush taws prdoowlg w serif
to be lased fbr NOW asaviewe then they Passive.
7. With rwpat to #MWN umec's role iw tar ereyswws of pri.aee agrimltnwat twin. VOMWN-
Pwet sh ku w--was gend re�wee.rt prst'iew, but &%@ad not interfere with priests w-
tivitiae ewLas rewwross aY da�sdwud.
swr ar4gj?M!t4!
1. Legialatim shoOd be .noted euabliM L FM@ to rwKa►proposed fbrartiow of mpecial
wasswnwrt and i+iproveopme t diwtriats by Monty bovrde of snprvisore.
?. Legiolatiow shontd be erateted to proV de Atorda and Santa Clara Cowrtiae with the powwre
to repulaie proposed deoeloprele on bade owed by the Sar M4� Mater DYeparbowtt
wkieh would wepativaly impact open space resource valwe of the RidgelaPie.
3. !ie State should continue to impla"wct its acquisitiar plans for Nt. Diablo od son W.
Coe State Narks.
a. Sb Cees 5�woe laswwt Act of II7I should be anon" to provide for es"ation papewuer
to lard gorw+raener by eb Ow".
6. !is Jeal should abuser a ewmprrhw siso *ft* of inppd*i" fen far fiwrtiiore of apriaul^
iillal iA+.
W17
� w
���
���018
All Ir
The Ridgelands is a name given to those portions of the Diablo Range
immediately to the east of San Francisco Bay, within Contra Costa, Alameda,
and Santa Clara Counties. This vast mountain area is a dominant feature
of the region's landscape, playing a major role in making the Bay Area
the unique and beautiful place that it is. It encompasses more than 1300
square miles (850,000 acres) of essentially open space* lands, lying
adjacent to an urban area housing more than three million people. Its
contribution to the region's quality of life is significant.
As the flat lands of the Bay Area have been covered by urbanization, most
of these grass covered, rolling hills have survived largely unspoiled,
providing a scenic counterpoint to the urban area. Green during the winter
and spring, golden brown in the summer and fall, the Ridgelands afford
visual and psychological relief from the often frantic pace of life in
the urban area.
In recent years, however, pressures and proposals for development in the
Ridgelands have increased significantly, presenting the threat of loss or
serious degradation of this important open space resource. As the threat
of loss has increased, so too has public pressure for governmental action
to protect the area's open space values. The three counties with land use
jurisdiction over the Ridgelands--Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara
Counties--have taken a variety of actions aimed at protecting these
resources. Most of their land use plans and policies recognize the
importance of and the need to protect the Ridgelands' diverse open space
resources and values. Some of these current plans and policies stand in
marked contrast to those which were in effect even as recently as five
years ago. In addition to the plans and policies of local governments
to protect the open space values of the Ridgelands, a substantial amount
of open space is in public ownership as parks, watershed, and public
domain (see Composite of Protected Lands Map).
Despite these recent efforts by local governments to preserve the Ridgelands
as open space, there are still many who doubt whether existing local plans,
policies, and programs are adequate to save the area for the benefit of
present and future generations. They feel that unless additional steps
are taken, important parts of the Ridgelands will be lost forever to urban
development or low density rural residential sprawl.
Some of those who are most deeply concerned about the future of the
Ridgelands feel that local governments may be either unable or unwilling
*Open space is defined by the State of California (Government Code
Section 65560) as land or water that is essentially unimproved and
devoted to an open space use. Specific open space uses are defined in
the Appendix at the end of this report.
3 00019
to take the steps necessary to provide long term or permanent protect;on
for the open space resources of the Ridgelands. They fear that political
considerations may prevent adoption of strict open space policies or may
eventually weaken existing policies. Consequently, they have proposed
that the State and/or Federal governments become more directly involved
in the preservation of the Ridgelands--just as has happened in numerous
other instances where local governments have failed to act as responsible
stewards for the natural resources under their control (e.g., the California
coast, San Francisco Bay, and Lake Tahoe).
Efforts to involve the Federal government resulted in legislation being
introduced in 1974 by Congressman Fortney Stark calling for the U.S.
Department of the Interior to undertake a feasibility study for the
establishment of a national park or recreation area in the Ridgelands.
The study bill also called for findings with respect to alternative means
of protecting the area, consistent with existing ownership patterns.
Similar studies in the past conducted by the Interior Department's Bureau
of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) have led to the establishment of the Golden
Gate National Recreation Area and the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife
Refuge.
It was, however, the very existence of these other major Federal open
space areas in the Bay Area which made it seem unlikely that Congress
would authorize creation of others in the region. Establishment and
maintenance of these existing areas has been expensive for the Federal
government and substantial additional Federal funds will be needed to
complete proposed acquisition and development. While the Bay Area has
been fortunate to receive a somewhat disproportionate share of available
Federal funds for these areas in the past, it does not seem realistic- to
assume that Congress would appropriate funds for another such area in
the Bay Area when most other major metropolitan areas of the country do
not yet have any at all. Recognition of this fact led the Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation and the East Bay Regional Park District, with the
support and advice of key local government officials in Alameda County
and elsewhere, to propose this Ridgelands Study involving Alameda,
Contra Costa, and Santa Clara Counties, BOR, the East Bay Regional Park
District (EBRPO), and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
A unique and important aspect of this study is the different perspectives
these participating agencies bring to this study effort. Agencies vary
considerably in the degree of authority they can bring to bear on
development decision in the Ridgelands. The State of California has
given local governments the capability to regulate and acquire land, and
to tax property. The East Bay Regional Park District is able to acquire
land and to levy a tax within most of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties
for the specific purpose of providing park and recreation facilities.
ABAG is a designated areawide clearinghouse for the nine county Bay Area;
It reviews local applications for Federal funds, as well as environmental
impact statements for significant plans and projects in the region. ABAG
may aid member governments to coordinate local planning concerns that
impact other jurisdictions. The Department of the Interior's Bureau of
4 00020
Outdoor Recreation, in addition to administering grants from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, provides planning assistance to state and local
agencies.
The Ridgelands contain numerous natural resources worthy of attention;
however, each resource is not necessarily of equal importance to the
involved agencies. The three counties' concerns include those resources
in the Ridgelands that have intrinsic characteristics of value to the
residents of that jurisdiction. Examples of local resource concerns are
recreation areas used primarily by county residents, scenic areas that
serve to enhance community identity and lands used for grazing. ABAG, in
its program for areas for critical environmental concern, has identified land
and water areas which it considers to be of regional significance through-
out the nine county Bay Area; many of these resources are found in the
Ridgelands. In the Ridgelands, an important resource from ABAG's point
of view is the scenic value, particularly the highly visible front hills
which act as a backdrop to the urbanized East Bay plain. EBRPO is concerned
with those parkland sites which serve a regional need and have developed
specific criteria indicating characteristics that potential areas should
have to be considered regional. Among the Park District's interest in the
Ridgelands, then, is to retain the character of existing sites and to
prevent the loss or degradation of potential parkland sites through
acquisition. BOR's interest in Ridgelands resources lies with the
recreation opportunities this area provides. While the Ridgelands may
not contain recreation resources of national importance, BOR assists
other agencies to plan and provide for such facilities.
The purpose of the Ridgelands Study was to examine existing efforts to
protect the open space resources of the Ridgelands and to recommend
additional actions which should be taken, with major emphasis on those
actions which could be taken by existing local agencies. The study provided
a unique opportunity for the participating agencies to benefit from a
sharing of information, ideas, and perspectives. As such, it may serve
as a model for inter-jurisdictional cooperation in similar situations
throughout the country.
The basic work of the study was performed by a Technical Work Group
consisting of staff members from each of the participating agencies.
Policy direction was provided by an Administrative Board consisting of
one member of each of the three county boards of supervisors and one
member of the Board of Directors of the East Say Regional Park District.
A Citizens Advisory Committee was established with 5 members from each
participating county. Chosen to represent a wide variety of viewpoints,
they helped provide information and pof icy direction to the study.
The boundaries of the Ridgelands Study Area in each county were determined
by the staff members of the Technical Work Group from each county and
generally include only undeveloped, unincorporated areas currently designated
as open space on the counties' adopted general plans. In some instances,
however, the boundaries include incorporated and/or developed areas. The
study area boundaries are not meant to be precise, fixed boundaries. They
5 00021-'
.
are only generalized boundaries which may need further delineation and
refinement by each county.
Ift"YOW
The findings and recommendations of the Ridgelands Study are presented
throughout Chapter IV of this report. They are summarized briefly,
however, in the following paragraphs:
If the open space resources of the Ridgelands area are to be adequately
protected by existing local agencies, they will have to employ a wide
variety of methods. Although most of these methods are already being
used, some of them are not being used as effectively as they could be.
Public acquisition is an important tool for protecting open space in the
Ridgelands, particularly for areas needed for public recreation. The East
Bay Regional Park District and the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation
Department should continue to acquire open space lands in the Ridgelands
in accordance with their adopted plans, with highest priority to acquiring
lands with recreational potential located closest to the urban areas.
The amount of additional land these two agencies are likely to be able to
acquire within the Ridgelands in the short-term future, however, is relatively
small compared to the total amount of land currently in private ownership.
The prospects for State and/or Federal acquisitions or grants for acquisitions
on vast acreages in the area also seem slight. Consequently, efforts to
preserve open space in the Ridgelands must recognize that the majority of
the area is likely to remain in private ownership.
The most appropriate open space use for these private lands is grazing.
Ranching in much of the Diablo Range, however, is generally a difficult
and uncertain enterprise at best. The plans, policies, and programs of
local governments must therefore be sensitive to the problems of ranchers
and must attempt to help minimize those problems whenever possible.
Protection of ranching in the Ridgelands will require adoption of strict
land use regulations by the counties, as well as effective urban development
policies to prevent the cities from extending urban development into the
area. It will also require the granting of property tax relief to grazing
lands, and it will require that public park acquisition programs be sensitive
to their potential adverse impacts on adjacent privately owned lands being
used for grazing.
If they are willing to use them, local governments already have at their
disposal the basic tools necessary to preserve the open space resources of
the Ridgelands. If they do not use these tools effectively and open space
lands in the Ridgelands continue to be destroyed or degraded, it will only
create further pressure and justification for the State and/or Federal
governments to step in and take action.
6 0MV
� �
� r
i
The Ridgelands encompass most of the northern Diablo Range and its western
foothills; they include 167,000 acres in Contra Costa County, 264,000 acres
in Alameda County and 415,000 acres in Santa Clara County, some 846,000
acres in all .
Interstate 580 constitutes a major dividing line within the study area.
North of this line, development adjacent to the study area is much more
complex and has a greater effect on the study area. South of this line
roads are few and the study area becomes more rugged and more remote.
The Ridgelands portion of the Diablo Range consists of a series of more or
less parallel ridges, running in a northwest-southeast direction. The
main exception is Mount Dlablo, an intrusive mass of erosion resistant
rock which has resulted in a striking and unique landform. The Ridgelands
are drained in the north by small to moderate-sized creeks, flowing generally
through narrow canyons. The central and southern portions of the study area
drain into two watersheds, Alameda Creek and Coyote Creek, both of which
are important water resources for the region. In certain areas the canyons
broaden out into alluvial valleys, which have some agricultural importance.
Elevations range between 1000 and 2000 feet in the northern portion (except
for Mount Diablo itself at 3849 feet), and 500 to over 4000 feet in the
southern portion of the study area. Significant portions of the latter are
above 2500 feet, rugged and somewhat inhospitable. The slopes of the
Ridgelands are predominantly steep, usually from 25 to 50 percent; in some
areas they range up to 75 percent.
The grasses of the Ridgelands are dominated by a mixture of annual species,
mostly of Furopean origin, and perennials which for the most part are
native species. A variety of wildflowers occurs with the grasses and
presents a succession of colorful blooms in the spring. O1,en woodland
areas, dominated by blue oak, buckeye and digger pine, occur also within
the grassland community. In the canyons and ravines a more forest-like
association develops, consisting of bay, bigleaf maple, several species
of oak, and madrone. Common trees along watercourses are alders, willows,
cottonwoods and sycamore.
In the hills east of Oakland is a small redwood forest area, and scattered
through the higher elevations are stands of coulter and ponderosa .pine.
9 00lbo
024
Knobcone pine occurs in several small groves on;Mount Diablo and near
Moraga. Monterey pine and blue gum euca,ly(o�tus a're.. important introduced
trees in the hills adjacent to Oakland and'%Aefey and at a few other
localities in the study area. Extensive areas of chaparral are found
in the rockier sites in the southeastern part of Santa Clara County.
This community of shrubs forms large areas of almost impenetrable vegetation,
which is periodically swept by massive fires. Predominant shrub species
here include chemise, black sage, manzanita, toyon, and ceanothus. There
are no ccom ercially important forest areas within the study area, although
Christmas tree production and firewood production are uses of forest
products. Several rare and endangered species of plants are known to
occur within the study area, and their localities have been identified in
county plans and by the California Native Plant Society.
The climate of the Ridgelands is Mediterranean, with cool, moist winters
(generally the moist period extends from November through April) and warm,
dry summers. Rainfall is low to moderate; most of the study area receives
between 20 to 40 inches per year. The mean annual temperature is 55 to
65 degrees F. and the frost-free season is 200 to 300 days.
The extensive open space areas of the Rldgelands provide relatively rich
and undisturbed habitat for a wide variety of animal species. Much of the
study area contains habitat for game species, notably deer, pigeon and
quail. Raccoons, foxes, oppossums, coyotes, skunks and bobcats are the
more common large mammals. Raptorial birds are also numerous, feeding upon
the large population of rabbits and rodents. Many songbirds, reptile and
amphibian species find suitable habitat here. As with the plants, rare or
endangered species of animals are known to occur within the study area.
The chief threat to wildlife is destruction of their habitat.
0 rWOV40c"Ailp i�w-KAX_
Numerous archaeolor0 c.al sites have boon identified within the study area,
and some of these have been the subject of scientific research. Public
access to these sites is not encouraged because of the threat of vandalism
and other irreparable damage. Many sites of historical interest relating
to our own culture are also known and some have been preserved through
public acquisition. A number of sites have also been identified as areas
of particular scientific or educational interest by the California Natural
Areas Coordinating Council's Inventory of California Natural Areas. Many
of these sites have been and continue to be utilized by the University of
10 ON25
California and other local colleges for research and educational purposes.
Two major property holdings of the University within the study area include
the Russell Tree Farm, near Orinda in Contra G•>;ta County and the 3500-acre
Lick Observatory property on Mount Hamilton in '.'Tanta Clara County.
OOAW m*W1frA&,
The study area consists primarily of marine and non-marine sedimentary
rocks, chiefly shale, sandstone, conglomerate, graywacke and chert, with
occasional intrusions of metamorphic (e.g., serpentine) and igneous
(e.g., basalt) rocks. Soils derived from these rocks vary from fine
clays to deep sands. Clays and clay foams are the predominant soil types.
Valley bottoms consist generally of alluvium eroded from the nearby hills.
Loams and sandy loams occur in these valley bottoms and provide the best
agricultural conditions; however, only about two to three percent of the
study area contains these soils. Most of the soils in the Ridgelands are
in Class VI, V11 and Vill. Soils in these classes are best suited for
permanent vegetation and uses such as livestock grazing, wildlife habitat,
recreation ( low intensity) and water storage.
Alameda and Coyote Creeks are the largest streams within the study area;
their combined watersheds occupy over half the acreage involved. Other
major streams include Pacheco Creek in southern Santa Clara County, Coral
Hollow, San Leandro and San Lorenzo Creeks in Alameda County, and San
Pablo, Alhambra, Walnut, Marsh and Kellogg Creeks in Contra Costa County.
Most of these streams are utilized for agriculture, groundwater recharge
or domestic purposes. Major reservoirs are located on some of them. These
include Briones and San Pablo Reservoirs in Contra Costa County; Upper
San Leandro, San Antonio and Del Valle Reservoirs and Lake Chabot in
Alameda County; and Calaveras, Anderson and Coyote Reservoirs in Santa
Clara County. In addition, there are a number of smaller flood control
or storage reservoirs. The natural inflows of the major reservoirs are
augmented by imported water from the Sierra Nevada Range.
The general availability of water in the study area is quite restricted,
and this greatly limits the potential for intensive agricultural use and
for residential development.
V*
The Ridgelands are made up of a variety of resources determined by the
intrinsic characteristic of the land; these constitute the open space
values of the area (see Existing Land Use ?dap). The lands and resources
I I O0026
are used by man for many purposes, most are compatible with open space
values, sane are not; the following are the major land uses in the
Ridgelands.
Grazing and Agriculture
Grazing is by far the predominant land use within the study area (over
90 percent). Most of the land is steeply sloping with thin soils which
can support only a low or moderate level of grazing. In .some valleys,
deeper soils and greater availability of water have allowed for the
development of more intensive agriculture, such as orcharding or row crops.
Christmas tree farms are also being established. Generally, the poor
soils and limited availability of water have greatly restricted agricul-
tural development in the study area.
Mining
The predominant industrial use within the study area is mining. A number
of quarries are currently operating at sites in the study area, providing
crushed rock, sand and gravel for the construction industry. These sites
total as much as 3000 acres; they are generally considered compatible with
agricultural use, and often can be reclaimed for other long-term uses. In
a few quarry operations, clay shale deposits are extracted for ceramics.
Residential Development
Some land within the study area has been developed for residential use,
mostly on a rural or semi-rural scale. More intensive residential uses
are found along the edges of the study area. Urban services are generally
unavailable except for those areas immediately adjacent to developed areas.
There are presently a number of approved residential development proposals
along the fringes of the Ridgelands and in specific locations within.
Moreover, there are other proposals for which approval is pending. Most
of these proposals are for single-family subdivisions ranging in size from
20 to 200 units. Blackhawk Ranch, located on the lower slopes of Mount
Diablo in Contra Costa County, is the largest with 3733 dwelling units.
As a condition for approval, the developer has agreed to dedicate over
2000 acres of his land to the State to expand Mount Diablo State Park.
To the south in Alameda County, recent subdivision proposals include
Nipper Ranch, Jensen Ranch and Columbia Associates Properties on the
fringe of the Ridgelands. Development in Hayward, Union City and Fremont
also has extended into the Ridgelands (see Jurisdictional Boundary Map).
Existing residential development in the Diablo Range of Santa Clara County
has occurred primarily in the foothills above the Cities of San Jose and
12 00027
Morgan Hill. The development in the foothills above San Jose is being
permitted by the county on parcels generally ranging from two and one half
to 10 acres and tends to be quite visible from the Santa Clara Valley due
to the open character of the grassy hillsides on which it is occurring. A
substantial amount of residential development has also occurred on the
slopes and ridges near Anderson Reservoir where Morgan Hill has extended
urban services into the hills and has permitted development on one half
acre parcels. Single-family homes have already been built in this area
and more building sites have been approved. A large-scale proposal to
construct housing units on the slopes and ridgetops north of Anderson Dam
is currently before the San Jose City Council. The proposed development
lies outside San Jose's urban service area and the City Planning Commission
has recommended that the proposal be rejected.
Utilities
Large acreages within the study area are owned and managed by various
utility districts and companies. Water districts such as the East Bay
Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), San Francisco Water Department and
Santa Clara Valley Water District own reservoir areas and large •watershed
acreages surrounding them to ensure the quality of the reservoir water.
In addition, the State of California owns the Del Valle State Recreation
Area containing a large reservoir and surrounding watershed which is managed
and operated by the East Bay Regional Park District. Several major trans-
mission lines cross the study area; most of these are easements, but
occasionally utilities such as Pacific Gas and Electric Company or Pacific
Telephone Company have purchased rights-of-way for their facilities.
Recreation
A large amount of acreage within the study area comes under the jurisdiction
of various park agencies. The East Bay Regional Park District owns or
leases over 37,000 acres of land within the study area. Recent acquisitions
totalling almost 7000 acres are generally devoted to grazing and have not
yet been opened to the public for recreation. The City of Pleasanton owns
the 230-acre Walter Johnson Park on Pleasanton Ridge. The Santa Clara
County Parks and Recreation Department operates approximately 14,000 acres
of parklands within the study area, mostly in the western foothills of the
Diablo Range. Their most recent acquisition is the targe (more than 9400
acres) Grant Ranch located in Halls Valley about 10 miles east of downtown
San Jose. The facility has not yet been officially opened to the public.
The State of California owns some 25,000 acres of parklands in two units
within the study area, Mount Diablo State Park in Contra Costa County, and
Henry W. Coe State Park in Santa Clara County. Approximately 7000 acres
of public domain lands administered by the Department of the Interior's
Bureau of Land Management exist in scattered parcels around Henry W. Coe
13
0028
1
State Park. Though publicly owned, these lands. are not considered parklands.
Recreational uses which take advantage of the natural Ridgelands environment,
such as hiking, horseback riding, picnicking, camping, fishing, swimming,
boating, photography, nature study, and painting are perhaps best suited
to the area. Recreational driving and bicycling are other cannon
activities, but these activities are primarily confined to existing roads
and do not require parks per se, although parks do complement them.
Private recreation opportunities are less extensive, but nevertheless
important. Some facilities are open to the public, while others require
membership in an established group. Included are stable and horseback
riding facilities, an off-road vehicle park, golf courses, archery
facilities, picnic grounds, and swimming facilities. Groups such as the
Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts also operate facilities. A large scale proposal
for a guest ranch, located in the Apperson Ridge area, was approved by the
Alameda County Board of Supervisors and is now being contested in the courts.
A-r-ow-w-, AWWW—
Most of the privately owned large landholdings within the study area are
utilized for grazing. The largest single ownership is a 30,000 acre
holding in southern Alameda and northern Santa Clara Counties." The size
of the holdings is often related to accessibility, with parcels closer to
the urban areas and roads having in general a greater proportion of small
rural homesites. This is particularly apparent in the northwestern portion
of the study area, where the remaining larger parcels are long-time family
holdings and the average size of parcels is steadily decreasing.
As mentioned earlier, the study area can. be divided into two sub-areas on
the basis of access and general circulation. This dividing Line is
Interstate 590 to the east border of the study area. In the northern
sub-area, numerous roads provide access such that few places are more
than a mile or two from a public road. Major thoroughfares include State
Highways 4 and 24, both of which are improved to freeway standards, at
least in part; and Interstates 580 and 680, which cross the study area
connecting the Livermore and Amador Valley areas with the cities of the
East Bay. Branching off from these major routes are numerous secondary
roads making more or less direct access from communities adjacent to the
study area very good.
In the southern sub-area, public roads are not nearly so common. Several
roads occur in the foothill areas, and one winding two-lane road crosses
the heart of the study area at Mount Hamilton to the San Antonio Valley,
but there are no other roads which cross the sub-area until one reaches
14 00029
State Highway 152 at Pacheco Pass. The result of this inaccessibility
has been the retention of large private landholdings. In the Santa Clara
County portion, subdivision generally has occurred only on the western
edges where road access exists: Many private service roads which provide
access to ranches in the Ridgelands are also utilized for firefighting
purposes. These roads, however, are generally not available for public
access of any kind.
Trail access to and within the study area varies tremendously, but is
confined mostly to existing units of public parks. Adjacent to Oakland
and Berkeley, the long-established park chain of the East Bay Regional
Park District has good trail access to and within. Recent extensions
through portions of the East Bay Municipal Utility District lands have
allowed for connections to some of the District's more remote parklands
such as Briones and Las Trampas. Generally, however, the trail projects
are still in early planning stages.
Most of the roads within the study area have been designated by the counties
as scenic routes, which may place special restrictions upon development of
adjacent properties. These restrictions generally affect location, number,
and height of dwellings or other structures.
Certain environmental hazards occur within the study area which place
constraints upon the type and intensity of development. These fall roughly
into three categories--fire, seismic activity and unstable slopes.
Fire
Because the natural vegetation and dry-farm areas within the study area
are extremely flammable during the late summer and early fall, fire is a
serious hazard in and adjacent to developed areas. Fire hazard varies
from day to day, and is influenced by humidity, slope, wind speed and
direction, accessibility to human activities (most fires in the study
area are man-caused), and accessibility of firefighting equipment. In
the southern portion of the study area, the extensive stands of chaparral
create the highest fire potential. Fire is an essential element of the
chaparral eco-system. However, long-term fire prevention in chaparral
areas tends to increase fire hazard levels. This danger lessens somewhat
nearer to San Francisco Bay where humidity tends to be hicher and temperatures
lower. However, the entire study area is subject to days of extrema fire
hazard. The rugged terrain and limited accessibility create problems for
protecting some developed areas from fire hazards. This past year, due to
an unusually low amount of winter rainfall, the fire danger was extremely
high. Henry W. Coe State Park, in the southern portion of the study area,
was, in fact, closed for a period of firms last surnr*r.
15 00030
Seismic Activities
Numerous earthquake faults which are considered active occur In the study
area. The two most important of these are the Heyward Fault, which lies
along the western boundary of the study area, and the Calaveras Fault,
which extends from the Hayward Fault near Anderson Reservoir in a northerly
direction through Calaveras Reservoir and up the San Ramon Valley. Many
other shorter faults are known throughout the study area.
Unstable Slopes
The highly fractured nature of the parent materials, and the steepness of
slopes have led to a general condition of slope instability within much
of the study area. Certain geologic formations are notorious for land-
sliding and other slope problems. Most of the lands within the study area
are moderately to steeply sloping and the landslide hazard, either from
generally weak bedrock or from seismic activity, is of major concern.
00031
16
yG�
1
i
This chapter of the study report deals with major problems or Issue areas
which impact, either directly or indirectly, the open space resource
values of the Ridgelands. Initially, topical issues were identified by
members of the Technical Work Group. Subsequently, a series of meetings
were held to seek input from the Citizens Advisory Committee members on
issues. Elaboration and perspectives on these issues were accamplished
by means of a questionnaire, which was prepared and used to interview key
individuals and groups concerned about the future of the Ridgelands.
Those interviewed included environmentalists, ranchers and landowners,
lawyers, tax specialists, engineers, developers, and professional resource
managers such as soil scientists, farm advisors, fire experts, and park
managers.
Incompatible Uses
Existing land uses in the Ridgelands were enumerated in the previous
chapter. They include grazing, mining, watershed protection, park and
recreation areas, some agricultural areas and scattered residential
development. Grazing is, by far, the most common land use (more than
90 percent). Urban development is incompatible with grazing, the
magnitude of that incompatibility being in direct proportion to the
intensity and proximity of the development. Any large scale increases
in urban development will have sizeable impacts on lands used for grazing,
most of which are already only marginally profitable. Residential
development, even at densities as low as one residence per 20 acres,
poses problems. An idea of the nature of incompatible uses can be gained
from consideration of grazing and resideptial development. Problems for
grazing associated with people and residential development include tres-
passing, broken and cut fences, vandalism, running of stock, fire,
intrusion by domestic dogs, trail bikes and off-road vehicles, illegal
use of firearms and litter.
Trespassing can result in compounding problems such as broken and cut
fences. Fences require time and money to repair and before a broken
19 OMM
fence or an open gate is discovered by a rancher, Livestock may escape.
In some cases improvements are vandalized or destroyed by trespassers.
"No Trespassing" signs are frequently removed or defaced. Livestock may
be harassed or frightened into running, with danger of injury. Fire can
result from trespassing and unauthorized camping during the dry months of
the year. Dry grass and brush provide fuel for fires. In steep-sided
canyons with proper wind conditions, fires can spread very quickly. The
lack of water at many locations and the rugged terrain, in general, make
controlling fires difficult.
Domestic dogs have been seen in packs at a number of locations in Alameda
and Contra Costa Counties, at the fringe of the Ridgelands near residential
development, in the Ridgelands interior and in major parks. Domestic dogs
have attacked and killed livestock, deer and other wildlife.
Trail bikes and off-road vehicles disturb soil, damage vegetative ground
cover, frighten livestock and wildlife, and if not properly equipped and
maintained they can cause fires.
The net effect of development next to property used for grazing is to limit
the use of that portion of a rancher's land abutting the development.
Frequently, the only alternative available to the rancher is to use his
own land as a buffer. This results in increased costs to the rancher since
he still pays taxes on the affected unuseable portion of his property.
Land Value
In remote areas of the Ridgelands used extensively for grazing, fair market
value approximates the value of property for grazing use. The services
needed by development are in general non-existent. The range of uses to
which the property could be put is also limited by access, topography and
other factors, and any speculation in land is generally long-term in
nature. At the fringe of the Ridgelands, however, and in pockets of
residential development in the interior, fair market value includes an
urban value component, the value in excess of the present Income producing
value of the property. The urban value component is attributable to a
number of factors. Included are proximity to existing development, access,
the availability of water and sewer service or suitability for on-site
sewage disposal, and attractive amenities for residential sites, e.g.,
trees, drainageways and good views. Most of these factors are predominant
at the fringe of the Ridgelands, but are also present at other locations.
The urban value component raises market value above the value of the
property in open space use and can therefore adversely affect open space
uses, particularly by increasing property taxes.
Landowners may therefore attempt to make substantially more money fray
subdivision and sale of lots than from ranching or leasing the property
to a rancher for grazing. Land thus becomes an investment commodity
rather than a resource to be managed and protected. Urban development
20 VOM
and the other factors which result in an urban value increment for rural
properties and an increase in the demand for rural properties provide an
economic incentive for subdivision and/or development and a disincentive
for grazing use.
Additional factors contributing to fair market value are public regulations,
previous public decisions and individual expectations of future use.
Zoning which allows subdivision with relatively small lots can increase
fair market value and, in turn, assessed value, which is based on the
highest and best use. Expectations are affected by previous decisions,
rezonings, and general plan amendments in response to development
proposals. Expectations also relate to the possibility that access,
utilities and other services may be provided or improved in the future.
Subdivision
Subdivision in the Ridgelands results in a decrease in average parcel
size, fragmentation of ownership patterns, and usually an increase in
the number of residential structures. For example, as average parcel
size decreases, it becomes progressively more difficult to engage in
grazing and the total area devoted to grazing can be expected to decline.
Subdivision also has indirect effects which relate to res idedtial use,
land use conflicts and increases in residential population. Included are
effects which have already been described, such as increased property
values, but also the need for improved utility and other "urban" services,
as well as conflicts with the physical resources embodied in the Ridge-
lands. Subdivision of properties for residential use where residences
do not now exist in the Ridgelands is of special significance since
development would be introduced into new areas and "snowballing" could
take place.
The subdivision of land creates a demand for formalized water and/or sewer
service. Although this might be dismissed as a remote possibility, given
present land use and environmental regulations, Local Agency Formation
Commissions' (LAFCO) spheres of influence (see Chapter IV, Urban Development
Policy) and other factors, such extension cannot be precluded. Ground-
water quality in a rural residential area could be degraded due to septic
pollution and from an extension of water service required for public
health reasons.
Subdivision also creates a need for improving other services such as fire
protection. Rural fire districts not associated with urban districts may
be staffed by volunteers. A moderate numerical increase in the number of
residential structures may substantially increase fire service requirements.
In some instances, additional equipment and/or full-time staff may be
needed. The water supply for firefighting in rural areas is often limited.
Residential structures using groundwater for domestic purposes may lower
the water table in areas dependent upon groundwater. Several years of
substantially less than average rainfall may intensify the problem and
21
DU"0J
create a need to develop new water supplies or water storage facilities.
The interaction between the subdivision of land in the Ridgelands and
flood control in the flood plain is an ongoing problem. The soil types
in the Ridgelands generally have low to moderate water storage capacities,
moderate to high shrink-swell potential and moderate to high landslide
hazards. The flood plain soil types are dominantly poorly drained clay
types. Over the years, there have been serious floods covering large
areas in central Contra Costa County and parts of Alameda County.
Continued subdivision in the Ridgelands, particularly the type requiring
massive land reshaping, will increase the flood hazard to the flood plain.
A similar situation exists with respect to roads. Residential development
and even parks generate traffic which contributes to congestion of narrow
rural roads. If the accident rate increases, or if people are injured, a
need and justification for widening, straightening or otherwise improving
an existing road and/or constructing an entirely new road is created.
Improved roads and access to Ridgelands properties would serve as a
stimulus to additional growth.
The approval of major and minor subdivisions on the grounds that existing
roads will be used for access and that wells and septic tank systems will
be used for water supply and sewage disposal does not ensure that the sane
situation will continue to exist in the future. Overall coordination
between the subdivision of property and the provision of services is clearly
needed.
Minimum Lot Size
The minimum lot sizes prescribed by general plans and zoning ordinances
are factors which, in part, determine the intensity and type of development
and indirectly affect property values. The determination of minimum lot
sizes which could be applied in the Ridgeiands depends upon the land use
objectives which are sought and the location of the land.
If open space land uses such as grazing are to be preserved and residential
land use confined to existing urban areas, large minimum lot sizes such as
10O acres would be most appropriate. In general, those portions of the
Ridgelands zoned 20 acres or less function to accommodate subdivision for
residential use, as compared to zoning with a minimum lot size of 100
acres, which does not.
Although the argument might be made that 20-acre residential lots may
retain open space characteristics, this is a highly questionable argument.
A typical 20-acre parcel might include a house, access road or driveway,
well, septic tank system with leaching field and a corral or other
enclosure for stock or domestic animals. Small sheds or stables might
be built and electrical and telephone services might be extended. Thus,
a 20-acre parcel could be substantially devel ped and if'this occurs in
22 ON36
conjunction with several other parcels, open space values are considerably
diminished.
Mineral Extraction
Historically, mining has been conducted in the Ridgelands at a number of
locations. Some mineral resources are presently mined in the Ridgelands
and other extractable mineral resources are found in the Ridgelands.
The major issues relating to mining and quarrying are: i) the prevention
of premature development of incompatible uses which might interfere with
the recovery of mineral resources; 2) the regulation and reclamation of
mines and quarries to reduce environmental impacts and to enable other
use to be made of property after mining or quarrying has ceased; and 3)
impacts from the extraction of minerals on prominent ridgelines.
The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 attempts to
deal with these Issues. Under the Act, the State Geologist will identify
mineral resources of known and potential significance. Every local agency
with responsibility for ,approving a surface mining operation is required
to establish mineral resource management policies to be incorporated in
its general plan. These policies must: 1) recognize mineral information
developed by the State Geologist; 2) address the management of land use
for areas of statewide and regional significance; and 3) emphasize
conservation and development of identified mineral deposits. The Act
also requires the formulation and approval of reclamation plans for most
surface mining operations.
It must be recognized that the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of
1975 does not address nor can it be expected to solve all problems of
surface mining. Moreover, it may be several years before the Act
becomes fully operational. Other problems which need to be addressed
at the local level include mineral resources which may be of local
significance, outstanding surface mining permits which are exempt from
the Act, and the rehabilitation of old mines and quarries which are
inactive. Old quarries may pose hazards due to steep, unstable rock
faces. Erosion may be increased and the leaching of exposed bedrock
may present water quality problems. Aesthetic values may also be
affected in many instances, especially along prominent ridgelines and
mining may conflict with other uses such as outdoor recreation.
Utilities
Two topics related to utilities are of concern in the Ridgelands. First
is the extension of sewer and water service needed for development,
and second is the extent and location of electrical utility and
communication lines and facilities.
O(W 7
23
Sewer and Water Service
In the past. cities and special districts have been willing to expand
service areas to accommodate growth in new areas. Due to increasing
construction costs and environmental and planning-related constraints
and regulations, the ability to extend services has become more restricted.
For example, the provision of additional sewer connections may be limited
by inadequate treatment plant capacity.
Despite the difficulties involved with extending services, some areas in
the Ridgelands presently have water and/or sewer service and their future
extension. particularly at the fringe, is not precluded. Water and sewer
service make possible development of much greater intensity than would
otherwise be possible. Cities, in particular, have been willing, in some
instances, to extend water and sewer service into new areas at the fringe
of the Ridgelands. Such extension can result from new subdivision and
development proposals or be in response to existing development. If such
extensions are made, an impetus for additional development is provided,
especially if facilities are designed with excess capacity. Pressure can
also result for changes in the general plan and/or zoning ordinance which
would permit additional or higher density development. The tax payments
required for financing of new facilities are sometimes used as justification
of additional development or general plan amendments and rezonings. Any
expansion or -extension of utilities in the Ridgelands therefore requires
careful analysis for potential growth-inducing effects.
From an economic viewpoint, the cost and difficulty in servicing hill
areas as compared to flat lands support keeping them- in open space. Most
of the Ridgelands` interior is remote from existing urban services. Few
places in the Ridgelands have public water or sewer services at the
present time. The cost of other services such as schools, police, and
fire may also be high. Cost-benefit studies conducted by Bay Area
localities have found that residential subdivisions in foothill areas
will generally result in both initial one-time government outlays and
continuing net revenue losses. This largely occurs because costs
involved in creating and maintaining urban services in these areas are
typically higher than the tax revenues produced by such development.
Communication and Energy Transmission Facilities
Towers for radio, television and telephone transmission require high
locations on ridge or hill tops. Such locations are highly visible and
are often times prime park and recreation sites. In fact, transmission
facilities are already located in existing parks in the Ridgelands such
as Mount Diablo State Park. Shared use of tower locations and environ-
mentally sensitive design can reduce but not eliminate the impact on
scenic resources.
OW38
24
The location and design of utility lines (e.g., power transmission lines
and pipelines) similarly require careful consideration of Ridgelands'
resources. As is the case for communications facilities, access roads
are required alongside for periodic patrols and fences may also be
required in some instances. Moreover, substantial grading and removal
of vegetation may also be needed. Areas of unique beauty are subject
to significant loss of scenic value with the installation of lines and/or
towers. The electrical transmission lines crossing Briones Regional Park
in Contra Costa County, which were constructed over public objection,
provide an excellent example of the scenic impacts which can occur. At
the present time, local jurisdictions exert little control over the siting
of electrical transmission lines and pipelines (e.g., petroleum and
natural gas).
Recreation
The Ridgelands represent a valuable and significant recreational resource
for Bay Area residents. An issue involving recreation activities is their
potential incompatibility with some natural resources and private land
uses such as grazing.
Where recreation areas attract people to the vicinity of private grazing
land, trespassing problems can result. People may be confused about park
boundaries or may trespass on private lands whether posted or not. Broken
or cut fences may result, livestock may escape, off-road vehicles may be
used illegally and fires may be started. Recreation and grazing can be
compatible, however, if the recreation use is limited to low intensity
activities such as hiking, horseback riding, and picnicking. This
compatibility is evidenced by the fact that significant portions of the
public parklands administered by the East Bay Regional Park District are
leased for grazing purposes with no apparent conflict. Also, grazing
occurs on some of the lands opened by the East Bay Municipal Utility
District for public recreation.
The management of public lands may also conflict with the management of
private lands. As an example, private efforts to control ground squirrels
may be undermined by wildlife preservation policies on adjacent public
lands and vice versa. Also, predator control programs sponsored by the
State and,local governments can be inconsistent with a ground squirrel
program as well as a wildlife preservation policy. There is a clear need
to coordinate all of these activities and to develop programs which will
not cancel the respective efforts of the different interest groups involved.
The potential impacts on Ridgelands' resources from parks are, in general,
proportional to the number of people attracted and the type, scope, and
location of facilities. Trails which are located along park boundaries,
for example, may increase impacts on adjoining privately owned properties.
Trails planned by public park agencies to link major parks often must
traverse private property. Some landowners may be reluctant to allow
25 00,039
such trails to pass through their properties.
Whereas hiking, horseback riding, picnicking and other low-intensity uses
may be generally acceptable and compatible with other open space uses and
Ridgelands' resources, intensive recreational uses pose more substantial
problems. In particular, off-road vehicle (ORV) parks present numerous
problems due to the large land area required, traffic, noise, and environ-
mental disruption. Several thousand acres may be required for an ORV use
area to be successful. Varied terrain with hills and a variety of vegetation
are desired by ORV users. The use of ORV's in hilly terrain disturbs the
ground surface, destroys vegetative cover and leads to rutting of the
ground, soil compaction and increased erosion. Activity from ORV's
disturbs wildlife and noise impacts may extend beyond an ORV use area.
Access and increased traffic associated with use areas can also pose
problems.
There is no assurance that a designated ORV use area would eliminate
problems since it has not been clearly demonstrated that ORV areas can
be adequately managed to control adverse environmental impacts and to
keep impacts at an acceptable level. It has for example been suggested
that a park could be divided into several areas and ORV use rotated
between the defined areas, the idea being that this would provide time
for individual areas to recover and regenerate. Although this might
appear to provide adequate control, use of ORV's over time and over the same
trails can be expected to displace topsoil and lead to erosion and rutting
of hillsides, and silting of drainageways.
The environmental impacts of ORV use and costs associated with site
regeneration vary from one site to another, depending on factors such as
topography, vegetation, soil type, rainfall, etc. Generally, though,
ORV impacts are long-term and the regeneration costs are high.
Unquestionably, th?re is a demand for such facilities; yet, because of
the potential impacts associated with them, careful thought must be given
to locating ORV sites where these impacts can be minimized.
Grazing
Areas of grazing land which the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) considers
to be prime are found in the Ridgelands. Grazing land should therefore
be regarded as a resource to be protected and carefully managed.
Grazing land is subject to overgrazing. This occurs when grazing by
domestic animals becomes too intensive--too many animals for a given
carrying capacity of the land--or when over-population of wild animals
occurs. A deterioration of soil conditions and the quality of the range
forage can result. The carrying capacity of overgrazed land is itself
reduced through such occurrences as invasions of inferior plant species,
increased water runoff, and soil erosion. Sedimentation in reservoirs
may increase and water quality drop. Undergrazing can be a serious
26
00040
problem as well . Fire hazard will be greater in undergrazed grassland
areas and changes of plant species may occur.
Reasons for overgrazing and overutilization of grazing lands may include
high property taxes, high operating costs and unreliable rainfall such
as that which we are now experiencing. Overgrazing also results when
operators do not have long-term leases or interest in property,. Operators
may try to maximize their return on leased grazing property. Overgrazing
may also result in some instances from working with poor grazing land,
small acreages, and a lack of knowledge concerning grazing. Overgrazing
can also be a problem in rural residential areas where owners keep horses
or other livestock.
Grazing land can recover from the effects of overgrazing in many instances. ,
Recovery, however, may take several years or longer without additional
grazing, depending on rainfall, the amount of damage to soil, the extent
of undesirable plant species and other factors. It may be difficult for
operators to give grazing lands sufficient time to recover by ceasing
grazing activity and still continue to pay property taxes. While it is
recognized that there are points of conflict between grazing, wildlife
management and the current property tax structure, these conflicts are
most likely to be resolved through closer cooperation among landowners,
grazing tenants, those who operate and manage adjacent public lands and
the respective county officials who legislate property tax programs.
Development and the Ridgelands
Central to the foregoing discussion on land use issues is the extent and
type of development that can occur in the Ridgelands without significantly
harming the area's open space values and resources. Development can be
done in ways that recognize environmental constraints and reduce negative
resource impacts. Yet, any prospective development in the Ridgelands poses
several serious questions that need to be considered in light of overall
policy goals of open space preservation. These questions go beyond the
physical and economic constraints that any specific project faces to
include impacts on open space resources, incompatibility with other land
uses, economic costs to the locality, and wider environmental concerns
such as air and water quality, energy consumption, and shaping urban growth.
Taxes can play a significant role in private property owner decisions that
can affect land use and they have an important influence on the land market.
The relationship between taxes and open space preservation is an issue to
the extent that the various tax structures hinder or encourage open space
preservation. Some proponents of reforms in the tax system base their
arguments on the conviction that high taxes lead to land division and
27 00(141
sell-off, which in turn leads to more intensive use and development.
Two types of taxes serve to provide incentive for the development of
land. These are the annual property tax and the so-called "death taxes"--
the California State Inheritance Tax and the Federal Estate Tax. The
property tax affects virtually all privately held land, while the
inheritance and estate taxes have their greatest affects on individual
and family holdings.
Property Tax
The property tax, like the inheritance and estate taxes, plays a significant
role in the land market. It has been described as being out-dated,
inequitable, and poorly administered. At the same time it remains a
primary, if not the primary, source of district and local revenues. The
property tax is an annual tax on the value of real property ( i.e., land
and the improvements thereon). It affects not just individual and
family-held real property, but virtually all private holdings and some
quasi-public lands as well .
Historically, the property tax has been based on an assessment of the
property at its highest and best use in the foreseeable future. The
property tax represents one of the costs of open space land use.
Unfortunately market value assessments may exceed the value of property
in open space use for a number of reasons. Included are general plans
and zoning which permit use intensification above present levels;
intensification of use on surrounding properties; speculative demand
for property; availability of sewer and water service, access, and a
host of other factors. The property tax has thus provided a very real
incentive for property owners to intensify the use of their holdings in
order to achieve a higher income that could better support tax costs.
As uses have intensified on some property, the market value--and in turn
taxes--on surrounding properties have risen anew, perpetuating the cycle.
Taxes based on the speculative market value of land at its highest and
best potential use can have an exceptionally strong impact. Such taxation
ignores the present income generated on property and the ability of the
owners to pay. In some Ridgelands cases, income derived from property is
lower than the taxes based on a market value tax assessment.
Although the profitability of some open space uses such as grazing varies
considerably from year to year depending on weather conditions, feed costs,
the market for livestock, etc., property taxes do not vary accordingly.
Thus, a rancher may be able to earn a profit in most years, some years,
or rarely, depending on the size and suitability for grazing on property
holdings and arrangements to lease other properties for grazing use, the
market for cattle and costs of operation.
Historically, both high and low income agricultural and open space lands
28 we
have been subject to the pressures of taxes based on speculative value
on the urban rural fringes of metropolitan areas. The workings of the
property tax system created an economic force--though, of course, not
the only one--for unplanned, premature and unnecessary urban expansion.
Much agricultural and open space land has been needlessly lost because
high taxes forced landowners to sell their lands to speculators and
developers or to become such themselves. One answer to the tax dilemma
is to establish a tax structure which is equitable, which exerts the
proper pressure for utilization of property and which meets the costs of
necessary services. The Williamson Act and open space easements, which
are discussed in Chapter IV, represent attempts to deal with property
tax problems.
State Inheritance Tax/Federal Estate Tax
The State Inheritance Tax (SIT) and the Federal Estate Tax (FET) are
commonly confused with each other--many people simply refer to "inheritance
tax" when meaning both taxes. But the two taxes do differ. The FET is
a transfer tax imposed on the value of a decedent's entire estate minus
certain deductions. The SIT is a tax based on the value of each transferred
share of a decedent's estate and the relationship of each beneficiary to
the decedent. Both tax systems use graduated tax rate schedules, but the
SIT system has differing rate schedules and differing standard deductions
for different classes of beneficiaries. The closer the relationship
between the decedent and the beneficiary the lower the tax on that
beneficiary's portion of the estate. Some credit against the Federal
Estate Tax bill is allowed for paid State Inheritance Taxes.
During this study, two specific problem areas came up in regard to the
FET and SIT. The first involves the adequacy of standard deductions. A
main purpose behind standard deductions is to guarantee that some minimum
amount of an estate is left free and clear to a decedent's heirs. Prior
to the 1976 Federal Tax Reform the minimum for the FET was the $60,000
standard deduction, set in 1942. The standard deduction under the SIT
system depends on the relationship between the decedent and the beneficiary.
The decedent's spouse is entitled to a $60,000 deduction, minor children
to a $12,000 deduction, other children $5000, and so forth down to $300
for unrelated persons. According to many landowners, given the value today
of even very moderately sized ranches, these deductions do little to guard
family-run agricultural operations from massive one-time tax bills. Such
family operations often do not have sufficient assets other than the land
and improvements thereon to cover these taxes.
The second difficulty involves valuation of agricultural and open space
land for estate and inheritance tax purposes. On land which is not
enforceably restricted (Williamson Act contract), both the State and
Federal governments had assessed land based on its fair market value,
i.e., its potentially hiqhest and best use. This meant that land with
any development potential for the future was faxed beyond its income
29 00043
producing value as agricultural or open space land. In areas adjacent
or convenient to existing urban development, this sometimes caused the
enormous lump sum tax bills most likely to force estate holders into
selling land. It was in these same areas that development speculators
were most desirous of purchasing land. Of course, the decedent had the
option to enforceably restrict his land and in doing so, he may well
have been following a pro-development course of action already.
According to State law, the executor of an estate can have the State
Inheritance Tax appraiser (now called a "referee") assess land which is
enforceably restricted by the same use-value method used for property
tax purposes. Or, if there are at least five sales of comparable land
(i.e., similar land, similarly restricted, with the sales being near in
time and place), then the referee would make his assessment using these
comparables. (This study has found that not all Williamson Act contract
holders and not all inheritance tax referees are familiar with this
provision.)
In most cases, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in arriving at the
value of an estate for estate tax purposes, had simply used the State
referee's assessments in their own computations. However, the IRS could
not use an assessment done as above for enforceably restricted land,
since, by law, they were required to determine the fair market value of
all property. Under the 1976 Tax Reform, the IRS will assess property
at its current use value.
The inheritance and estate tax situation created some side-effects in the
Ridaelands which directly bear on open space preservation. For example,
the threat of eventual large estate and inheritance taxes works to keep
landowners who plan ahead from placing their land under the Williamson
Act. Since the great bulk of the FET was arrived at without consideration
of the Williamson Act restrictions, an estate that would have been forced
to sell off land would have been better off selling unrestricted land
because of the higher price it would have brought.
It was partly an awareness of the eventual need to sell off land in order
to pay estate and inheritance taxes that led Ridgelands landowners to
persuade Santa Clara County to create a 20-acre minimum parcel size in
its 20- to 160-acre slope-density zoning in its remote Ridgelands.
Originally, the zoning was to have been a straight 160-acre minimum parcel
size, but, it was argued, an estate would have to sell at least 160 acres
of land, more than would have been necessary in most cases, to pay the
taxes. if the 1976 Federal Tax Reform had occurred earlier, a more
protective straight 160-acre minimum lot size might have been acceptable
to the landowners.
The Estate and Gift Tax provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 directly
affected the impact of the FET on open space preservation in the following
instances. One provision drops the standard deduction and replaces it
with an effectively larger tax credit which will rise to $47,000 by 1981 .
This credit is equivalent to an exemption for the first $175,000 of a
30 00044
taxable estate. A second provision raises the marital deduction to a
minimum of $250,000. The third and most interesting estate tax
provision establishes a system to value farms and closely held business
property at "current use" value if the property is kept in the family
and remains in a qualified use.
Additional estate taxes become due if these conditions change within 15
years after the decedent's death. Also, the decrease in value from the
market value of the property to its current use value cannot exceed
$500,000. Since the FET has the largest potential tax effect, the
provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 will likely meet many of the
concerns for Ridgelands open space preservation.
31 /
a�
The previous chapter identifies and discusses problem areas and major
issues currently impacting the open space resource values of the
Ridgelands. In this chapter, issues are discussed in terms of the
planning tools, policies and implementation techniques which are
available to and which are now being used by the three counties and the
park district to preserve and protect these values. Throughout the
study, it was recognized that much has already been done by the above
jurisdictions to maintain the open space character of the Ridgelands.
Despite these efforts, it was judged that further action is necessary
if the Ridgelands are to be adequately protected. The recommendations
are aimed at encouraging more effective use of available tools and
techniques rather than introducing exotic and largely untried ones. The
goal is to have recommendations which can be readily implemented.
Land use plans and planning studies can help protect open space by
identifying areas and resources which should be protected and by setting
policy direction toward providing that protection. An adopted local plan
embodies the official policy of that agency based on goals for social,
economic and environmental concerns. It is not an implementation
technique, but a guideline for local actions that carry out the policies
contained within it. Implementation of those policies depends on the
extent jurisdictions use these plans in the decision-making process.
All cities and counties in California are required by State law to adopt
general plans, including elements dealing with such specific concerns as
land use, circulation, housing, open space, conservation, etc. Until
recently, however, general plans were often ignored or were amended so
easily and frequently as to make them meaningless. Within the last
several years, the State legislature has adopted new laws which were
intended to make general plans more meaningful. In particular, one
law requires that a city or county's zoning must conform with the city
or county's adopted open space plan. It further provides that citizens
may bring lawsuits to prevent development where zoning is not consistent
with the open space plan.
As part of the change in general plan requirements, the State legislature
has been increasing the number of mandatory elements which must be included
in these plans. Several of these general plan elements are either directly
or indirectly related to the protection of environmental resources and the
preservation of open space. These include the open space element, the
conservation element, the scenic highways element, the seismic safety
element and the safety element (which may serve to identify hazardous areas
that would be unsafe and costly to develop).
35 O (1A
While these new elements have caused some local governments to consider
open space issues they might otherwise have ignored, the proliferation
of new general plan elements within a relatively short period of time
has made it difficult for some jurisdictions to keep all of their general
plan elements up to date. As a consequence, it is not uncommon to find
general plans with inconsistent or even contradictory policies or
proposals. Elements of some general plans, for example, may still show
proposals for major urban facilities or infrastructure to be extended
into areas shown elsewhere in the general plan as "open space" areas.
The term may not be defined in some general plans and its definition may
vary among others. i 4
Additionally, some portions of general plans are superficial due to
inadequate data. The amount of data concerning the environmental resources
of the Ridgelands varies considerably from county to county. In order for
these resources to be adequately protected, it is necessary that more
detailed information be obtained possibly in conjunction with the preparation
of the mandatory elements of the general plan, such as the conservation
element. An open space designation on a general plan is not enough to
ensure preservation of resources; the plan must be backed by implementation
strategies directed at preservation and by decisions that are consistent
with the policies.
Certain specific problems affecting the open space resources of the area
are also in need of further planning studies to prevent or minimize
environmental damage. One such study would address the siting of power
transmission lines and radio transmitting facilities which can have
significant adverse impacts on the natural scenic beauty of the Ridgelands.
Another concerns the impacts of overgrazing which can became especially
severe during dry years.
The remaining sections of this chapter deal with other implementation
strategies to carry out the general plan open space policies of local
agencies. To the extent that a regional or State agency depends on local
agencies to implement policies directed toward preserving resources, the
following strategies must also be recognized as a means toward achieving
regional and State preservation objectives for Ridgelands' resources.
Alameda County
A policy of the Alameda County General Plan is confinement of urbanization
to existing centers and areas immediately adjacent; new development shall
occur as an orderly expansion of existing urban areas until reaching limits
designated on the plan. Sufficient land is in the plan to accommodate
residential , commercial and industrial needs through 1990; beyond these
limits (which includes most of the Alameda County Ridgelands Study Area)
land is preserved for open space uses, such as agriculture, park and
recreation, watershed, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources.
00048
36
Over 90 percent of the Alameda County Ridgelands are designated for
agriculture, major park or other open space use. Part of the Vallecitos
Valley and the adjoining foothills south of Pleasanton, hill lands
centered around Walpert Ridge near Hayward and Union City, Sunol and
the bases of nearby ridges, and the hill lands above Castro Valley are
notable exceptions to agriculture, park and open space designations.
Urban development is being proposed or is already occurring in some of
these areas.
Major amendments in recent years to Alameda County's General Plan have
increased the amount of land in the Ridgelands designated as open space.
The first of these was the Pleasanton-Dublin Hill Area Amendment. This
amendment changed the designation of Pleasanton and Sunol Ridges from
residential to agriculture or major parks. Limited residential designation
was retained at the foot of the ridges and in Kilkare Canyon. The second
major amendment to the general plan affecting land in the study area was
the Castro Valley Plan Amendment. This amendment set limits to urbanization
around Castro Valley. Outlying areas were changed from suburban residential
to uncultivated agriculture. Residential designations were retained in
the Upper Center Street area, Greenridge area, Jensen Road-Sunnyslope area,
and Palomares Canyon. Alameda County is currently considering a comprehen-
sive plan revision in the Livermore-Amador Valley which may affect ridge-
lands around Pleasanton.
The Open Space Element, of the Alameda County General Plan, adopted in 1973,
shows most of the study area as open space, and urban fringe land as
potentially developable. Four primary open space categories are designated
in the element; agricultural land, both cultivated and uncultivated,
preserve land including watersheds and wildlife refuges and residential-
canyon open space and connecting open space corridors. Policies of the
Open Space Element supplement and supersede those of the general plan
relating to open space. Other elements of the plan which establish policy
applicable to the Ridgelands include the Scenic Route Element, the
Conservation Element, the Seismic Safety Element and the Safety Element.
Parts of the study area in Alameda County fall within the city limits of
Fremont, Union City, Hayward and Pleasanton. For each of these areas,
city general plan designations apply. Recent study of the hill areas has
increased awareness of environmental constraints. Although older plans
allowed low density residential development for the area, cities are
presently undecided about future development plans. Prospective urban
development in the Ridgelands planned by the cities poses serious questions
that go beyond physical and economic constraints that any specific project
faces. Planned urbanization includes impacts on open space resources,
incompatibility with agriculture, economic costs to the locality, energy
consumption and the shaping of urban growth.
Fremont has designated its hill areas as open space and recreation lands.
The open space category, however, also includes lands for future development.
Approximately 3000-5000 dwelling units are projected for the hills.
These units would be accommodated on large lots or clustered in planned
37 011049
developments to avoid environmentally sensitive areas.
Union City has shown its hill lands as agricultural on its combined general
plan and zoning maps, but has no definite plans for the area. Of the
5000 acres of hill area within the City's boundaries, most of which fall
within the Ridgelands Study Area, the general plan specifies that 3000
acres are potentially developable. The plan sets a maximum density of
two units per acre for a total of 6000 dwelling units.
Hayward has no official policy on the future of its hill areas in the
Ridgelands Study Area. Policy actions based on the City's hill area study
of 1971 have yet to be developed and the City is holding off on general
plan or open space revisions. Unofficial City policy can be described as
favorinq suburban development on Walpert Ridge and reserving that section
of the City's hill area east of Walpert Ridge as open space. Most of
Pleasanton included in the study area has been designated as open space
and parkland. Some pockets of low density suburban development are planned.
Contra Costa County
The Contra Costa County General Plan designates essentially all of the
Ridgelands as open space. The County Open Space-Conservation Plan,
adopted in 1973, divides the County into open space and urban areas.
The plan substantially increased the amount of planned open space use in
the Ridgelands existing at the time of adoption. Other elements of the
general plan which are pertinent to the study area include the Recreation
Element and the Interim Trails plans, the Scenic Routes Element, the
Safety Element and the Seismic Safety Element.
The Recreation Element, which was adopted in 1970, identifies major parks
in the study area. The Interim Trails plans, adopted in 1972, propose a
comprehensive trails system for the study area. Nearly all of the paved
public roads within the study area are proposed as scenic routes by the
Scenic Routes Element ( 1974). The Interim Bicycle Paths plan designates
a number of roads in the study area as primary and secondary bicycle paths.
The Safety and the Seismic Safety Elements•( 1975) discuss many topics of
concern in the study area including earthquake faults, unstable slopes and
landslides and fire hazards.
Areas not designated by the general plan for open space land use are found
in several locations at the edge of the study area. Dear the City of
Martinez, low density single-family residential use is designated for the
lower portions of Franklin Canyon and the Alhambra Valley, where such
development already exists.
In the vicinity of the San Ramon Valley, under the existing plans, low,
medium and high density residential and commercial land uses are proposed
along Dougherty Road north from the boundary between Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties. Low density residential use is also designated near
38 00050
Mount Diablo State Park, where the proposed Blackhawk Ranch and Devil
Mountain development projects are located.
The General Plan for the San Ramon Valley area is currently under review.
The proposed new plan, which has been approved by the County Planning
Commission reduces the extent of planned residential land use in the study
area. Most planned residential land use along Dougherty Road was changed
to open space use due to existing agricultural preserves in the area. In
the vicinity of Mount Diablo State Park, planned residential use is
reduced to that contained in approved development projects to reflect
lands to be dedicated to the State Park. Residential land use areas lie
outside of the Ridgelands Study Area on the proposed plan.
Several cities have general plans proposing development which extend into
the Ridgelands. Included are the Cities of Pittsburg, Concord, Hercules
and Clayton. In the case of Pittsburg, the City has expanded to the south
and residential development is proposed well up the overlooking hillsides.
Land under Williamson Act contracts have also been affected. The City of
Concord has plans for additional development at the fringe of the study
area which will utilize part of an agricultural preserve, as well as
property currently owned by the State. The City of Hercules recently
requested and was granted a -sphere of influence change which allows
expansion into the study area. For Clayton, large scale development is
planned north and west of the central area.
Santa Clara County
Santa Clara County's Urban Development/Open Space Plan designates all of
the Diablo Range as either "long term open space" or "permanent open
space." The "permanent open space" designation is applied to all existing
publicly owned open space lands, as well as those lands shown as areas
for possible future public acquisition. Very low density rural residential
uses may be appropriate. The "long term open space" designation is applied
to all other lands outside city urban service area boundaries. This
second type of open space is defined in the plan as lands which may be
suitable for urbanization but which will not be needed for development in
the near future, lands that in the future may become permanent open space
and lands important for a variety of resource values. Low to very low
density rural residential uses may be allowed.
In practice, the privately owned lands designated as "permanent open spaco"
.ere zoned nt, differently than those designated "long term open space." Nor,
in most case:, are there currently specific plans to buy the privately owned
lands designated as "permanent open space." Consequently, the term "permanent
open space" is somewhat misleading although the lands to which it is currently
applied should continue to be shown as "open space" of one type or another.
In Santa Clara County three cities, Milpitas, San Jose and Morgan Hill, have
general plans that include portions of the Ridgelands. These cities also
1()51
39
have urban service areas or city boundaries that extend into the
Ridgelands. The Milpitas General Plan designates portions of the
Ridgelands for residential purposes; depending on geological conditions,
parcel size ranges from one-third acre to 20 acres. Morgan Hill has
minimum parcel sizes as low as one half acre; San Jose has a 20-acre
minimum.
Alameda, Contra Costa and Santa Clara Counties, plus affected cities:
I. Continue to designate the Ridgelands area as open space
in adopted general plans.
2. Review adequacy and update, where appropriate, those
genera! plan elements related to the identification,
protection and preservation of the open space resources
of the Ridgelands; specifically, the open space.-
conservation,
pace,conservation, recreation, scenic highways, seismic
safety and safety elements.
3. Conduct studies and aoopt policies regarding the impacts
of power transmission lines and communication facilities,
(radio transmitters and antennas) and pipelines on the
scenic resources of the Ridgelands. Identify suitable
corridors and sites for the above facilities so as to
minimize the impact on resource values.
4. Conduct studies to determine the severity of problems
caused by overgrazing. Consider the adoption of policies
which will prevent future problems associated with
overgrazing.
Alameda County:
I. Designate the Vallecitos Valley and the surrounding hills
for agricultural or other open space uses as part of the
Livermore-Amador Plan Amendment consideration.
2. Walpert Ridge and other nearby ridges should be placed in
agricultural or open space designation In Union City and
Hayward.
Contra Costa County:
I. Review the Circulation Element of the County General Plan
to reconsider planned routes through the Ridgelands.
40 00052
Santa Clara County:
I. In the County General Plan, change the term "permanent open
space," being applied to privately owned lands in the Ridge-
lands, to one which more accurately conveys the level and
duration of the open space protection.
Urban development policy can play a major role in preserving open space
within the Ridgelands by controlling the timing and location of future
urban development. Simply stated, urban development policy involves
directing urban development over a particular period of time to those
areas where it is appropriate and can be provided efficiently with
necessary urban services and facilities. Urban development policy is
not the same as a "no growth" policy. Urban development policy recognizes
that as population increases (as it will, even with lower birth rates),
there will be a need to provide additional housing and places of
employment. It also recognizes the fact, however, that allowing
scattered, leap-frog urban development in order to accommodate these
growth needs is unnecessarily costly to the taxpayers who must pay for
the services and facilities required. Thus urban development-policy
can help prevent the unnecessary destruction of open space resources
while helping to hold down the costs of government.
The complex problems related to establishing an urban development policy
center around the fact that responsibility for important decisions
regarding the timing and location of future urban development within
most counties is fragmented among a number of different governmental
jurisdictions, including Local Agency Formation Commissions, cities,
counties, and various special purpose districts which provide urban
services and facilities. Also regional, State and Federal agencies
play a role in the decision-making process.
Local Agency Formation Commissions were created by State law to discourage
urban sprawl and encourage the orderly formation and development of local
government agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances. Among
their formal powers is the power to review proposed annexations,
incorporations, district formations, detachment and the power to delineate
spheres of influence.
A sphere of influence boundary delineates the probable ultimate physical
boundaries and service area of local agencies. It must be recognized that
Local Agency Formation Commissions do not engage in land use planning. It
does however provide a mechanism for time-phasing of development. Land
use decisions still rest with cities and counties. Existing general plans
may have substantial effects on the LAFCO sphere of influence boundaries.
County general plans are particularly important in this regard since
large areas of open space are under county jurisdiction.
41
O0053
Sphere of influence boundaries are subject to amendment and are required.
by law to be reviewed periodically. Cities can and do request expansion
in sphere of influence boundaries to extend and provide services to upland
areas. Local Agency Formation Commissions response to sphere of influence
proposals may determine their ultimate success in promoting rational
development and preventing urban sprawl.
Counties which have jurisdiction in the Ridgelands may undermine the
objectives of Local Agency Formation Commissions in sphere determination.
Development standards that counties impose will determine the character
of the open space which may be preserved. In the absence of sufficient
restrictive regulations on minimum lot size, the total number of
residential structures in the Ridgelands could be substantially increased
despite individual LAFCO efforts.
Activities of special districts may also serve to undermine Local Agency
Formation Commissions urban development policies. For example, special
districts may extend sewer and water lines to district boundaries,
thereby providing impetus for future boundary changes. The implementation
of coherent development policies therefore require Local Agency Formation
Commissions, cities, counties and special purpose districts to work
together.
Although Local Agency Formation Commissions may establish a sphere of
influence for a particular district that does not include all territory
in the district, indicating that the district should be reduced, it can
be clearly seen that preservation of the Ridgelands depends upon the
urban development policies of the numerous agencies which have juris-
diction in and adjacent to the area. County and city policies stress
efficient, compact growth next to existing development in conjunction
with policies of specific resources and have the effect of keeping the
area largely undeveloped. Without question, cooperation among the
agencies that have jurisdiction is necessary. Only in this way can
concerns for a large area that crosses many jurisdictional boundaries
be addressed and resolved in a coordinated fashion.
Alameda County
In Alameda County, cities provide many services, but other essential
needs including water and sewer service are commonly provided by special
districts which serve both incorporated and unincorporated areas. If
the assumption is made that urban development is dependent upon formalized
water and sewer service, areas lying outside sewer and water district
sphere of influence boundaries can be considered rural.
LAFCO in Alameda County is in the process of establishing spheres of
influence for cities. The adopted sphere for the City of Pleasanton and
the Dublin area serve to reinforce the county general plan policy allowing
only limited development in the hill area. For the City of Hayward aqd
42 01 ,4
the Castro Valley area, only preliminary spheres have been considered.
Determination of precise boundaries is pending incorporation studies in
San Lorenzo and Castro Valley. The preliminary sphere does not include
the extension of the Hayward city limits up to Pleasanton Ridge, but
portions of Walpert Ridge are included. Consequently, except for Walpert
Ridge, the proposed spheres are outside of the Ridge(ands.
In Alameda County, the sphere of influence does not necessarily indicate
ultimate boundaries of urbanization for a city or district. Instead the
sphere attempts to describe areas with common problems, requiring common
solutions. The Alameda County "Policies, Guidelines, Criteria and
Procedures" for sphere of influence specify goals which these spheres
are intended to achieve. They include insuring orderly development in
areas adjacent to a city, community or district; planning between cities,
county, and districts, and coordinating standards for development.
Recent action by LAFCO to reduce the sphere of the Livermore Area Recreation
and Park District to coincide with Livermore's sphere indicates LAFCO would
give favorable consideration to requests for detachment by owners of land in
the Ridgelands and outside the sphere. Detachment from the District may
alleviate some of the tax burdens confronting agricultural land in the area.
Many agencies, utilities and special districts provide utilities and
public facilities to portions of the Ridgelands. All of these service
agencies perceive their role to be responsive to public demands, and
to act in accordance with existing general plans and zoning on approved
project proposals. They consider their function to be limited to
provision of services, and not to include determination of land uses,
eventual holding capacities or any other function of planning. Under
such policy (or absence of policy) agencies have taken action which
have induced growth, particularly with respect to water, sewage and
road extensions. A current example was the emergency extension of a
water main into the Ridgelands by the East Bay Municipal Utility District.
The extension occurred during the fire crisis caused by the cutting of
eucalyptus trees killed or damaged by frost. Now there are development
proposals being made for this area.
Contra Costa County
In Contra Costa County, the urban sphere of influence adopted by LAFCO is
defined by sewer and water district spheres of influence in most areas
(incorporated as well as unincorporated) and by municipal spheres of
influence where cities provide water and sewer service. The urban sphere
of influence is considered to be an ultimate boundary which represents
the area in which development requiring urban services is to be contained.
It appears that the urban sphere of influence boundary will not be
significantly changed in the future. However, several potential problem
areas merit discussion as to why significant boundary changes are not
anticipated.
43 Oili;55
First is the Morgan Territory Road-Marsh Creek Road area, where water
service was extended in the late 1960's with the formation of an
improvement district. The LAFCO sphere of influence for rural level of
service calls for modest reductions in water district boundaries at
the time of adoption to reflect lands not currently receiving water
service. The capacity to serve additional development is limited by
the eight inch water main, and a service elevation range of between 760
feet and 880 feet above sea level. The extension of water service was
costly and the bonded indebtedness of the improvement district remains
high due to the limited tax base of the area.
Another problem area is along State Highway 4 and Rodeo Creek in the western
portion or Contra Costa County's Ridgelands where water service is also
available. The flat valley bottom land is the site of several industrial
and light industrial uses and a golf course, but is otherwise undeveloped.
Sewer service is not available,' but railroad service is. Development
pressure can be expected here in the future. The impact on the Ridgelands
will not be great if development can be confined to the area presently
within the identified sphere of influence. The presence of agricultural
preserves nearby and adjacent to the sphere of influence should aid in
maintaining present water service boundaries. The recent expansion of
the sphere of influence for the Cities of Hercules and Pinole by
approximately 700 acres to include undeveloped land along Refugio Creek,
indicates that pressures do exist for development within the Ridgelands
area.
In the Walnut Creek-Concord-Clayton area, water district boundaries and
urban sphere of influence boundaries extend into the Ridgelands. However,
recent public property acquisitions for park and open space purposes by
the Cities of Walnut Creek and Concord, County Service Area R-8, and the
East Say Regional Park District along Lime Ridge and Shell Ridge will
eliminate development potential here. Moreover, acquisitions by the
State expanding Mount Diablo State Park eliminate development potential
near Clayton and along Morgan -Territory Road. Public purchase of park
and open space thus serves to reinforce urban sphere of influence
boundaries in the Walnut Creek-Concord-Clayton area on Lime and Shell
Ridges and near Mount Diablo State Park. The same situation also exists
at other locations in the Ridgelands of Contra Costa County such as in
the vicinity of Briones Regional Park. Properties under the Williamson
Act also serve to reinforce urban sphere of influence boundaries in the
County. It is therefore expected that any change in sphere boundaries
in these areas would likely be a reduction rather than an expansion to
reflect public purchase and enforceable restrictions.
In Contra Costa County other issues still remain unresolved. A number of
districts which provide services of an urban nature are located in the
Ridgelands. Included are hospital districts, Bay Area Rapid Transit District
(BART) and local park and recreation districts. Spheres of influence
for these districts should be confined, if possible, to areas within
1he urban sphere of influence in order to keep rural tax rates at a
reasonable level.
00056
44
Santa Clara County
The method by which Local Agency Formation Commissions perform their
designated functions differs significantly between the three counties
of the Ridgelands. In Santa Clara County, cities alone accommodate and
provide for urban development. Urban development is not allowed in
unincorporated areas (urban development is defined by the County as
development having a density greater than one dwelling unit per two
and one half acres). Each of the 15 cities in Santa Clara County adopt
and submit for LAFCO approval and adoption urban service area boundaries
(i.e., spheres of influence), delineating the area within which urban
development is currently considered appropriate and which can be provided
with urban services and facilities. These boundaries may include
existing development together with enough vacant land to accommodate
the city's anticipated growth needs for the next five years. As vacant
land within the urban service areas is developed, the urban service area
boundary can be modified to include additional land. In this way leap-
frogging sprawl is prevented and urban services can be planned for and
provided in an orderly fashion.
Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara Counties, Local Agency Formation
Commissions and affected cities and appropriate special districts:
I. Confine urban development within and adjacent to existing
urban areas and outside of the Ridgelands.
2. There should be consistent, strict application of open space
plan policies in the Ridgelands. Rezonings, variances and
other exceptions that allow small lots, residential uses or
other incompatible activities should be discouraged.
3. Each county and its cities should work closely with Local
Agency Formation Commissions and special districts-%to assure
that open space land use policies for the Ridgelands are
implemented uniformly in the actions taken by each.
4. Sphere of influence or urban service area boundaries, as
adopted by Local Agency Formation Commissions, should not
be extended further into the Ridgelands.
5. Areas outside adopted sphere of 'influence or urban service
area boundaries should be detached from cities and districts
providing the urban services, particularly sewer and domestic
water.
6. City annexations should not be approved by LAFCO outside of
sphere of influence or urban service areas.
45
Ow i
7. Jurisdictions responsible for providing urban services and
facilities should use sphere of influence or urban service
area boundaries as a basis for planning and constructing
these urban facilities.
8. Utilities, special districts and public agencies should
recognize the growth-inducing impacts of their actions and
actions which stimulate urban growth in the Ridgelands
should be given careful consideration.
Zoning
As a tool for preserving open space, zoning Is very important since it
establishes both the type and intensity of development which will be
allowed. Zoning can also provide for special review procedures or other
requirements applicable to development proposals in particular areas.
In the past, zoning often has been a weak tool for preserving open space
due to the frequency with which changes have been made and the political
nature of such changes. While the relative impermanence of zoning is
still a fact of life, recent changes in State law are intended to make
it less subject to arbitrary amendment. Specifically, cities and
counties are now required to have their zoning conform to the open space
element of their general plans. Thus, if an area is shown as open space
on the general plan, the zoning for that area must be compatible.
%oning ordinances sometimes allow for additional uses within a particular
zoning district if a use permit is obtained. Use permits are a
convenient device for reviewing proposed uses which need to be considered
on an individual basis to determine whether they will be compatible with
adjacent land uses. They can, however, become loopholes for allowing
uses not actually consistent with the intent of the zoning district.
Consequently, use permit procedures and the types of uses actually
allowed through use permits should be reviewed periodically. Zoning
then acts as a means for a local agency to shape the character of the
jurisdiction, both in the developed and undeveloped portions. Zoning
can influence the location, amount and type of development. Many factors
determine the zoning districts that are used and the extent to which
they influence development; in turn, choices that the regulating agency
makes determine the effectiveness of zoning in preserving resources.
flue io tho reinge of ways that it may be used, zoning can be very effective
in preserving natural resources while the land remains under private
ownership. In areas where the scenic value is exceptional, regulation
OM58
46
may assure that development occurs in a way that does not alter the
esthetic quality; this might mean a combination of low-density and design
control. Land that could be used for resource production, such as
agriculture, may be preserved by zoning that is sensitive to these
values. However, zoning cannot ensure that agriculture will continue
even if the land is not developed; this would be dependent on other
factors.
Alameda County
In the unincorporated areas of Alameda County, over 95 percent of the
Ridgelands are zoned Agriculture (A) with a minimum lot area of 100 acres.
Another four percent is zoned for rural residential uses with varying lot
sizes, usually five acres or larger. These are areas of existing
development and additional land division is prohibited.
In 1972, Alameda County significantly downzoned agricultural land by
changing minimum lot size in the A District from five acres to 100 acres.
Existing parcels under 100 acres, which were recorded legal building
sites under separate ownership, remained legal building sites after the
action. Subdivision into parcels smaller than 100 acres stopped. Under
the action, the A District became an exclusive agricultural district
implementing general plan proposals and recognizing productivity of land.
The revised A District stopped speculative division of land and scattered
residential development.
Definition and interpretation of "outdoor recreation facility," allowed
as a conditional use in the A District of Alameda County, may be
inconsistent with intent of the District and goals of this study. Uses
such as tennis centers, equestrian centers, health spas, nudist colonies
and off-road vehicle parks, with various "accessory" uses such as
restaurants and residences, may cause problems of intensity and overuse.
Intensive recreational development may foster non-recreational development
through the attraction of people and their need for urban services. Uses also
may result in resource damage and serious agricultural conflicts. Certain
forms of recreational activity need to be confined to limited areas where
resource damage can be minimized and controlled.
Alameda County policy recognizes the need to avoid unplanned proliferation
of residential uses in outlying areas while acknowledging demand for
semi-rural living. Rural residential zoning is limited to areas shown
on the County general pian for "Suburban Residential," and areas with
existing access and adequate water and sewage disposal facilities.
Detailed environmental and public service analyses based on ultimate
development potential accompany any consideration of rural residential
zoning.
Cities in Alameda County generally have less restrictive zoning districts
with smaller minimum lot sizes. Fremont has special provisions regulating
47 0 )959
open space lands in its Open Space (0-S) Zoning District; all land
designated open space by the City's open space pian is placed in the
O-S District. Within areas designated prime agricultural land, minimum
lot size is 20 acres; within other areas 10 acres. If slopes are less
than 30 percent and residential development is not restricted by soils,
geologic, groundwater or landslide conditions, residential uses
including multiple dwellings at densities up to one unit per acre are
allowed. Areas not to be developed are subject to an open space
easement, scenic restriction or other device guaranteeing that the area
remain undeveloped. All substantial uses in the Fremont 0-S District
are subject to site plan and architectural approval. Density transfer
is permitted with a conditional use permit. In Union City agricultural
zoning allows a residence on minimum lot area of five acres; residential
lots as small as 6000 square feet are permitted with a planned unit
development (PUD) permit. Agricultural zoning in Hayward allows a
residence on one acre lots. Zoning which requires minimum road frontage
significantly constrains development because of the absence of roads in
Hayward's Ridgelands area.
Contra Costa County
In Contra Costa County, approximately 93 percent of the Ridgelands are
zoned for agricultural use under the General Agriculture (A-2) District
and Agricultural Preserve (A-4) District. Approximately three percent
of the Ridgelands is zoned Forestry-Recreation (F-R). Another three
percent is zoned Planned Unit District (P-1) and other residential zoning
districts. The remaining one percent of the Ridgelands is comprised of
a variety of zoning districts.
The A-2 District is predominant in Contra Costa County's Ridgelands
(55 percent). The district is applied to EBMUD's watershed lands and
to many public park lands in addition to private lands. However, it is
not strictly an open space zoning district, since it is also used as a
holding zone in areas designated on the County general plan to convert
to urban uses. The A-2 District specifies a minimum lot size of five
acres. Uses of an urban nature such as churches, hospitals, medical and
dental offices and medical clinics, are permitted through the land use
permit procedure. The five-acre minimum lot size of the A-2 District is
small for open space zoning purposes. Moreover, the five-acre standard
has not always been strictly enforced in past property division approvals
due to the granting of lot size variances. Although the entire Ridge-
lands cannot be subdivided into five-acre lots due to limited access,
limited water supply and other restrictions, the A-2 District does permit
continued subdivision in certain areas.
Because of the small minimum lot size, the A-2 District does not appear
to provide adequate long-term protection for open space in the Ridgelands.
The residential development in the vicinity of Morgan Territory Road near
Mount Diablo State Park provides an example of the type of development
48 00060
which can occur under the A-2 District. Much of the development is a
result of the minor subdivision process and some properties have been
divided more than once. It is interesting to note from the map which
displays the location of agricultural preserves in the Ridgelands (see
Lands under Williamson Act Contracts Map) that many properties fronting
major paved roads are not under Williamson Act contracts. This may
represent an intent on the part of landowners with property zoned A-2
District to keep the option of future subdivision open.
In Contra Costa County increasing the minimum lot size for the A-2 District
in the Ridgelands to 100 acres, for example, would not only reduce sub-
division activity but could also promote additional Williamson Act
contracts. Property speculation as currently found in the Ridgelands
would be substantially reduced. Individual expectations of the future
of development in the Ridgelands would be altered and a firm public
commitment to the preservation of open space would be made.
Contra Costa County's A-4 District specifies a minimum lot size of 100
acres and is applied to all properties under Williamson Act contracts.
Approximately 40 percent of the County is affected by this zoning. The
range of permitted uses is much narrower than the A-2 District and Is
essentially limited to commercial agricultural activities. Use of this
district in the Ridgelands continues to increase each year as additional
properties are placed under Williamson Act contracts.
A district which is of limited usefulness in Contra Costa County is the
F-R District. This district specifies a minimum lot size of one-half
acre. Allowable activities include all uses permitted with or without
land use permits in single-family residential districts, plus summer
homes, hotels and golf courses. Use of this district in the Ridgelands
is essentially limited to lands owned by the East Bay Regional Park
District and the State of California (Mount Diablo State Park).
Although the A-2 and F-R Districts are defined as consistent with the
general plan's open space land use designation of the Ridgelands, not
all Ridgelands zoning is consistent. One example of nonconforming
zoning is the Heavy Industrial District found at two locations in the
Ridgelands of Contra Costa County. Heavy industrial zoning is not
included among the districts listed as compatible with the open space
land use by Contra Costa County's Open Space Conservation Plan. The
County has a program to bring zoning into conformity with the general
plan and inconsistencies will be eliminated soon.
Small portions of the Ridgelands within Contra Costa County fall within
a variety of residential districts with minimum lot sizes ranging from
6000 to 65,000 square feet. In areas of rural residential development
the 100-acre minimum lot size suggested earlier may be unrealistic and
difficult to justify. Although it is possible that a limited amount of
additional residential development could be tolerated without substantial
adverse impact, comprehensive study would be required to determine whether
this is the case and to document the impacts which would be expected.
49
00061 '
Santa Clara County
Santa Clara Countyts zoning in the Ridgelands is almost entirely either
Exclusive Agriculture (A) or Residential and Agricultural (A-1). In
general, the Exclusive Agriculture is applied to lands under Williamson
Act contracts, which constitute approximately 75 percent of the privately
owned lands in the area. The Residential and Agricultural Zone is
applied to most of the privately owned lands not under Williamson Act
contracts.
With the A Zone, only agricultural and related uses are permitted, although
the construction of residences for the owners or lessees, members of the
owner's family, and employees of the owner is allowable. A limited number
of additional uses may be permitted if a use permit is obtained. The A-1
Zone allows essentially the same uses as the Agricultural Zone, plus any
other uses the Santa Clara County Planning Commission deems appropriate
with a use permit.
The minimum parcel sizes established by Santa Clara County's zoning vary
depending upon where the property is located and whether or not it is
tinder a Williamson Act contract. Foothill lands not under Williamson Act
contracts are zoned to require from. two and a half to 10 acres, depending
upon the slope of the natural terrain (the steeper the land, the larger
the minimum parcel size).
Lands in the foothills under Williamson Act are zoned to require 10-acre
parcels if they were entered prior to 1975 (those entered in 1975 or
later are zoned to require 20-acre parcels). Thus, lands under Williamson
Act contracts could be subdivided into 10-acre parcels and a home could
be built on each parcel, provided other land development regulations
could be met. From 1966, when the Act took effect, until 1976, there
were no major proposals to do so.
In 1976. however, Santa Clara County received several applications to
create rural residential subdivisions on 10-acre parcels in the Diablo
Range on lands under Williamson Act contracts. One involved the creation
of 36 parcels on 370 acres; another involved creation of 19 parcels on a
600-acre site, with the potential for 40 more parcels on the remaining
two-thirds of the site. Since both of these development proposals were
in conformance with the County's 10-acre zoning requirement, they were
approved by the Planning Commission and review and approval by the Board
of Supervisors was not required.
The approval of these rural residential subdivisions on lands under
Williamson Act contracts sets an alarming precedent. First of all, they
appear to be contrary to Santa Clara County's policy to preserve grazing
lands. Secondly, they appear to be inconsistent with the intent of the
Williamson Act. And thirdly, they raise a basic public policy question--
namely, is the public receivinQ sufficient benefit from the creation of
these property tax sheltered rural residenik;al estates to justify the
00062
50
public subsidy they will be receiving? Since these subdivisions did not
require the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors' approval , they did
not have to consider and make a decision concerning these issues.
Within the intermountain valley areas located beyond the crest of the
first major ridgelines, the zoning for lands which entered into Williamson
Act contracts prior to 1975 is the same as in the foothills, i.e., 10
acres. Lands not under such contracts are zoned to require from five to
40 acres, depending upon the steepness of the terrain.
In the remote areas of the Ridgelands, all lands, regardless of whether
or not they are under Williamson Act contracts, are zoned for 20 to
160-acre parcels, again depending upon the slope of the natural terrain.
This same zoning is applied to lands within the intermountain valley
areas which entered into Williamson Act contracts in 1975 or later.
Most of Santa Clara County's current zoning for the Ridgelands was established
as a result of its Diablo Range Study completed in 1975. This study
concluded that one of the best ways to preserve the area in open space
was to protect the continuation of grazing as the predominant land use.
It further concluded that public acquisition by the County in the Diablo
Range for park purposes should be limited due to potential increased
problems for ranchers, including trespassing, vandalism, and grass fires
which might result if more people were drawn into the area. '
It can be questioned, however, whether the zoning adopted as a result of
that study is in fact adequate to keep the land in parcels large enough
to be economically viable for grazing and to prevent the introduction of
other uses incompatible with grazing, particularly in the scenic foothills
adjacent to the Santa Clara Valley.
Santa Clara County's two and a half to 10-acre slope density zoning applied
to these foothills rising from the Santa Clara Valley is of particular
concern since it involves the portion of the Ridgelands most visible to
the County's over one million residents. The present zoning leaves the
door open for land division and rural residential development which could
pose as much or more of a threat to grazing lands than additional public
recreation areas might. Furthermore, it would take relatively little
development on these open, grassy hillsides and ridgetops to significantly
change their existing scenic open space character.
The minimum parcel sizes established in Santa Clara County's zoning for
the intermountain valley areas and the remote areas, although larger
than those in the foothills, also appear to be inadequate to prevent
rural residential development that could' be incompatible. with ranching.
Flat areas within the intermountain valley areas could be divided into
parcels as small as five acres, and flat lands in the rerete areas such
as the San Antonio Valley could be divided into 20-acre parcels. Compared
to the three counties adjacent to it, Santa Clara County has the least
restrictive zoning on its grazing lands (Alameda County has a 100-acre
minimum parcel size and Stanislaus and Merced Counties each require 160 acres).
51 00063
One of the major reasons Santa Clara County allowed these smaller parcel
Sizes was the recognition that Federal Inheritance Tax laws soml!times
rude it necessary for family owned ranches to split off parcels to sell
in 3rder to pay inheritance taxes. As discussed in the previous chapter
(State Inheritance Tax/Federal Estate Tax), Congress, in 1976, made
several important changes in the Federal Inheritance Tax laws to reduce
the inheritance tax burden on family owned farms and ranches. Consequently,
the rationale for continuing to allow these smaller parcel sizes in the
Diablo Range has been largely removed.
Within these intermountain valley areas and remote areas, factors other
than zoning may prevent much additional rural residential development.
These limiting factors, which include lack of water and road access,
will undoubtedly greatly inhibit rural residential development in the
area, but are unlikely to prevent it entirely (recent California history
is overflowing with examples of remote or "undevelopable" areas being
subdivided and sold for second home or rural residential development).
Santa Clara County should monitor land division and development activity
in these areas and should consider rezoning if it appears that development,
incompatible with ranching, is being proposed.
Other Land Use Regulations
While recognizing that zoning is a valuable method for preserving
resources of the Ridgelands, its inherent weaknesses must be acknowledged
as well; i.e., the ease with which zoning may be circumvented or altered.
This points up the need for firm intent by the policy-making body to
stand behind a zoning designation that acts to implement open space plans
and policies. Since zoning alone can be insensitive to the intrinsic
resource values of the land (agricultural capability, scenic quality,
wildlife habitat value, etc.), other regulations used in conjunction
with zoning can strengthen it. There are a number of other types of
land use regulations that can serve as tools to help protect open space
resources either directly or indirectly. In general, these regulations
require additional review procedures or permits for proposed development-
related activities which may serve to minimize the damage proposed
development may do to the landscape.
Alameda County
Alameda County has adopted a "Specific Plan for Areas of Environmental
Significance" which establishes policies for riparian areas and scenic
routes. The plan uses site development review as its major implementation
tool. Major projects in such areas not subject to other review such
as subdivision regulations, conditional use permits, etc. would undergo
a site development review. The County may use a similar "specific plan"
approach for other areas of environmental significance in the future.
00064
52
Reclassification to the Planned Development (PD) District is an option
available to a developer. The district allows a mixture of land uses
and flexibility in building design and siting techniques, and is
specially adaptable to residential development in hili areas, when
utilities are available. The district allows clustering on the most
buildable areas and regulation of all aspects of construction.
Recognizing the need to avoid unplanned proliferation of rural residential
areas while acknowledging the demand for semi-rural living, the Board of
Supervisors adopted a "Policy for the Location, Zoning, and Servicing of
Rural Residential Uses" in 1973. This included policies on limiting rural
residential uses; on extensive analyses on extent and location of develop-
ment; on consideration of significant adverse impacts prior to rezoning;
on road access to rural residential concentrations; and on availability
of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
Land division is regulated under the Alameda County Subdivision Ordinance.
The Planning Commission has approval authority for subdivision into five
or more parcels, and the Planning Director has approval authority for
minor subdivisions. Except when exempted by the State Subdivision Map
Act, all subdivisions require filing a Final Map or Parcel Map and are
subject to regulations of design and improvements. Subdivisions are
required to be consistent with applicable general and specific plans,
zoning, physical constraints, and environmental considerations-to be
approved. Subdivisions requiring a final map must have domestic water
and a sewage disposal system determined adequate by the County Health
Officer.
Contra Costa County
Development within the study area is given essentially the same type of
review and requires the same types of permits as development outside the
study area. Within County government, the planning, building inspection,
public works and health departments are principally responsible for
development review.
The Planning Department checks general plan compliance, zoning and land
use and prepares conditions of approval for proposed development. The
department functions as a "clearinghouse" for comments from other depart-
ments and agencies. The Department also prepares environmental impact
reports and supervises the preparation of geologic studies in Special
Studies Zones. The Building Inspection Department issues grading and
building permits. Solis studies are required for major subdivisions.
Soils studies are prepared for minor subdivisions if landslides or
significant slope instability problems are suspected. The Public Works
Department reviews proposed development for a variety of reasons,
including encroachment permits, road widening and improvements, right-
of-way dedication, drainage permits, drainage improvements and drainage
easements. The Health Department issues permits for wells and septic
53 ) ) )V5
systems based on regulations to protect public health and maintain the
safe and efficient operation of these facilities. Other agencies which
frequently review and comment on projects include utility districts,
fire districts, school districts and nearby cities. Some projects fall
under the special concern of agencies such as the California State
Department of Fish and Game which has jurisdiction over streams and creeks.
Santa Clara County
Santa Clara County requires grading permits for grading in the foothills
and mountains. Geologic review is required if the area involved is shown
as being potentially geologically unstable on the County's geologic
hazards map. Proposals involving building site approval are reviewed by
either the County's Land Development Committee or its Architectural and
Site Approval Committee. Major subdivisions ( i.e., those creating five
or more lots) are reviewed by both the Land Development Committee and
the Planning Commission; minor subdivisions (four or fewer parcels) are
reviewed only by the Land Development Committee. Until recently, minor
subdivisions were exempt from the environmental assessment requirement;
now they are not.
Wiwi o Ali �1Mf'
Zoning
Alameda, Contra Costa and Santa Clara Counties, plus affected cities:
I. Review permitted uses and densities within existing open
space zoning districts and delete those which are not in
conformity with the adopted open space element of the
general plan and with the open space resource values of
the Ridgelands.
2. A basic minimum lot size of 100 acres should be considered
in agricultural and grazing areas in the Ridgelands.
3. Review current zoning policies of all lands under Williamson
Act contracts and change those which are inconsistent with
the preservation of grazing in the Ridgelands.
4. Zoning on the periphery of existing public parklands in
the Ridgelands should be consistent with the management
of those public areas.
54 W`NV
Alameda County:
1. Alameda County should review definitions and interpretation
of "outdoor recreation facility" in its Agricultural (A)
District. Guidelines should be developed for appropriate
placement and regulation of intensive uses in the category.
2. Cities should apply large lot zoning regulations to lands
within the Ridgelands. A basic minimum lot size of 100
acres should be employed by the agricultural or open
space district.
Contra Costa County:
I. New open space zoning district or districts should be
developed which would specifically pertain to all open
space uses (e.g., agriculture, grazing, recreation,
mining, quarrying, watershed, and wildlife habitat). A
basic minimum lot size of 100 acres should be used for
agriculture and grazing. Smaller minimum lot sizes
might be used for other open space uses and to accom-
modate present parcel size distribution.
2. Use of the General Agriculture (A-2) and Forestry
Recreation (F-R) District in the study area should be
reconsidered and reduced or eliminated after the
adoption of the new open space zoning district(s).
3. Properties with zoning not in conformance with the
general plan should be rezoned to a district which
conforms to planned open space land use.
4. Permitted uses in the Agricultural Preserve (A-4) District
should be expanded beyond commercial agriculture to
include non-commercial agricultural activities.
Other Land Use Regulations
Alameda, Contra Costa and Santa Clara Counties, plus affected cities:
1. Consideration should be given to restricting division
of lands under Williamson Act contracts.
2. All cities and counties should adopt or revise grading
ordinances to protect Ridgelands open space resources.
3. Require design review in the Ridgelands for all proposed
development within adopted corridors adjacent to
designated scenic highways.
55 � W
4. Consideration should be given to the adoption of regulations
to protect scenic values of prominent ridgelines and slopes
visible from urban areas.
5. Adopt regulations to protect streamside resources.
6. Additional rural residential development which is
dependent upon wells and septic tank systems should
be strictly regulated.
7. Additional roads in the Ridgelands should be discouraged.
Road improvements should be at the lowest level necessary
for maintenance of public utilities or for conducting
ranching operations or for providing access to public parks.
8. The East Bay Regional Park District, the Santa Clara
County Park and Recreation Department and other public
park agencies should become more actively involved in
evaluating development activity and land use proposals
around parklands.
9. The East Bay Regional Park District, the Santa Clara
County Park and Recreation Department and other public
park agencies should review their acquisition,
development and management programs to minimize their
impacts on adjacent agricultural lands.
As discussed in the previous chapter, property taxes frequently are part
of the problem in preserving open space in the Ridgelands; high taxes
increase the pressure to sell marginal grazing lands or subdivide and
develop parcels. Ways to ease the property tax burden on landowners are
available in California; these help to retaip grazing or other uses of
lands in the study area. In this sense the property tax is not only
part of the problem, but part of the solution. Property tax relief may
decrease the economic rationale for converting land to urban uses.
However, it does have limitations; programs for property tax relief are
voluntary and the landowner must be willing to continue grazing the land
or otherwise to keep it undeveloped.
In California, there are two basic means by which owners of open space
lands who wish to retain them in open space uses may obtain property tax
relief. One involves the use of the California Land Conservation Act of
1965, known as the Williamson Act; the other involves the use of open
space easements. The Williamson Act is by far the more commonly used
of the two, although both operate in a very similar fashion and have
essentially the same effects.
56 000ss
Originally, the Williamson Act was established to preserve those productive
farmlands of the State which, due to their proximity to urban areas, were
being lost to urban development. The Act enables local governments to
establish agricultural preserves wherein land use is restricted by
regulation by entering into a 10-year voluntary contract with a landowner.
Preserves are to be no less than 100 acres, but may be smaller if the
size is consistent with the local goverr:,nents' general plan. Unless
notice of non-renewal is given, one year is automatically added to the
contract period on the anniversary date. Within the preserve, the
property tax assessment is based on the land's current use value
(agriculture) rather than on its highest and best use (urban), thereby
giving the owner a tax break. If not renewed, assessed value begins to
rise in the third year so as to arrive at full value by the tenth year.
Since its enactment, the Williamson Act has been amended several times
to broaden the range of permitted uses within a preserve to include
recreation and open space. Recreation is defined as use of the land by
the public for hiking, picnicking, camping, swimming, boating, hunting,
fishing, outdoor games and sports. The owner, if he decides to allow
public use of his land, is permitted to charge a reasonable fee, but if
the recreation use is allowed without charge, the county board of
supervisors may indemnify a landowner against claims arising from such
a use. Moreover, the owner's agreement that his land be used for free,
public recreation is not to be construed as an implied dedication to
such use. Open space uses are those which preserve the natural
characteristics, beauty or openness of an area for the benefit and
enjoyment of the public. Permitted open space uses include scenic
highway corridors, wildlife habitat areas, salt ponds, managed wetlands
and submerged areas. Additional uses may be permitted in the preserve
if the local government determines that they are compatible with
agricultural, recreational and open space uses.
Out of the total 846,000 acres in the three county study area, 506,000
acres were under Williamson Act contracts, as of the 1976 tax year, which
is about 70 percent of the private lands and about 60 percent of the
total (see Lands under Williamson Act Contracts Map). By individual
jurisdiction, the breakdown is as follows:
Total Public Private
Ridgelands Study Area Acres Acres Acres Williamson Act Acres
Alameda County 264,000 54,000 210,000 176,000 (84%)
Contra Costa County 167,000 38,000 129,000 60,000 (46%)
Santa Clara County 415,000 52,000 362,000 270,000 (74%)
Totals 846,000 144,000 701,000 506,000
Although the State law establishes certain basic guidelines, it is largely
up to individual jurisdictions to determine the geographic areas in which
the Williamson Act may be used, as well as the criteria they will use to
determine which lands within these areas will be eligible for Williamson` p
010 69
57
Act tax relies. Individual jurisdictions may also choose not to use the
Williamson Act at all. The three counties have declared virtually the
entire Rideelands area to be .within an "agricultural preserve" and thus
nearly all privately owned open space lands within the area are eligible
for Williamson Act property tax relief, if they meet minimum acreage and
land use criteria.
While the percentage of elicible lands under Williamson Act contracts in
the Ridgelands is quite high, it must be noted that most of the lands
under contract are more remote and less subject to development pressures.
Some landowners nearest i-he urban area may be keeping their lands out of
the Act because they f-el ;heir prospects for development in the near
future are relatively gnod. In part, their expectations may be based
upon past or present urban development policies of the cities or the
counties permitting scattered, leapfrog development. Adoption of
effective urban development policies in each county by the Local Agency
Formation Commission, the county, and the cities adjacent to the
Ridgelands would probably alter proseects for urban development in the
Ridgelands and result in more of the closer-in lands coming under
Williamson Act contracts.
Smaller parcels of land are generally not eligible for Williamson Act
contracts. Some of the undeveloped parcels may possess important and
specific open space resources whose preservation would be in the public
interest. These lands should be considered for possible property tax
relief to help keep them in open space. For smaller parcels which do
not qualify for Williamson Act contracts, open space easements can be
initiated by the landowner. Open space easements involve voluntary
contracts which landowners sign agreeing to keep their lands in open
space uses for a minimum of 10 years. In return, their lands are taxed
based on their actual income-producing value, just as with Williamson
Act contracts.
Although the use of open space easements has been possible for a number
of years, only one such easement has been granted to a county within the
Ridgelards Study Area. That easement was given to Contra Costa County
by an archery club and applies to their archery range. It should be
emphasized that, as with lands under Williamson Act contract, open space
easements do not grant the public the right to enter onto the lands
involved unless the landowner so agrees. One of the major reasons open
space easements have not received greater use is that the Williamson Act
has been used so extensively in their place. Local governments should
consider possible use of open space easement contracts to provide
property tax relief to certain types of open space lands, particularly
smaller narcels which -irn to remain undeveI qpod.
The reduced tax assessment on open space lands under Williamson Act
contracts or open space easements results in reduced property tax revenues
to local governments and special districts or may shift the property tax
burden to cher lands and bL,ildinas. This loss of portions of the tax
base of agricultural counties led the State to enact in 1971 the Open
58 00070
Space Subvention Act. This meant that local governments would be able
to receive from the State's general fund, partial reimbursement for
reduced property taxes on. lands under Williamson Act contract. The
reimbursement is based on a sliding scale with prime agricultural lands
receiving more than non-prime lands. Consequently, the reimbursement
for Williamson Act lands in the Ridgelands (non-prime) would be a
lesser amount. From a countywide perspective, the decrease in total
assessed valuation and property tax revenues is relatively small for
the three counties since urban lands and buildings constitute the major
portion of their total assessed valuation.
IMPACT OF WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACTS ON
COUNTYWIDE TAX BASES--FY 1976-77
Contra Costa Santa Clara
County Alameda County County
Decrease in countywide $ 8,600,000 $ 14,200,000 $ 48,400,000
assessed valuation as
result of Williamson
Act contracts.
Total countywide $3,200,000,000 $4,100,000,000 $4,400,000,000
assessed valuation
as actually assessed.
Percent decrease in 0.3 percent 0.3 percent 1.1 percent
total countywide assessed
valuation as result of
Williamson Act contracts.
The above overall dollar decrease to the counties would be even less when
subvention payment by the State is considered. Compared to what it would
cost for the public to purchase these lands outright, the revenue reduction
or property tax shift is a rather minimal price to pay to assure they will
be kept in open space uses.
That there have been no cancellations in the three county Ridgelands Study
Area emphasizes the contentions of landowners contacted during the
information-gathering phase of this study. They contend that Williamson
Act contracts are regarded as long-term by the property owner. Backing
out of a contract is viewed as being both difficult and uneconomic. In
the study area, it would appear that most landowners have signed contracts
so as to ease their property tax burden and not to gain short-term tax
benefit for long-term speculation. This Js borne out by the fact that
the great majority of the lands in the study area have a limited speculative
value. It makes good economic sense then for those Ridgelands landowners
who wish to keep their land in open space by ranching to opt for enrolling
their lands under the Williamson Act.
Another means of providing additional property tax relief to certain open
59 000"71
space lands within the Ridgelands would be to detach them from the cities
and/or special districts, such as hospital districts, which annexed them,
but provide little or no direct benefit to these largely uninhabited
lands. Detachment may, however, result in significant revenue losses
to particular special districts. In such instances, consideration should
be given to consolidating them with other governmental entities. Similar
consideration should be given in situations where property tax revenues
to particular special districts are significantly reduced as a result of
open space lands being placed under Williamson Act contracts or open
space easements.
Alameda County
In Alameda County the underlying zoning on all preserve lands under
Williamson Act contracts has a minimum parcel size of 100 acres. Alameda
County's agricultural preserve policy specifies that subdivision not be
allowed for parcels of less than 100 acres and that the Board of
Supervisors approve any division of a parcel within a preserve. The
County has further indicated that, in view of their policy regarding
open space preservation, it would consider the possibility of requiring
even larger minimums being established where appropriate. There have
been several divisions within an agricultural preserve, but the splits
did not violate the integrity of the zoning or the preserve. In the
Alameda County portion of the study area, there have been no cancellations
of contracts nor have any notices of non-renewal been filed.
Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County has had no cancellations of Williamson Act contracts
in the Ridgelands. The County has approved minor subdivisions of agri-
cultural preserve lands creating several new lots ranging in size from 18
to 40 acres (20 acres is the minimum lot size permitted under the County's
A-4 District). County policy regarding the approval of new contracts is
a 100-acre minimum for isolated parcels. For those parcels abutting
existing agricultural preserves, 20 acres is the minimum size, providing
the addition results in the creation of at least a 100-acre parcel.
Arco*
Alameda, Contra Costa and Santa Clara Counties, plus affected cities:
I. The counties should continue to encourage the use of
Williamson Act contracts in the Ridgelands to protect
grazing lands and other significant open space resources.
60 00072
2. The counties and cities should make use of open space
easement contracts in appropriate locations in the
Ridgelands.
3. Assessments on grazing lands under Williamson Act
contracts should be changed from a per acre basis to
one based on an established maximum number of Animal .
Unit Months (AUM) for each parcel.
As a tool for protecting and preserving open space, the acquiring of land
by a public park and recreation agency is unquestionably the most
effective. Since it allows maximum control over subsequent land use,
acquisition virtually guarantees that the land will remain in protected
open space--except for those limited areas developed for facility-
oriented recreation use. Within the Ridgelands Study Area, State,
regional and local parklands total more than 78,000 acres. The East
Bay Regional Park District has the largest holdings, some 37,000 acres
in all, nearly 7000 of which are presently in a land bank status and
scheduled to be opened to the public in the near future. The California
Department of Parks and Recreation administers two units of the State
park system together totalling about 25,000 acres. Santa Clara County's
Department of Parks and Recreation, administering nearly 14,000 acres of
park area, is the third major park agency. Additional open space and
parklands administered by Contra Costa County, the Cities of Concord and
San Jose together comprising about 2500 acres are also located within
the study area (see Publicly Owned Open Space Lands Map).
The existing policies and programs of the public agencies providing park
and recreation services within the Ridgelands have a direct bearing on
the amount, type, location and timing of future acquisitions. The purpose
of this section is to look at these policies, evaluate their effect on
future acquisitions in the Ridgelands and how much of a role this particular
tool will play in protecting the open space values of the study area.
East Bay Regional Park District
Currently, the East Bay Regional Park District operates 26 park facilities
within the study area. These include regional parks, recreation areas,
wilderness preserves, and trails. They are distributed throughout the
Alameda and Contra Costa portions of the study area. Regional parks such
as Wildcat, Tilden, Redwood and Chabot are located adjacent to the developed
sections of the larger East Bay cities, while others, such as Suno) and
Las Trampas Regional Wildernesses, are more remotely located. The parks
located next to urbanized areas, not surprisingly, are those which were
acquired many years ago when the Di_=trict Has first formed. The
61 00011
preservation of portions of the natural ridgetops of the Oakland-Berkeley
hills is due, in large part, to the prudent purchases by the District,
giving the residents of the adjacent East Bay cities and San Franciscans
alike a scenic viewshed which otherwise would likely have been altered
by development.
The East Bay Regional Park District's Master Plan Is intended to guide
parkland acquisition program for the next 10 to 20 years. Since its
adoption in 1973, the District has acquired several sites located within
the Ridgelands which were shown in the Master Plan as having parkland
potential. Included in these acquisitions are sites such as the 4236-acre
Rowell Ranch and the 625-acre landmark known as Mission Peak. Moreover,
there are a number of additional sites and identified trail corridors
in the study area which the Master Plan shows as potential acquisitions.
The programmed distribution of the District's funds, by parkland classifi-
cation and by geographic area, indicate that these sites and corridors
will be acquired in the near future.
California
The State of California operates two large State parks within the
Ridgelands, Mount Diablo in the northern portion and in the south,
Henry W. Coe State Park. Mount Diablo, in existence since the early
19301s, has just been expanded by more than 1600 acres. Future
programmed acquisition calls for an additional 1800 acres. Two large-
scale development projects which have been approved by Contra Costa
County will include the dedication of a total of 2600 acres to Mount
Diablo State Park. The dedication will occur over a number of years
as the projects are developed in phases. Also, funds have been earmarked
for Mount Diablo State Park from the State Coastal Bond Act. Henry W.
Coe State Park, acquired by the State in 1959, may be expanded in the
near future to include several thousand acres of adjacent public domain
lands currently administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. As
funds become available, the State will attempt to acquire additional
private land holdings within the park.
At the present time it appears unlikely that California will be adding any
additional park units within the Ridgelands. This is substantiated first
by the latest version of the California Outdoor Recreation Resources Plan,
prepared by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. This
document takes a comprehensive look at existing and future outdoor
recreation needs for the State both as a whole and for each of the 10
individual planning districts into which the State is divided. The
section of the plan dealing with Planning District 4 (the nine county
San Francisco Bay Area), which includes the three county Ridgelands Study
Area, contains a categorical listing for the type of park and recreation
facility in which Planning District 4 is most deficient. Although multi-
purpose recreation areas are included in this list, water-oriented
recreation needs received by far thc- most attention. Secondly, the
000' 4
62
California Department of Parks and Recreation has in recent years been
giving increased attention to providing outdoor recreation opportunities
close to home for people living in the metropolitan areas. This interest
has most recently manifested itself with the enactment of the State's
Urban Open Space and Recreation Program. This is a three year, $25 million/
year grant program to cities, counties, park and recreation districts for
the acquisition and development of park and recreation areas within the
most heavily populated areas of the State. The intent of the program is
to meet the State's most urgent and unmet urban recreation needs--it is
not intended for large-scale open space preservation in rural areas.
Santa Clara County
The third major park and recreation agency within the Ridgelands Study
Area is the Santa Clara County Department of Parks and Recreation,
administering five units, totalling nearly 14,000 acres of land and
water. Included in this figure is the recent 9500-acre acquisition
for the Grant Ranch, which has not yet been opened to the public. The
addition of this large park unit more than tripled the amount of park
and recreation acreage in the Santa Clara County portion of the Ridge- I
lands. In the study area, funds have been alloted for additions to
Grant Ranch and Ed Levin County Parks. With the above additions, the
County will have completed for the foreseeable future its planned
acquisition program within the Ridgelands Study Area. The County's
limited plans for additional acquisitions in this area reflect the fact,
that it has already acquired close to 14,000 acres divided among five
separate sites along the length of the Diablo Range and must weigh
future acquisitions in the area against priorities for acquisitions in
other parts of the County.
In light of these limited acquisition plans, the County's relatively
permissive two and one half to 10-acre zoning for the foothills (see
Regulation section), and its recent approval of rural residential
subdivisions on lands under Williamson Act contracts (see Property Tax
Relief section), it appears that practically none of the roiling, grassy
foothills of the Diablo Range visible from the Santa Clara Valley are
being protected as truly permanent open space, nor are there as yet any
plans to take action to preserve them as such.
If in fact the residents of Santa Clara County wish to see portions of
these foothills permanently preserved in their natural state, action
must be taken in the near future. The major alternatives for possible
action center around stricter regulation of land use and/or some form
of public acquisition. Stricter land use regulations could help preserve
open space over the short run, but would not guarantee permanent
protection. Furthermore, even if the County adopts stricter land use
controls, there is still the possibility that these foothill lands
could be annexed to a city with less restrictive regulations.
63 00075
This leaves public acquisition as the only permanent type of protection
for the foothills of the Diablo Range. If public acquisition is to be
considered, it must be recognized first of all that most of these lands
are not particularly well suited for intensive recreational use. Thus,
it would be difficult to justify diverting funds from existing city and
county park funds for such acquisition, especially since there are many
other sites in Santa Clara County which could be acquired for parks.
One other possibility would be to establish a new local agency to acquire
open space lands or rights in land, such as open space easements, in the
Diablo Range foothills similar to the way In which the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District is acquiring open space lands in the northern
half of the Santa Cruz Mountains of Santa Clara County. This open space
agency could be established under the same existing state enabling
legislation as the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, either as
an independent special district with its own elected board of directors
or as an agency with the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors as its
board of directors. Under either arrangement, the agencies would have
their own sources of funding as provided by State law and thus need not
divert funds from existing city and county park programs. Lands acquired
by such an agency would not have to be used exclusively for park purposes.
In fact, they could be leased for grazing if it were felt that that would
minimize problems for adjacent privately owned lands being used for grazing,
as is now being done by the East Bay Regional Park District.
Of all the possible alternatives for providing permanent protection of
open space lands in the Diablo Range foothills in Santa Clara County,
establishment of an open space agency under state enabling legislation
for the creation of regional parks or open space districts appears to be
the most promising. It should be given serious consideration by the
residents and elected officials of Santa Clara County.
I�-
East Bay Regional Park District, Santa Clara County and other agencies
responsible for managing public park and open space land:
I. The East Bay Regional Park District and Santa Clara
County should continue to acquire parklands in the
study area in conformance with their adopted plans.
2. High priority in park acquisition in the Ridgelands should
be given to those lands with recreation potential
nearest to the urban fringe. High priority should also
be given to the acquisition of lands which will protect
the viewsheds and watersheds of existing public
parklands.
3. Public access to lands acquired for public park
Q0n%6
64
purposes should take place within a reasonable period
of time following acquisition.
4. The management and development plans for public
parklands in the Ridgelands should be designed to
reflect the presence of adjacent privately-owned
grazing lands.
5. Maintain or increase existing funding levels of the
regional and local park agencies in the Ridgelands
for acquisition, development and maintenance.
6. Public park agencies in the Ridgelands should link up
existing park units by establishing trail corridors for
hiking and riding use. These trail corridors should be
planned and designed so as to minimize the adverse
impact on adjacent privately-owned lands.
7. Park and recreation and other public land managing
agencies with holdings in the Ridgelands should
coordinate their planning and acquisition programs
with each other so as to more effectively serve park,
recreation and open space needs.
8. Park and recreation agencies in the Ridgelands, in
consultation with the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
should make available information describing the
potential tax benefits available to landowners
through gift or sale at less than fair market value
to a public park and recreation agency.
9. Park and recreation and other public land managing
agencies in the Ridgelands should increase their
public information, education, signing-and patrol
programs so as to reduce trespass and vandalism
problems on adjacent private lands.
10. Public access for outdoor recreation on publicly-owned
non-park open space lands shall be allowed, provided
such use is not incompatible with the primary purpose
for which these lands are managed.
II. Lands in public ownership in the Ridgelands should be
protected by the public agency owning them rather than
by imposing special restrictions on adjacent privately
held lands.
��1'��1lI�IMl1� ' 11►�'
I . Farm Advisors, agricultural Gcrdnissions and the U.S.
65 00077
Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service
should work with ranchers and public land managers to
help assure that land management is consistent with
good conservation practices.
2. Mineral extraction, if it is to take place in the
Ridgelands, should occur in a manner which will not
impact substantially upon recreational and agricul-
tural uses. Where such activities are allowed,
reclamation should occur progressively with mining
and be consistent with the State Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act and local policies for the Ridgelands.
3. Local plans and programs should be consistent with
regional resource concerns as expressed in the
Association of Bay Area Governments Regional Plan
and detailed in its "Areas of Critical Environ-
mental Concern" report.
4. The Association of Bay Area Governments should
delineate regionally significant areas of critical
environmental concern in the Ridgelands.
5. Local and regional agencies should continue to
cooperate in discussion of issues of mutual concern
affecting the Ridgelands.
6. With respect to government's role in the management
of private agricultural lands, government should
encourage good management practices but should not
interfere with private activities unless resources
are threatened.
7. Consideration should be given by local governments
to provide ranch and farm lands protection from
vandalism and trespass, in as much as owners of
such lands presently are likely to be taxed for more
services than they receive.
State of California:
t. Legislation should be enacted enabling Local Agency
Formation Commissions to review proposed formation
of special assessment and improvement districts by
county boards of supervisors.
2. Legislation should be enacted to provide Alameda and
Santa Clara Counties with the powers to regulate
proposed developments on lands owned by the San
Franctsco Water Department which would negatively
impact open space resource values of the Ridgelands.
0001S
66
3. The State should continue to implement its acquisition
plans for Mount Diablo and Henry W. Coe State Parks.
4. The Open Space Easement Act of 1974 should be amended
to provide for subvention payments to local governments
by the State.
5. The State should conduct a comprehensive study of
inequities in the taxation of agricultural lands.
67 0, 079
a
The following is a list of open space functions which the California
Legislature wanted covered in the open space plans of local government:
( 1) Open space for the preservation of natural resources, Including,
but not limited to, areas required for the preservation of plant and
animal life, including habitat for fish and wildlife species; areas
required for the ecologic and other scientific study purposes; rivers,
streams, bays and estuaries; and coastal beaches, lakeshores, banks of
rivers and streams, and watershed lands.
(2) Open space used for the managed production of resources, including,
but not limited to, forest lands, rangeland, agricultural lands and
areas of economic importance for the production of food or fiber; areas
required for recharge of ground water basins; bays, estuaries, marshes,
rivers and streams which are important for the management of commercial
fisheries; and areas containing major mineral deposits, including those
in short supply.
(3) Open space for outdoor recreation, including, but not limited to,
areas of outstanding scenic, historic and cultural value; areas
particularly suited for park and recreation purposes, including access
to lakeshores, beaches, and rivers and streams; and areas which serve
as links between major recreation and open-space reservations, including
utility easements, banks of rivers and streams, trails, and scenic
highway corridors.
(4) Open space for public health and safety, including, but not limited
to, areas which require special management or regulation because of
hazardous or special conditions such as earthquake fault zones, unstable
soil areas, flood plains, watersheds, areas presenting high fire risks,
areas required for the protection of water quality and water reservoirs
and areas required for the protection and enhancement of air quality.
00000
68
i
Y
7
F 4 } 1
i
�
U,
r
\4 Y
1 � •
1
f
s ti
SO
JURISDICflONAL t rdrs
BOUNDARIES M-7
81WYAMB9anWry A��
C9YSP°°r°°dln°arca ,i� �,
(in srma.r.OP,arry•u9.° J<
umr S-° A—1WaW fn .�� �- l� S ✓J� S
® (COIIVObc g o—ft1d i110uB11E8
',,.•.. Lrv°rc°ra Ana grorealkc DW
1 s `
East ear Mani-
,pa,U199Y owrn
90rvi0eArealAlOrrr00 COudy Onlyl �,/ � _,� �,. y��v_✓
Ead58YR89wnal Park ObVid I
° 10rra
0 1
o °
en J
I
s
C�
S 1 �
o
VI
415 a uw(awi P
(1
15 -
L � 1 '_ �•�' r1 -vim�r .
N7
s
E10STNG LAW USE 0
I t �ti
Rural msidwdial
u
OJM Y Pc Up
milibry cludes ma�noa,
C
andWpower leciidks)
l J1
Public)Same
(P/S)Sub
(P/RQ Repand
(P/L)Loul—pM ana eoudy
AglcIMun,1p en S u.l
undousbped brads ( �'
* Pftidu—Nr uuos
• Ousmbs entl
o s
o e +elue..r.
77
21
vn
All
7yl
y}"�
r 7"K
�t :
PUBLICLY OIMIED Moro rS l v 3 q .
OPEN SPACE LAInB
�( gra •, �j / {e�i��:. � .
,
B,uUyAm.Bound ry
suft
Qloin—eiy.ntl comity
AlarG J
n� :• a
EM Say Regoml Pak Outriel
z
\ - � �\•Thi 3 f� ?,al `•
-a
o.Gr.raae 1.= 3
�a
A pyo
A
vvtiti t �
I C
COMPOSITE
r
PROTECTED LANDS xm J Z Rr
f�
Study Ares Sountl.ry
•,y
- Publicly 0—if OP..
Space Lards Gilroy
,) w �.
\ � Cr
L.ud.UnderwiMiu— J S
!a
Act CaNnCt
Jic i�
r. w
p 5
� � J
vy 1 3,l M f
� l a 't ✓T 11
rtmoet
w �
v
r 5
}, ;
p1 0
J,. 5
LANDS UNDER
MLLOA SON ACT CONTRACT
s
SWMAMBoundary
1
lYgsuMer WilliMlsoo AelCaNat I
�y r
u s ,torr
And the Board adjourns to meet on Friday, August 19,
1977 at 9:00 a.m. , in adjourned regular session, in the
Board Chambers, Room 107, County Administration Building,
Martinez, California.
W. N. gess, Chairman
ATTEST:
J. R. OLSSON, CLERK
ZLC. Deputy
v�:roCs
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1-M IN ALL ITS CAPACITIES
PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE CODE SECTION 24-2.402 IN
ADJOURNED REGULAR SESSION AT 9:00 A.M., FRIDAY,
AUGUST 19, 1977 IN ROOM 107, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING, MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA.
PRESENT: Chairman W. N. Boggess, presiding;
Supervisors J. P. Kenny, N. C. Fanden.
CLERK: J. R. Olsson, represented by Geraldine
Russell, Deputy Clerk.
Immediately upon convening the meeting the Chairman announced that the
Board would recess to executive session in Room 108, County Administra-
tion Building, Martinez, to meet with its negotiators pertaining to
labor relations matters.
Supervisors R. I. Schroder and E. H. Hasseltine arrived and went
directly into the executive session.
At 10:25 a.m. the Board reconvened in its chambers and the Chairman
read the following statement:
"This morning at 6 a.m. the California Nurses
Association commenced an unlawful strike against the
people of Contra Costa County. The reason for the
strike is that the California Nurses Association is
unwilling to accept a salary and benefits program
which has been agreed to by 98% of the 6,000 County
employees.
"The Board urges all County employees including
the 118 members of the California Nurses Association to
ignore this ill-advised strike and to report to duty as
usual.
"As has been stated previously the Board- stands
by its position that ;gage and benefits adjustments are
properly agreed to across the bargaining table and not
by the use of intimidation through strike action or the
determination of third parties through binding arbitra-
tion. It is, therefore, the unanimous suggestion of
the Board members that the California Nurses Association
terminate their strike action and return to the bargain-
ing table.
"In the interim, it may become necessary to dis-
continue certain non-essential services at the County
Hospital and Clinics, however, as long as a particular
service is offered the level of service will not be
reduced. In this regard the Board is going to adopt
two resolutions designating authority to County officials
to take necessary actions to deal with the effects of the
strike and to limit as much as possible the inconvenience
to the public."
Thereupon the Board by unanimous vote adopted the following resolu-
tions:
00087
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
in the Matter of Promulgating )
General Policies in the Evert of a ) Resolution No. 77-680
Strike Emergency )
)
This Board having been advised by the Employee P.elations Officer
that certain employees and employee organizations have taken
strike action or other work stoppage measures, this Board resolves that
its general policies in the event of a strike emergency are as follows:
1. In the event of a strike, work stoppage, or work slowdown
it is the policy of this Board that all public services be continued
so far as possible.
2. A public employee strike or work stoppage is unlawful.
Employees of the County of Contra Costa or other public agencies
governed by this Board, and employee organizations including such
employees, are forbidden to strike or to participate in work stoppage
or work slowdown activities.
3. Employees who strike or who participate in work stoppage
or work slowdown activities are subject to disciplinary action,
including discharge.
4. Employees and employee organizations who strike or who
participate in work stoppage or work slowdown activities are subject
to civil liability for any financial losses suffered by the County
or other public agencies governed by this Board, on account of
such conduct.
5. In the event of a strike, work stoppage, or work slowdown,
this Board, or the County Administrator pending action by this Board,
may declare a strike emergency in which case the following rules shall
be applied with respect to all departments or public agencies governed
by the Board to which the strike emergency declaration applies:
A. All employees are required to be at their regular
work stations.
B. Management employees--including those in employee
representation units--shall report to work to help assure
continuance of county services; noncompliance may result
in demotion or other disciplinary action.
C. Employees failing to report to work shall be
recorded as Absent Without Pay.
RESOLUTION NO. 77-680
-1-
OlN)88
D. Employees failing to report to work shall not be
allowed to use paid sick leave credits during the time of
the strike emergency without written approval by the
Appointing Authority and the Employee Relations Officer,
after submission of a declaration under penalty of perjury
that the employee was not a participant in a strike, work
stoppage or work slowdown respecting such sick leave
usage, a physician's statement giving a specific medical
reason supporting such sick leave usage, and a finding of
good cause. other employees, however, may use paid sick
leave credits under normal policy and procedures.
E. Employees failing to report for work shall not be
allowed to use accrued vacation credits during the period
of the strike emergency. All vacations are cancelled, but
specific vacation requests may be reapproved if the Appoint-
ing Authority so authorizes on the basis that the services
are not required.
F. Pending personnel actions, including promotions,
reclassifications, in-range salary increases, and such
other personnel actions as the Employee Relations officer
may direct shall be cancelled for employees failing to
report to work or otherwise participating in a work stoppage
or work slowdown.
6. During the period of a strike emergency or in connection
therewith the Employee Relations Officer is authorized to arrange,
as appropriate, for the following:
A. interdepartmental transfer of personnel to
assure maintenance of county services.
B. Diminution of services, in consultation with
department heads, to assure continuation of priority
services.
C. Payment of overtime to employees who are normally
excluded from payment of overtime.
D. Contracting for outside services needed to assure
continuance of county services.
E. Reimbursement for damage to employees personal
property.
F. Review and adjustment of departmental determi-
nations with respect to reporting of work time and use
of paid sick leave and vacation credits.
G. Surveillance of strike emergency activities and
identification of persons engaging in such activities,
interferring with public access to county facilities or
with employees who are working or attempting to work,
damaging county property or the property of members of
the public or working employees, or engaging in similar
or related conduct.
11. Other actions as the Employee Relations Officer
may deem necessary.
RESOLUTION 40. 77-630
-Z- Ott;31191
7. The Office of County Auditor-Controller will be responsible,
for making payroll deductions and for determining the order of payroll
deductions and allocation of earnings from the remaining pay of striking
employees.
S. Previous resolutions on this subject are hereby repealed.
PASSED by the Board on August 19, 1977.
A4-1Ni/j
cc: County Counsel
County Administrator
Director of Personnel
All Department Heads
Employee Representation Units
PZSOLUTION 170. 77-630,
-3- OWpfJ
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the natter of Authorizing )
Emergency Measures in the }
Event of a Strike Emergency ) Resolution No. 77-681
Involving County Medical )
Services )
Upon the recommendation of the Employee Relations Officer, this
Board orders and authorizes the following actions, in the event of a
strike emergency involving the County Hospital, Clinics, or County
Medical Services: .
1. The Human Resources Agency Director is authorized to
contract with any nurse's registry or with individual nurses or
physicians for services at any County facility where the services
of nurses or physicians are required.
2. The Human Resources Agency Director is authorized subject
to Board of Supervisors' approval to contract with any public or
private hospital, rest home, nursing home or other suitable facility
for the temporary, emergency, or extended care treatment, of persons
admissible to the County Hospital or entitled to inpatient or out-
patient care from the County Medical Services Department pursuant to
the County's Short-Doyle Plan, Prepaid Health Plan, Health Maintenance
Organization Contract, or otherwise.
3. The Medical Director and the Director of dental Health Services
are authorized to transfer County medical services and mental health
services patients to other public or private hospitals, rest homes,
nursing homes or other suitable facilities; and to limit the services
provided by County Medical Services and Mental Health Services within
the law and the County's contractual obligations.
PASSED by the Board on August 19, 1977.
PZ•RJ/j
cc: County Counsel
Employee Relations Officer
Director of Personnel
All Department Heads
Employee Representation Units
�(`(�
RESOLUTION a0. 77-681 00091
And the Board adjourns to meet on Q�/a/,�f„23 , /27 7
at 00 a. m. in the Board Chambers, Room 107, County
Administration Building, Martinez, California.
W. N. Bogges , airman
ATTEST:
J. R. OLSSON, CLERK
- Deputy
W92
The
preceding documents
consist of 92 pages.